HR-5165-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Tony Wied (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would require cable and satellite television providers to offer subscribers in specified Wisconsin border counties — currently assigned to out-of-state television markets — a choice of programming. Providers would have to offer (1) the out-of-state programming they are already required to carry, (2) Wisconsin-based programming from an adjacent market, or (3) both. The bill would also clarify that carrying Wisconsin-based programming for subscribers who choose it satisfies existing statutory coverage obligations for providers.
Who benefits
Residents of Wisconsin border counties currently assigned to out-of-state television markets who want access to Wisconsin local news, weather, and sports programming (including Green Bay Packers games). Wisconsin-based television broadcasters and stations that would gain access to new subscribers and advertising audiences. Wisconsin sports teams, particularly the Green Bay Packers, whose games and coverage would reach more in-state viewers. Wisconsin local advertisers whose ads air on Wisconsin stations.
Who is hurt
Out-of-state television broadcasters and stations in the markets currently serving those Wisconsin border counties, who could lose viewers and advertising revenue if subscribers switch to Wisconsin programming. Cable and satellite providers who may face administrative and technical costs to implement the dual-market offering. Out-of-state local advertisers whose ads currently reach those border-county subscribers. Providers' existing contractual relationships with out-of-state broadcasters could be complicated by the new carriage obligations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Wisconsin residents living in border counties are effectively cut off from their own state's local news, emergency alerts, and sports coverage simply due to arbitrary market boundary assignments — a geographic accident that leaves them receiving programming from a neighboring state. They contend that giving subscribers an affirmative choice, rather than mandating a switch, is a minimally intrusive fix that respects consumer preference while correcting a structural inequity in how federal television market rules are applied.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that television market boundaries exist for economically rational reasons — they reflect actual viewing patterns, advertising markets, and broadcaster investment decisions — and that legislating exceptions for one state sets a precedent that could unravel the broader market structure if other border states seek similar carve-outs. They contend that the added carriage obligations impose real compliance costs on providers and may complicate existing retransmission consent agreements negotiated between broadcasters and distributors, potentially raising costs for all subscribers in affected areas.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate cable and satellite television carriage under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and the Supreme Court has upheld must-carry and retransmission rules as valid exercises of that power. No active constitutional tension area is directly implicated by this bill's narrow, opt-in carriage requirement.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to define carriage obligations for cable and satellite providers; the FCC retains its existing regulatory and enforcement role over television market assignments and provider compliance.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously enacted state-specific or market-specific exceptions to television carriage rules, including provisions in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) addressing distant signal and local market access issues for underserved communities.