A coalition of diversity groups has asked Congress to pass HR 5056, the MVPD Tax Credit Program, which would give a tax credit to MVPDs and their over-the-top streaming counterparts for carrying diverse, including minority targeted, independent programming.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.).

In a letter to House leadership, the groups, which included the Multicultural Media, Telecom & Internet Council and the National Urban League, "implored" them to pass the bill, which they said would help level the playing field for indies in the pay TV business, including on OTT platforms, such as You Tube TV, Hulu, and Sling.

Also Read: Starks: Broadcast Ownership Report Still Shows Diversity Deficit

Specifically, Clarke's bill provides that:

"For each qualifying carriage agreement with eligible independent programmers, an MVPD will be eligible for a tax credit equal to 1) the lesser of the net license fees paid or incurred by the MVPD or 2) the product of $0.10 multiplied by the number of subscribers per month receiving the independent programming provided under such agreement. 

"Programming credits will not exceed the product of $0.10 multiplied by 3 times the average number of an eligible distributor’s subscribers in a given taxable year. Tax credits received under this Act cannot also be claimed as a tax deduction."

Social media company dominance has translated into a "certain level of arrogance and abuse" that is not "in the best interests of the American people." 

That was the word from House Energy & Commerce Committee vice chair Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) in an interview for C-SPAN's Communicators series.  

Clarke echoed criticisms by a number of groups that many Silicon Valley companies don't reflect the diversity of the country. She said the lack of that perspective winds up baking discrimination into the system via algorithms "that is going to be very hard to unpack." 

Related: Sen. Whitehouse Slams Social Media

She said that as Big Tech builds out the infrastructure for a connected world. Congress needs to be having "some level of discourse so that we understand what the implications are of what is being built and how it is being deployed." That includes getting advisers who can talk the tech lingo. Clarke is co-chair of the Smart Cities Caucus, so is focused on broadband deployment and connectivity as well as what Big Tech does with data and privacy once all that broadband is connected. 

Clarke said she did not think the Trump Administration was doing enough to keep Chinese telecom Huawei and other "nefarious characters" out of 5G networks, though she said there was a way to do that. She was asked whether she would own a Huawei phone and she quickly said "no," given that China and other nations were looking to "eat our [5G] lunch." 

She said she did not want to stigmatize or single out Huawei, pointing out that people also had issues with Amazon and Alexa and technology that "you think is sleeping but it's actually recording. So, there is a lot we have to unpack in terms of technology within our homes and communities and throughout society in a way that privacy of information comes first." 

Related: House Looks to Lock Up 5G Security

She was asked if Congress is prepared to do that--there is bipartisan support for privacy legislation, but partisan devil is in the details. She said that she thought Congress had the wherewithal to do that, but "are we at that point right now, I don't think so," she said. "I think there is a lot more we must learn and collaborate [on]" before legislation. She said the last thing they wanted to do was stifle innovation.  

Clarke touched on a theme that has gotten traction in recent weeks, which was that the debate over Big Tech's role was not just about equipment or software or networks, but about what kind of society results, one where tech is used to censor and control, or to liberate and unite. 

"People are aware of the fact that we can't conduct businesses, we can't conduct our lives without interfacing with technology in all of its manifestations. What they are concerned about is how that is managed in a way in which it adheres to American values. That is the challenge that we all face. We keep sort of moving the goalpost on what is an American value." 

She said it is important to make it clear to the companies developing new tech what those values are and the expectations are in terms of how we address concerns about how the technology is used." 

Clarke's Communicators interview aired over the weekend, but viewers can still catch it Monday night (Nov. 11) at 8 p.m. on C-SPAN2 or online.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said it is time for minorities to be able to frame their own stories rather than have their experiences filtered through a media that does not reflect them in front of or behind the camera.

"We don't have the voice of our own media at the national level to provide perspective," Clarke said at the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council 14th annual Access to Capital and Telecom Policy Conference in Washington Thursday (July 14), where she talked about the news reporting on the police shootings of unarmed black men.

She said that social media has provided one means of not having to view the stories "through the lens of others."  But she also said it should not be the case that people have to "tweet it out" in order to "plead our case."

That is why there needs to be diverse media owned and operated by people "who look just like us," Clarke said. "We can't go to those who have marginalized it for so long to present our story. It just won't work."

Clarke in May formed the Multicultural Media Caucus to promote greater representation of minorities in the media.

Also weighing in at the conference was Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.). He said communications was the people’s space, not corporate America’s, adding that those corporations should reflect the diversity of their audiences, but don’t. He said Congress’s job was to hold up a mirror to that fact.

Accelerating their objections to the FCC's "unlock the box" set-top proposal, minority programming and ownership advocates took their message to Capitol Hill last Thursday (April 14), backing up Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-New York), who said she envisions that a "protracted struggle" over the plan "will set us back in the drive for diversity."

The Brooklyn, N.Y., legislator, a member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, warned that the revenue restrictions triggered by the FCC plan "could lead to the ultimate extinction" of small and medium-sized programmers, including minority and special-interest programmers.

Thursday's assault on the FCC proposal was the latest in the escalating battle against the set-top Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Last month Clarke, other members of Congress and diversity organizations asked the Government Accountability Office to run an impact study of the plan’s implications.

"Major disruptions that fail to consider bargaining power will impact placement, affecting advertising dollars and, in turn, the ability to remain competitive and to sustain livelihoods," Clarke told an audience of about 50 people, mostly Congressional staffers and supportive lobbyists, in a House Office Building meeting room.

"Many have stated that the FCC’s new set-top proposal will, in fact, open up the marketplace so that these diverse and independent programmers gain more visibility, especially through OTT platforms," she said, but then warned, "There is no current guarantee that Silicon Valley will do a better job at prioritizing diverse and inclusive programming based on what they have demonstrated so far."

Frank Washington, CEO of Crossings TV, a Sacramento, Calif.-based firm that packages Asian (mostly Chinese) programs on cable systems, pointed out that the FCC's NPRM never uses the term "localism," which he considers a vital ingredient in programming. 

Washington also insisted that the biggest problems in the FCC proposal are not only the "unanswered questions" but, more significantly, "the unasked questions" about the plan’s impact.

"They are talking about creating an alternative universe," said Washington, a one-time legal counsel to an FCC chairman and later deputy chief of the FCC's Broadcast Bureau. "There is no accountability in this alternative universe." 

He urged the Commission to "let the marketplace drive the progress," not impose an untested system that will affect revenue and distribution.

Although the recently-created Future of TV Coalition (topped by the NCTA, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and many other MSOs and industry vendors) was not officially part of the program, the organization’s message permeated the Capitol Hill program. 

For example, Carlos Gutierrez, general counsel for the LGBT Technology Partnership, outlined views on data privacy implications that echoed the Coalition’s.

Gutierrez cited the "troubling lack of specifics in the NPRM" and emphasized that the FCC plan would not require new STB suppliers to comply with "the same privacy provisions as cable operators."

"The NPRM doesn't have a mechanism to account for data breaches by OTT providers," Gutierrez said, underscoring the importance of that protection.

Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee, vice president of policy and chief research officer of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC), voiced concerns that the FCC plan would morph into a federal mandate. 

"The government should not pick winners and losers," Turner-Lee said. "Government should not mandate the ways consumers get to the content they want."

She added that the FCC has not looked at diversity in a serious way, especially as part of the STB plan.

Washington, calling on his long background in media since he left the FCC, said that based on recent conversations he has had at the agency, the "FCC people are feeling the heat."

Washington — Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler stopped short of saying he would press the pause button on his proposal to “unlock” cable set-top boxes, but he has signaled he would work with members of the committee on their issues with the proposal.

And they did have issues.

The key to that exchange — which took place at an FCC oversight hearing on Capitol Hill — was that it was with a Democratic legislator who was asking for the delay, and that lawmaker wasn’t alone.

Last week, the National Urban League joined the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition and others in calling on the FCC to delay any action on the set-top proposal until it had studied the impact of the proposal on diverse programmers.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said at the hearing that she has asked the Congressional Research Service to conduct such a study, and asked Wheeler if he would be willing to hold off until the study was completed.

Wheeler did not commit to a delay, saying only that he would “look forward to working with [Clarke] and the committee” on any issues raised. He did not say he would delay the proceeding, and he said he did not know how long a delay was contemplated.

As expected, committee Republicans hammered Wheeler over the proposal, saying it threatened copyright protections and privacy and was unnecessary and rooted in old technology and thinking. That pushback has now become bipartisan.

Also at the hearing, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) went so far as to suggest that he joined some stakeholders in concerns that the proposal could mean a new form of digital redlining.

Butterfield said he was concerned about the potential for the “myriad unintended consequences” of the proposal, including the ability to enforce copyright protections for content creators and distributors.

Wheeler continued to assert last week that the proposal doesn’t threaten copyright holders. In providing an example, though, he also provided fodder for cable ISPs and other opponents.

In talking about his proposal and how it would not allow those third parties to ride roughshod over copyright protections, Wheeler said there are “today the equivalent of competitive set-top boxes available in the market,” citing Google’s Chromecast device. Wheeler said that Chromecast does not violate copyright, does not “overlay commercials” and is not out to take over cable TV, calling that notion “malarkey.”

The Future of TV Coalition, which includes cable ISPs and others opposing the set-top proposal, was quick to pick up that comment and run with it, saying it showed there are already alternatives in the market and that makes the set-top proposal unnecessary.

“If the classic Washington definition of a ‘gaffe’ is to accidentally tell the truth, Chairman Wheeler’s comments at today’s hearing are a whopper,” the coalition said in a statement. “He admitted, plainly and clearly, that apppowered devices like Chromecast and Roku offer consumers an alternative to traditional set-top boxes and are readily available in the marketplace. Which begs the question — why is the chairman so desperate to solve a problem that he admits does not exist?

“Chairman Wheeler correctly points out that apps-driven innovation is already allowing consumers to watch video on a wide range of devices — without hurting small and independent programmers, invading privacy, or undermining copyright protections. Why, then, is he proposing a sweeping mandate that explicitly rejects this apps approach and strips TV providers of the technical and contractual tools they currently use to ensure these protections remain in place?”

In response, FCC press secretary Kim Hart told Multichannel News: “What the coalition fails to acknowledge is that 99% of pay TV consumers rent a box from their pay TV provider, paying $231 a year on average. The marketplace is not providing consumers with choice.

“While Roku and Chromecast may provide ‘equivalent’ functions to a set-top box, today these devices and consumers that use them remain bound by the whims of the pay TV industry,” Hart added. “Pay TV providers choose which device to make an app for and independent app providers cannot develop an app to display this video programming. For instance, no MVPD provides an app to Chromecast.”