>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west" where we focus on the future of business. i encourage johnson. you cane is drawing heavy troops back from the front lines. russia, meanwhile, says the peace deal is showing tangible results. in new numbers, first-time jobless claims jumping by 31,000 last week, the most in 13 months, a sign of choppy progress in the labor market.

meanwhile consumer prices tumbled by 7% in january, the biggest drop in more than six years. falling energy prices feeling that the client. the clock is ticking to find the department of homeland security which is set to run out of money tomorrow. senate democrat leader harry reid who recently had eye surgery, making him look like a pirate in the press conference asked republicans to allow a vote on this bill now. >> the american people are angry and rightfully so. isis appears to have money. terrorists appear to have money. why shouldn't our home line have -- our homeland have the ability to protect itself? it is like living in a world of crazy people. >> new house speaker john boehner lame democrats, accusing them of using blackmail to protect president obama's immigration orders. apple just sent out an invitation for a march 9 event. the title -- spring forward.

the details -- nonexistent. people familiar with the matter say that apple will release details of a smart watch which is expected to ship in april. net neutrality is a big issue today. and commissioners have voted to let chattanooga, tennessee and wilson, north carolina override state law and expand their city-owned rock band service to new areas -- broadband service to new areas. now to the lead. it may come down to one of the most important votes to protect the future of technology ever. the fcc voting to adopt open internet rules, which would be subject to legislation, prohibiting internet regulators -- the vote passed on party

lines a few seconds ago, classifying internet service providers as utilities. peter cook is at the fcc now. it is a big deal. the vote went down party lines. tell us what you heard as the discussion was going on, peter. >> they have just taken place -- at the fcc -- >> peter you are breaking up a little bit. we are going to jump in with a former commissioner who joins us now. harold, you have been a critic of this plan. the fcc just adopted it. what will go on now? >> it is a sad day for the american public and the internet globally. here, for the first time, the united states righting itself on not regulating the internet. something has changed and the american government has decided to regulate the internet.

this cannot be good for the american public. >> those who advocate title ii say that something is changed and internet service providers have started to charge fees to pick winners and losers on the content side. are you saying that title ii is the wrong way to do it or any regulation of the internet is bad? >> i actually do not believe there is any need for regulation and all of these allegations about isp's imposing charges on content companies is really -- this is all hypothetical. they can't point to actual examples. this is all regulation in the name of what might possibly happen in the future. it's not addressing actual problems we have today. it's not addressing actual complaints before the fcc. >> let me respectfully disagree. netflix is a company that has

been compelled to pay to get ahead of the line and eight company that opposes making these payments. let me read a statement from reed hastings the ceo of netflix and what he had to say. he says that strong net neutrality prohibits utilities from charging a toll for interconnection to services like netflix. he goes on to say that allowing fast lanes gives isp's a perverse incentive to boost revenues by allowing their networks to congest and the power to pick winners and losers on the internet. what you say to that? this is a company that has been compelled to pay to comcast, to verizon, to get ahead of the line? >> i respectfully disagree. i am afraid what we are seeing here is -- netflix entered into agreements for contracts with verizon and comcast two of -- to effectively put themselves ahead of the line in front of millions

of other content producers of the internet. before netflix entered into that agreement it was treated the same as everybody else. that is exactly what title ii is going to require. it will likely prohibit the kind of contract netflix entered into. >> but that is their argument. they do not want to have to spend that money. furthermore, it lets the isp's congest their networks or make their networks look congested so they could charge that fee. that was sort of the perverse problem. what you do about that problem creating an incentive for the last mile deliverers of content to create that conjecture and that -- that congestion for the benefit of more income? >> first, i do not agree. i think this is a manufactured problem. let's hypothetically say there is a problem. is the solution to impose telephone regulation on every broadband provider in america?

is that really beat cap you want to go down? is the solution to make every isp in america look like the telephone company? i don't think so. i think this is the wrong solution for a wrong problem. a problem that likely does not exist yet. it's all hypothetical. >> non-hypothetically, twitter another company that has come out strongly against these fees. i want to read a statement from twitter steve i can get your reaction. twitter in a blog post saying, we strongly support such net neutrality rules to improve prohibitions against blocking's or paid prioritization of some traffic over others. i feel like the companies in silicon valley -- not all of them, or arguably most of them -- feel that they need this for the services they have developed and may develop going forward. >> first, twitter does not point

to an example of a single website being blocked by isp's. in the last 20 years the fcc has had complaints about one site being blocked in the fcc took decisive action to unblock that. it did not require new title ii regulations to do that. what is going on in fact is these new regulations will enable companies to march into court and to ask the fcc to impose all kinds of conditions on isp's. i don't think this is a very good solution. i think this is a solution that is going to lead to dispute resolutions going on in courts. for the past 20 years, these same companies america is the leading country in the world in terms of the development of new internet companies. they have operated extremely well without the government looking over their shoulder, deciding every single thing they can and cannot do.

it baffles the mind to think that these companies will do better in a world in which the federal government will be reviewing every decision they make. >> thank you for joining us on this important day, this important issue. i want to bring back chief what you can correspond a peter cook. he has been at the fcc meeting all morning. what went on today? >> there was tension in the room to be sure. when the final vote happened, there was a chair that went up supporters of the role making, backing tom wheeler and the other two democrats who voted for it. one of those, steve wozniak, one of the cofounders of apple someone who understands these issues very well. i wanted to drag steve over to get his immediate reaction. first of all, you made a decision to come to the fcc to witness this. why? >> i follow my heart. the only other time was when i came in 2010 to watch the vote

on net neutrality. the internet was so beautiful. it was such an open and free expression form. over time it started getting clamped down. decisions were being made by the isp's, the gatekeepers, you might call it. do we trust them to make decisions? no, we need supervision of their bad behavior. are they likely to make deals and accept bribes? everyone knows that. if you give someone a preference, that is a bribe. >> you are confident he will making will ensure an open and free internet? >> i think it will be a big step, a positive step. i think the other side is also for open and free internet in terms of net neutrality. the decision today goes further than net neutrality. title ii regulation means oversight of bad behavior. not meddling, not controlling things, but looking for bad behavior and there could be a lot of things that are illegal unconstitutional behind the scenes at these big isp's and i

do not think people trust them that much. this is a victory for the people, the consumers, the average joe's against these suppliers who have all of the power and wealth and make the decisions for them and they feel hopeless and helpless and here are 4 million of us signing petitions. and you know, it is an indication that the people sometimes win. we have had a lot of the feats over the years but once in a while, we get a win. >> a lot of people say this will stifle investment. you may not likely internet service providers, but they are spending the money to create this. that will dry up. >> there were articles in the wall street journal -- no, i do not think this is ruining their business. all it is as having some oversight of bad behavior. when they do bad things for the customers. >> what about the notion that this is a solution to a problem that does not yet exist?

that they cannot document that brought a discrimination is happening on the web. >> there are maybe things in the background we do not even know about. maybe it has been going on because they have not had enough oversight. as far as net neutrality goes everyone agrees we need net neutrality. it is the right thing to do. of course, after fighting all they could to overturn for years, republicans now say it is the right thing to do. >> all right, let me ask you finally -- if you are trying to start a company today, the apple of the future, will today's decision make that easier? >> i do not think it will make any difference, really. i guess it would. yes, today would. in early days the industry was starting from nothing. everyone had a room. after a while it condenses down to a few big players, and they do everything they can to stifle and not let the little guys have a chance to get in.

the innovators from the outside. i think it improves it slightly and only in restrictive cases. -- i am hoping that it gets into things like broadband being declared a necessity that should be brought to everyone. there is no a isp that is going to bring broadband to my place. when i go to work, i take a segway. i do not have broadband. i am in silicon valley. i do not have rock band because i have no choice or it it's a monopoly. it is an essential service of life brought to you by one company, and immokalee. these are the utilities. the things that we needed for life came into our house we had no control over and we did not have a choice. >> steve wozniak, we thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. the story today at the federal communications commission. we will send it back to you and san francisco, but a lot more reaction to come from the fcc. >> i see a lot of the other fcc

commissioners talking a lot about what this means for global business, the big new rules from the fcc. peter cook thank you very much. more through the hour on this big issue. we will be right back. ♪

>> all right, fcc chairman tom wheeler speaking right now. carried the day with the votes. let's listen in. >> we saw some graphic illustrations of the citizens today, talking about the challenges we are trying to address. the open internet order puts in line bright line rules that ban blocking, ban throttling and dan paid prioritization fast lanes -- vbban paid

prioritization fast lanes. for the first time, open internet will be fully available to mobile. consumers now know that content online will not cannot be blocked or their service throttled. today's action ensures the rights of internet users to say what they want and go where they want when they want, no matter how or where they access the internet, whether it is on their desktop computer or smartphone. internet innovators now know they will have open access to consumers without worrying for paid for preference fast lanes or gatekeepers. today's actions ensure the rights of entrepreneurs to

introduce new products and services without getting anyone's permission. financial markets now know that there will be common sense open internet protections in place that rely on a modernized regulatory approach that has already been demonstrated to work. not old-style utility regulation. the rules under which the wireless voice industry have invested $300 billion to build a vibrant and growing business and the model for the rules we adopted today. that means no tariff in, no forced unbundling. today's action in isps --

ensures isp's at the economic incentive to build fast and dynamic broadband networks. it is in the interest of consumers, innovators, and investors that nothing in today's order alters the economic model of continued -- that has driven continued network expansion thus far. i believe that is why sprint t-mobile, frontier communications, google fiber along with hundreds of smaller companies have said that they are comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach. and a word about process. last year, most fcc rules to protect consumers and innovators online were struck down. we acted immediately to begin a process to restore open internet

protections. over the past year, we have received input from nearly 4 million americans in one of the most transparent proceedings this commission has ever run. it was a 130 day or so public comments period. we had discussions with six experts on legal and market issues. we heard from 140 members of congress. our team had dozens of meetings with congressional staff. i spoke with and listened to hundreds of consumers innovators entrepreneurs, in meetings across the country. so today after a decade of debate, in an open, robust, year-long process we finally

have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the internet stays fast fair and open. i will be happy to take any of your questions. >> fcc chairman tom wheeler. we have lots more on the reaction to this now. i want to get the congressman from north dakota, kevin cramer a longtime advocate against these rules. i want to get your reaction congressman to what wheeler had to say. >> clearly the chairman knows his subject matter and was well prepared. he should be well prepared. this debate has been around for a decade and previous attempts to do what they did today have been turned back. they are always trying to find another way to do it. i disagree with him fundamentally on the need for this type of rule, but i do agree with him and i think the vast majority of republicans

agree that we ought to codify fundamental principles like prohibitions on blocking, price discrimination, throttling. those things we agree on. the idea of giving the fcc this overwhelming title ii authority is the wrong way to go and the other point he talked about process and i appreciate what he had to say about the timeline and the meetings and whatnot but it did not seem to me that this rule reflects the majority members of congress he supposedly listen to because we have a pretty good plan we are working on in a bipartisan fashion. it is important to the consumers. i think it is unfortunate they trumped congress today, but it is important to the litigation process. >> congressman, it is interesting to hear you take a middle stance.

there is the argument, no regulation at all. we heard that earlier on "bloomberg west." there is the argument that title ii is the best way to go because these companies have the responsibility to provide this important access. i guess the argument you're making is title ii is the wrong way to do it, the chairman wheeler just said under title ii , the telecom companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars providing service. are you saying that this is a bad thing? >> i'm saying it is unnecessary and when you give that type of leeway, authority to a regulatory agency, who by the way passed this on a 3-2 vote it opens the door to a lot of things, while he has given assurances that these other things price controls would not be part of his leadership, there is nothing to prevent the next chairman or commission. why go that way?

why have forbearance be the exception? why not codify these principles in the law? leave the internet as open as we can, but let the consumer, the innovator be the regulator as opposed to the government because quite friendly, what if the fcc over regulates -- which this could lead to. again, i think tom wheeler is an honorable guy, but why open that door unnecessarily when you have people working from both parties on the congressional solution that is more middle ground? >> an important word here, forbearance. essentially -- i don't know how to make it sound simple. forbearance gives the fcc some leeway in terms of enforcing this role, yes? >> it does give them leeway. but it also gives them discretion. if you are going to trust discretion to forbear things, why would we not trust on the other side with specialized services as an example?

if we are going to give discretion to the commission then let's trust a little more to do the right thing as opposed to have them all of the authority and hope they do the right thing? >> in defense of the commission they tried that before. the court's up. they needed a stronger legal basis. title ii gives them that. >> it does give them that if it can be upheld, and i am not sure it can be. one thing i am sure of, it will be litigated. litigation is a long process that throws uncertainty into the process. once the chaos begins, quite friendly, that will bring even more democrats who, in recent months, drifted to the left in defense of the president and defense of mr. wheeler. hopefully it will bring them back to the negotiating table for a more common sense moderate approach as we have approached in the commerce committee. >> covers men kevin cramer of

north dakota. we appreciate it. "bloomberg west" is back in a moment. ♪

>> um cory johnson. this is "bloomberg west." one of the things tom warner talked about was the unusual response from the internet activists who prevailed in this fight. joining us from washington is evan greer. the fight for the future campaign had interesting response from the people of the internet. thanks for joining us. talk to me about what you did to get people to give a heck about fcc policy. >> thanks for having me on. this is an unprecedented victory that a year ago everyone thought

was impossible, at least everyone in washington, d.c. they did not anticipate what happens when any institution of power comes to take away people's internet freedom. they should have. anytime that happens, people rise up. we use the internet to defend the internet. we don't have millions of dollars or an army of lobbyists we can send to the fcc or congress to get our voices heard, but we build tools using cutting-edge technology that made it easier for the millions of people that care about this issue to have their voices heard in washington, d.c. >> it's an amazing thing in our society that does not like to vote unless there is a presidential election and doesn't like to get involved in campaigns and is turned off by politics to see such an uprising of voices, regardless of what side you're on. i went to your website.

you did things like a countdown clock to the vote. talk about how that worked in how people were able to incorporate that in other places of the internet. >> we build a tool that made it so that any website could put up that countdown timer, kicking off the seconds until we get net neutrality. we got more than 20,000 websites to do that for the month leading up to the fcc vote which helped us drive an enormous amount of phone calls and e-mails to members of congress to essentially let them know that if they come and try and take away this victory from the internet the internet will come for them, and it won't go well. >> tom wheeler's vote was the one that seemed to be most up in the air. there was a moment -- a piece about how much money comcast is given to people, how tom wheeler

used to work for comcast as well. it was interesting that he changed his mind. i feel like the tipping point was john oliver and his hbo show. he did this wonderful long segment on this issue. here's a part of that. >> that's right, the fcc are literally inviting internet comments at this address. i can't believe i'm about to do this. i would like to address the internet commenters out there directly. good evening monsters. this may be the moment you have spent your whole life praying for. >> and just like that, the internet blew up. it was an incredible reaction. i don't think we have seen anything like it. >> absolutely. that john oliver clip was hilarious, and people loved it but it's important to note that net neutrality was blowing up

before john oliver came along. there's a tendency here for the media to want to say, john oliver made a video and then president obama made an endorsement and then there was net neutrality. that could not be further from the truth. this fight was hard-fought. people cap. outside the fcc -- camped outside the fcc. we descended on the white house with protests. we organized protests all around the country. this was a fight ellis won by wedding old-school methods of people's struggle with new technology that gives more people a voice and never before. >> there wasn't a lot of discussion in the debate about the potential political impact of these rules. the isp's have kept a certain political voices from having access to the home as fast as

other political voices. it is interesting to me that you use the internet in this process, and maybe that wouldn't have been possible if these rules were not passed. >> that's absolutely true. the internet has completely changed the rules from what is and isn't possible in washington, d.c. what that means is that there is a new potential for democracy. this isn't just true for net neutrality. this is true for everyone that wants to change the world. that is why this was such a critical fight that got so many people engaged. this isn't about how fast our cat videos load, it's about the future of our democracy and the future of freedom of speech. >> i don't know what you've got against cat videos, but fine. >> i love the cat videos. >> i can't stand them. you gathered together this unusual group of people who become activists and care deeply about this political issue. what does that group do next, or is this a one-off? >> it's not a one-off.

the internet is becoming a critical part of our lives. no matter what, governments and other powerful institutions will be looking for ways to limit and control what we can see and do on the internet. it's critical that everyone gets involved, recognizes when their freedom is threatened, and stands up to defend it. that's what we at fight for the future intent to do for as long as we can. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. "bloomberg west" will be right back. ♪

>> the fcc is voting to approve new internet rules, title ii would subject the internet to new regulation. what do tech giants say about it? a lobbying group pushed really

hard for those silicon valley companies because they really believe in those rules. >> is about -- it's about user choice. over the last few years we have seen incredible innovation of internet companies, and users are able to access whatever website they want without a gatekeeper in the middle discriminating or blocking content. that needs to continue for the future of our economy. >> name one service that those big internet companies have created that would not have been possible if we were allowed to let the isps choose who gets there first. >> you could point to any of them. the content inside on video, you have these great services like amazon prime with amazon video offering and netflix and others that provide great value to users and to people who love watching shows and movies, but anything else -- if you look at their b&b and uber and lyft and all the great new companies, who knows what the future holds, and

you don't want and isp being able to decide what companies will make it and what services are offered. >> is there a sense that this opens up the door for new competition? netflix is a leading provider of video online for feature films and so on. why do they want to allow competitors into their space? is this about saving money for them? >> no competition is great. if netflix has more competition they have to work harder and users will benefit from that. there is great competition on the internet company side. there is almost no competition on the internet service provider broadband side. the fcc put out a report that 75% of american households have no choice in broadband provider. one or zero choices for regular high-speed broadband, and that has to change and that's a problem. >> it is interesting also because there are competing services. we haven't seen this, where the isp's are providing a lot of content that is directly

competitive. do you think we will see more of that? >> possibly. that is one of the great things about the internet, it's hard to predict what the next big thing will be. part of the reason why we need net neutrality rules that are strong and enforceable and sustainable is to ensure that whatever the next generation is, they can come without having to ask permission and without having a gatekeeper blocking users from picking the best sites they want to visit. >> google in particular among your clients is in an interesting position. there also and isp and a handful of communities with many more to come. what is their position and how does it differ from some of the other companies you represent? >> google has been building high-speed fiber in a number of different cities. that is terrific for those communities where they are serving. it does bring competition and a better offering. what google fiber has said from the beginning is they will comply with net neutrality regardless of what the fcc does. it's part of their ideology and what they think is best for their users. they are going to compete head

to head with isp's there and be pro-net neutrality there. >> it's interesting that all these companies have gotten together around the idea of title ii. silicon valley is so famously libertarianism and not wanting to have strong government controls over anything. title ii is a stringent set of rules. >> the version of title ii of the fcc is voting on today is a light touch version. it would forbear upon most of the title ii regulations to ensure the protections are in effect. for us, we have been focusing on the end result. >> internet association ceo michael beckerman. let's bring you up to speed with some of the top headlines on bloomberg right now. united airlines warning pilots about safety after some near misses. a brief description of four

incidents, in which a plane had to perform an emergency maneuver because it was too low to the ground being one of them. ibm ceo says she wants to spend $4 billion over the next four years to boost sales for new businesses. that $4 billion should lead to $40 billion in revenues. ibm suffered 11 straight quarters of sales declined as the world shifts to cloud computing and mobile and away from ibm. former white house press secretary jay carney has a new job landing at amazon as senior vice president for worldwide corporate affairs. politico reports carney will split his time between there and washington, d.c. "bottom line" coming up at the top of the hour. mark, what have you got besides me? >> it's all about you, cory.

minnesota senator al franken. what type of internet protections to these new rules offer? >> al franken came out and it wasn't clear what the role would be, but he was strongly supportive of these title ii rules which will allow the fcc to make some decisions about what the internet service providers are doing and keep them from doing some things they have done, like except paid prioritization or slow down traffic when they went to slow down traffic. >> the rules will also have an impact on profit potential of internet service providers. what will this mean to their bottom line? >> you saw some celebrations at the fcc today after the vote. you probably did not see a lot of celebrations at comcast and time warner today. now they will have more responsibility to deliver equal service and not get the income from giving certain people fast lane toll ticking. >> cory johnson will be joining me and al franken, coming up in

about 45 minutes past the next hour on "bottom line." see you then. >> thank you very much. "bloomberg west" will be right back. ♪

>> i'm cory johnson. this is "bloomberg west." we have been talking about the fcc and the importance of the federal government in the internet, but what about small governments? accela provides software to more than 1000 public officials. the company raised $144 million to fund the business. the ceo joins me now. we talk about the fcc providing internet all over the place at equal speeds to everyone. that is important in business but important in government too.

you guys are at the front lines with what governments are trying to do at the local level. >> peoples experience with government is oftentimes dictated by the speed at which they're able to interact with them. the fcc ruling is relevant. we tried to connect people to government services and give them the experience -- is almost like shopping on amazon or hailing a cab via uber. you want to be engaged with those processes. that is really what this funding is all about. >> you guys have raised a bunch of money in the last year or two. >> in the past 15 months we raised $200 million. >> talk to me about what the opportunity looks like. is it going into the city of los angeles, the state of florida and selling those big deals? or is it thousands of small local governments that are much more plentiful? >> it's both. when you think about what the cloud brings to government, it levels the playing field. the big cities and counties, it's easy for them to fund these

types of projects where they were traditionally very expensive. the cloud levels the playing field and makes it so that the small cities and counties here in the bay area and around the u.s. can use the same products in san francisco, l.a., and washington dc -- d.c. >> it's always a painful process and slow. what are the areas where customers first say the government says, that will help me fix this problem and deliver the service better? >> if you talk to contractors and other building professionals, one of their biggest challenges is being able to align their workflow processes with the government workflow processes. they try to finish their work and schedule inspections quickly. what we're are doing is trying to make that so they can do it with mobile devices their holding in the field. building permits being able to

set up a new business. if you talk to people who want to open up a restaurant, a lot of times there will be a lot of paperwork and they send it to someone in government and it just kind of disappears. being able to provide more transparency. when i buy a package on amazon, i can see it from the minute i buy it to the minute it shows up on my doorstep. >> i would imagine the ability to sell the model is very attractive to governments because they don't have to commit to a ten-year or four-year rollout of sales force automation or some database system with armies of consultants. >> probably 12 to 24 months ago, there was a memo written where somebody made the claim, we should really be paying attention to what the private sector has already figured out and the public sector should start going cloud. governments never like to be

first, but now there is significant momentum in those areas. at accela we have been doing this for many years. what we see is that procurement processes are starting to dictate cloud technology, not just making it -- >> so they get it? >> absolutely. >> i think of governments as being so backwards in the way they administer services as opposed to thinking about the ways they can change. >> it's interesting what happened in 2008 and 2009. governments really had to rethink the way they did business. now as we are moving into normalized periods where the economy is picking up, the service levels that governments must adopt are changing dramatically. what they're doing is turning to technology and doing it in more cost effective ways. >> their budgets got slashed so much because tax owners were down in 2008 2009. they had to figure out someway to deliver the service because they could not pull it off anymore. >> that's right.

on the demographics side, we see that citizens don't want to stand in line, they want to go online. they want to do that in a way that mimics these experiences they get from the great consumer brands that are serving the internet today. >> to whom do you sell? are there cio's at every level of government? >> there are different tiers of governments we sell to. there are different strategies selling strategies for each market. ultimately who we are selling to is a government bureaucrat who wants to engage with citizens. one thing we know at accela is that these people who work behind the desk in government are very proud of their communities and they love them. we want to help them use technology to engage with citizens and make them heroes. >> every day on bloomberg west seems like a new story. how do you ensure that security at accela is good enough? >> one of the things that

rational governments see is that a lot of times, the private companies who have made significant investments -- with this round of financing, but were able to do is beef up our infrastructure and able to show them we are in a better position to protect their data than they might be. >> i talked to salesforce last week. they have something called connected cities. what is it about your industry specific approach that might give them an advantage over big software companies? >> the vertical software companies, they provide very horizontal services by salesforce and workday. we really focus on our vertical and really dominate that space. in our market, the permitting unlicensed part of government is a $10 billion market on its own. do you find -- >> do you find there's a different generation of purchasers who grew up with the

internet, they know how it works and the guys they are replacing they are willing to spend money? >> the baby boomers, as they retire or a being replaced by a new thinking government worker who has always been connected to the government -- internet, and the cio's have brought a new level of thinking as well -- we are seeing change in approach to technology and delivering services. it's refreshing. >> thank you very much. that's it for "bloomberg west." get the latest headlines all the time on your phone, tablet bloomberg.com, and bloomberg radio. ♪

>> from bloomberg world headquarters in new york, i'm mark crumpton. this is "bloomberg west." -- "bottom line." ♪ to our viewers in the united states and those of you joining us from around the world, welcome. we have full coverage of the stocks and stories making headlines today. the lamarcus begins his series of reports on business in cuba. "bloomberg west" editor-at-large cory johnson speaks to a minnesota