>> facebook a-shares sync with another bombshell. deals.ial network cut sources being sued over cambridge analytic up. dash went from

hemorrhaging cash to becoming one of the fastest-growing startups in the crowded and competitive delivery market. and why did elon musk hold a big party for his boring company? his plan for the tunnel. our top story. nine months after a scandal on facebook. there borders are under scrutiny. the new york times reports that after facebook tighten rules to limit user information that could be hooked into outside companies apps and websites, the company made many exceptions and cut special deals with certain companies as well. for example, facebook gave spotify and netflix the ability to read, write, and delete personal messages. amazon, sony, and microsoft could get email addresses through their friends. even the new york times them got access to friends lists to enable article sharing.

in all, 150 companies has access to more data than facebook disclosed impacting hundreds of millions of users every month. to discuss, i want to bring in rich greenfield who has a buy rating on the social network. also with us is sarah frier. let me get this straight, facebook gave spotify and netflix the ability to read, write, and delete my personal messages? what does that mean? sarah: what facebook was trying to allow you to do here is use facebook in a way that was better integrated with those apps. you can send a song to a friend, a show to a friend, and you would not have to go straight to facebook and copy and paste. it was integrated. you need to have the right permissions. it would also delete it in your chat history. could spotify and netflix go in there and read something i

sent to a friend in 2013? sarah: that's unclear. the times does not go into that detail and neither does facebook. what it really wants to know is there is a big difference here between allowing you to do that kind of messaging, sending a song to a friend, and be able to read all of your personal messages with people who were not even using spotify. it's not clear where on the spectrum this falls. what matters is that facebook said post 2014, it wound down all those deals to share data with third parties. they said that the congress. this is an example of how that was not quite true. emily: according to the new york times, one of this deals was ongoing with yahoo! as recently as this summer. in the statement, facebook said "to be clear, none of these or features gave apps partnerships information without people's permission, nor did they violate our settlement with the ftc." facebook is saying partners did not use the state to inappropriately,

even though there is certainly no way to verify that. do you think all of this bad news is going to impact growth? rich: i would go back to what sarah just said. you think about a consumer, you take a song on spotify and want to share it with a friend, copying a link to that song and going into facebook, and looking up your friend, and pasting it in is and not user-friendly. facebook very much wanted to be or has wanted to be since the earliest days, the social layer that connects you and everyone you are friends with across the internet. many of the things you're talking about, or that the new york times is talking about, tie back to wanting to be the social connectivity. login with facebook, share content with your friends with third-party sites. this was to make your life better.

it's easy in the maelstrom that facebook seems to be stuck in now, it's easy to say the company had evil intentions with all of this, but it seems that standpoint this was done to make the consumer's life easier. it's a part why consumers like to use facebook and instagram so much. they made life easier than what life was like before the two applications existed. sarah: yes, this is making it easier for consumers, but the problem isn't so much what they did, but how they talked about it. they were telling people they had full control over their data and telling people they could opt out of these things and kind of deals were not going on. yet, we hear they are. even if this is something consumers want, was facebook being clear about it with people? there are several examples where they were not. rich: the article also said netflix was accessing people's private messages.

netflix responded that is not true. just because you put words on a paper does not mean every word is accurate or correct. even if the capabilities were there, if they would even be utilized. it takes two sides to utilize data inappropriately. tore are two bank aspects this. we are focusing on the facebook site and not the third parties trying to leverage this. were they leveraging it or is it available? it is an issue but it is different than if it was used for evil or nefarious intent. emily: let's talk more specifically about what facebook got out of this. some of the data they got back from the companies enabled them to power the people you may know, the people you may know feature, which many people, and i have seen friends suggested it myself, that it feels creepy. you hear about the horror stories of psychiatrists and

patients being connected to each other when there is no reason facebook should have that information or those people would want to be connected more publicly. talk to us about what facebook got out of this. sarah: facebook is collecting data from every possible avenue it can. even beyond the new york times we had a separate discussion with facebook yesterday about location data. there were users on medium about how they posted how they turned tracking.on saying, never allow this. yet they were getting location-based ads. facebook said that is one way to turn off location, but we can always get your location in other means. there was no way to opt out of location-based advertising on facebook. that does not sound like what they were explaining about how you have control over your data. they should be clear with people about exactly how this all works

because in confusion, there is fear. emily: facebook shares has been -- have been suffering. i have this chart showing the market cap. starting to decline significantly. i know you have been more optimistic about the idea that this won't impact growth significantly. that this bad news want to be bad for facebook's growth. i can tell you not just as a journalist, but as it user, these revelations bother me. i don't feel i have this information when i signed up to facebook. are you changing your opinion at all that this will hurt growth? sarah: you might want to look at the cookies that are tracking you on every device you use whether it is your mobile device , or computer. i would argue you probably have hundreds of cookies tracking literally everything you do. everything you click on is being tracked by some site.

advertising. the entire premise of internet advertising is tracking you and everything you do, pictures you look at, pictures you click on, everything you do on the internet is being used to target in some fashion. this is a broader issue that goes well beyond facebook. the reality is, this is a great story from what i would call the tech industry overall. when you look at consumers, consumer usage of facebook has been in decline, not in terms of users as much as time spent has been shifting. that time has been shifting to instagram. you have seen explosive growth of instagram over the past couple of years. that is very much unchanged. consumers love using these applications. they continue to love using these applications. there's not a great alternative. if you are not going to use instagram, what are your obvious alternatives? when you think about messaging

your friends overseas, whatsapp is the default application that almost everybody is using. not only is there not really good user alternatives, people like using these products and have embraced stories tremendously over the past 12 months on instagram. i think the advertiser side of it, what's gets lost in the story, is that there are not great alternatives. the bread-and-butter of facebook and instagram is not large, multinational companies. it's literally the millions of small businesses all over the world which can target consumers using that data targeted all over the internet and target ads to make it so that the ads are generally untargeted and boring. the reason that adds on instagram are so good is because it is targeted for you. that reality is lost that there is not great choices for advertisers to look for on the internet.

it's google and facebook world online. the actual revenue growth occurring at facebook's stickier than investors are giving it credit for. there is fear, but the reality is far more secure than people realize. emily: you are absolutely right. other services like google and twitter need to be scrutinized more and need to be more transparent, but i am not sure regulators and lawmakers are convinced this is not a facebook more specific issue. we got a tweet today saying "it is beyond obvious today saying social media problems are -- platforms are up to the task voluntarily ensuing the privacy of their users. the ftc opened a new inquiry into facebook compliance with that decree from 2011. the sec is investigating facebook, and today, facebook was sued by washington, d.c. over the cambridge analytica

scandal. how concerned about you are in about regulation? rich: i think regulation is good. laying ground rules for the broader internet would be helpful. hopefully a bit more interesting than gdpr which seems like more of an annoyance to consumers. some level of regulation -- if you talk to the googles and facebook's of the world, i don't think -- i'm not sure how the government comes to regulation. i don't know how regulation looks like and how you defined regulating the internet. that's not an easy thing to do. we have a divided congress, as you know heading into 2019. we will see. i don't think regulation at some basic level, i think it would make it easier. companies that would benefit google and facebook would steam

seem to benefit because they have the ability to adapt to that regulation which might be harder for startups to really build themselves in that trigger regulated world. emily: here's a bigger picture question, sarah. is facebook too big to be governed by anyone executive or any government? is it just too big for its own good? sarah: the d.c. lawsuit in perspective, that is a tiny constituency of users. this company has 2.5 billion people using its products around the world. governments want answers and -- in almost every one of those countries. not just privacy stuff but conflicts fueled by fake news and other issues they have seen. the thing that is a problem here is that there will be a constant drumbeat of scrutiny from here on out. antitrust might be part of that. that would be the thing --

facebook would be afraid of. more so than data regulation. gdp are is a problem for them. the irish state protection entity is investigating facebook on several fronts. they are going to continue to be on the defensive. the problem is, are they going to be able to live up to the promises they have made for change? emily: and whether a consumer protection law -- rich, i love debating with you but we have to leave it there. i was about to say the consumer protection law and whether we need one in the united states, similar to gdpr. great debating with you. rich greenfield and sarah frier, this story is not going away. ash was aboutor d to be left in the dust by the food delivery competition. now the company is growing faster than any of its competitors. we will speak to the ceo, next. this is bloomberg. ♪ erg. ♪

a year ago, door dash looked like just another meal delivery app, facing stiff competition and thin margins. the company was struggling to differentiate its products. then, things turned around. door dash started turning a profit. that is minus overhead expected -- expenses. it was enough for softbank's vision fund to swoop in. here to discuss, the future of the company and food delivery, the door dash ceo. i will double down on the fact that that is a generous definition of profit because salaries and rent are part of everyday business. how well is the business doing from a revenue-generating perspective? >> the business is on fire.

we have tripled sales in a year. we are north of a billion and a quarter of net revenue. there are maybe a handful of consumer businesses that can say that. no one can say they are going that fast. in the industry, the restaurant delivery business, we are gaining share faster than anyone, growing faster than everyone, and we are on track to be the largest platform in the space. emily: how do you translate that into profit? including overhead costs. rich: earliest markets are profitable -- tony: the earliest prophets are profitable. we have a playbook on turning investment mode into growth mode into cash flow positive. it's only after that playbook that was developed that we decided to raise financing in march and later on in august. emily: we asked the head of uber eads on earlier this week who also said business is growing faster than they expected.

they are exploring grocery delivery. they have deep pockets, too. how do you stand out from the competition? what you doing to differentiate yourself? tony: a lot of the work that led to the result in 2018 happened before 2018. since day one, we have had a differentiated strategy on focus on merchants by building more features like door dash drive. we have signed up merchants. we have 90% of the top 100. we are delivering other types of meals. we started with food, which is the hardest in terms of paris her stability. our partnership with walmart that started in april of this year has now reached over 500 stores. we deliver the vast majority of walmart's groceries.

emily: where do you think this is growing? do you think there will be a few established players? do you think some smaller players will go out of business because -- it does not seem like there are many different food delivery players surviving in this industry. tony: i think you are starting to see some of that evidence. it's a vast market. let's start with where things are. 30 years ago, five to 10% of pizza sales were delivered. today, when you think of pizza, you think delivery. over half of sales are delivered now. outside of pizza, only about 8-10% are delivered. what you're seeing is the beginning of an industry that is much bigger than any of the industries that come before us in the consumer space since 2010. second, you are seeing that both talent, capital, merchants, relationships, partnerships, are accruing to a couple of national players and door dash is

yielding the -- leading the field? emily: where are we going to see you expanded use more of the softbank money? tony: door dash started the year with 600 cities and we are now 3000. and we spoke in march, i think i mentioned we would be in the 2000s. we are well ahead of the goal. with that said, we have a lot of the u.s. -- we serve the largest coverage today in the u.s., but there is still 25 to 30% of households we do not serve. we have to get to more cities, second, we need to expand. today we deliver drive with partners like chipotle, wing stop, and walmart. there are many other businesses for them to survive the next decade that need to build their fulfillmentce and channels. there are other partners that will give customers more selection at higher will be and customersat keep

coming back. emily: doordash ceo, tony xu, thank you. telecomm's business. we will have details from tokyo, next.

emily: shares of softbank's telecom unit has one of the worst first aid declines for japanese ipo wednesday. this comes after much buildup and fanfare that the company is among the largest ipos in history. david an reports from tokyo. >> a lot of reasons why this deal didn't fly. you look at market conditions and this is hardly the best time to do a large listing. the second largest in history globally. over 23 billion dollars raised. we are this close to christmas and there is a lot of volatility in the market. a lot of people approaching had warned this ipo was a little

overpriced, especially if you talk to institutional investors. if you talk to retail investors, it was different. they saw something different in the ipo. what they saw was a national champion. masayoshi is a household name in japan. he's a visionary if you will. it was sold as a dividend play. if you brought up the ipo price of 1500, you would have gotten 5% dividend yield and the company had promised an 85% dividend payout ratio on that net income. if you buy into these prices, that yield play goes up further. the question here, if you have foreign investors, they look at the net income, the denominator when you calculate it, and they see it is the third biggest player in a market that is mature, likely going to be under pressure from the government to lower their prices as we have

seen in recent weeks, and is the fourth player coming in. it's hardly a very good sell to foreign investors. it'll be interesting to see how this pans out ahead. as i mentioned, it was sold as a dividend play. at the moment, given the price, 14% drop, you will get a lot more dividend yields. let's call it a soft opening for softbank. in tokyo, david ingles, bloomberg. emily: uber has lost a bid to overturn a court ruling in london that allows drivers to get a minimum wage and holiday pay. the court of appeals dismissed uber's challenges today. this is the third time they have lost in the lawsuit. according to a spokesperson, the company will now take the case to the supreme court. and new details on anthony levandowski's new act. the guy at the center of the law suit between google and uber. he has launched a new startup.

waymoked for google's unit before starting his own self driving company. that's got bought by uber and became a flash point in the trial. more on facebook, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.

emily: this is "bloomberg technology." him in san francisco. facebook was sued by the district of columbia over a privacy breach in which personal information of millions of americans was transferred by an app developer to cambridge analytical. it says facebook violated the procedures act as a result of lack of oversight of the third-party application. this came after a separate report from the new york times. the social media giant about more than 150 companies to access users personal data, more data than it previously disclosed. i want to bring in matt, who

covers litigation and government at bloomberg intelligence. how serious is this suit filed by washington, d.c.? think it is something that facebook have to take very seriously. the story keeps getting worse for facebook by the day. it's legals -- legal risks are going up at the same time. this is a sign of that. the real risk here is that this may be the first of many suits by the states. this suit will be aimed at d.c. residents from facebook alleged practices. what you could see is more suits jumping in and doing the same thing. states have pretty broad powers to impose civil penalties for practices that are found to be deceptive. all of this also relates to a larger investigation at the federal level from the federal trade commission. opens a newcc inquiry into facebook compliance

with the 2011 consent decree that was put into place because of facebook's privacy violations from earlier years. on top of that, the doj and the fcc are investigating the company. how does this fit in with the newest lawsuit today? directly related to that. states have very similar authority to the federal trade commission to look for deceptive and unfair practices from companies. with thise are seeing suit is exactly what the federal trade commission is investigating right now. remember, at the federal level there is almost no regulation of these companies. it is something congress is exploring now. they split is bound by the 2011 consent to creek -- decree. asked, arek times there new violations that the federal trade commission could be presenting very, very soon?

the real risk to facebook is that every violation potential he leaves it on the hook for $40,000 per violation. when you have a company that serves the number of users that facebook does, the threat is serious. this could lead to billions of dollars in damages from the federal trade commission. you could see the states following up with their own suits, doing the same thing. it is a serious risk for the company. facebook executives have been apologizing over and over again. they have testified before congress. listen to what sheryl sandberg said about personal data act in april. do al: we know we did not good enough job protecting people's data. i am really sorry for that and mark is sorry for that. now what we are doing is taking really strong actions. emily: that is from an interview i did with her several months ago. since then, more and more revelations and indications that facebook has not been transparent with these

revelations. how are the statements of facebook executives testifying before lawmakers, the lobbying they are doing on capitol hill, how is that impacting the actions we are seen being taken here by the u.s. government? matthew: i don't dig it will have a significant impact that all. it may be hurting the company. as the stories come out, the momentum is against the company. stories like the new york times stories last night. the stories from d.c., it will the pressure on regulators. first at the federal trade commission, those in other states tend to really go after the company. then, looming behind it is congress getting ready to look seriously at imposing redrow regulation. the company can apologize and say that it is trying its best, but i him really skeptical that is going to be enough in this environment.

emily: matt of bloomberg intelligence. lots of legal issues. i know you will continue to help us follow things. thank you for stopping by. big tech and facebook has been taking a beating. what does it mean for the rest of silicon valley? they are expected to reach $100 billion and we have seen several companies drop off with spot a hitting with spotify the public market. they had a big year in m&a as well. but will 2019 bring? general partner sandy miller. thank you for being here. obviously facebook is in the news. you think this bad news about facebook will have a drag on the broader industry? >> i don't think so. , the youngive is emerging tech companies in the u.s., typically venture backs. they are pretty far up field them what the tech giants are doing.

i think it is more isolated than that. i do not think it will impact the investment climate for the young emerging companies. you think it will reveal an actual opening for startup social media companies or startup social networks to have a chance? we had an analyst on earlier who said everybody wants to use instagram. nobody else has really succeeded. look well happen to snapchat. is there a company that could have an opportunity to disrupt? a bit more oftes an opportunity, but facebook has such broad technicals. there are other social media rowsorms that have made in . but a pure startup in the area is pretty tough. are you optimistic about in terms of trends for next year? in terms of types of companies or the marketplace? emily: both. environmentnk the

is super healthy overall. what we had in 2019 was a peak in private valuation. they were very, very heavy. we moderated some of that. they were moderated at a historical level. very attractive for companies to sell chairs, -- shares, but investors feel the discounts from the public have come realistic again, versus having premiums. i think it is a healthy supply and demand balanced environment. i think it will be a big year for private investing. you mentioned the amount of private investing that took place in 2018. i expect to see 2019 stronger. emily: despite the volatility in the public market? sandy: the public market in 20 will be the best in a long time. emily: why? sandy: because we have been building it for a long time. i am reallyup -- only speaking about tech companies in the u.s. a large group of tech companies

in the u.s. that have scaled and are growing, let's say 40% to 100% a year, those companies are eligible to be in the ipo market. but most have been holding back because private money has been unavailable. at some point it is not just getting the capital, but the visibility of a public offering. is healthyty and it for the company. i think people have been poised. right now there are more companies on files silently. the silent file has been a huge blessing. there are more companies on files silently in the tech space and ever before. if those companies went public in 2019, not all will, but if that list went public it would be the biggest year in more than a decade. lyft announced its filings. the skeptics might say, given the volatility, they will get dragged into that. great tech companies have

gone public in every market. when microsoft went public, apple, google, none of them went in those markets and none had successful ipos. , obviously, became some of the biggest builders of all time. i think the ability now with the silent filing and testing the waters, to aspects of the job act, how about a company to move swiftly and complete an ipo in a way that was simply not feasible 25 years ago. in a wayime the market that we never could before. a big advantage. i think, in the market pull a volatility, people can find their slots to make it happen. emily: you have had big items. dropbox went public. gethub bought by microsoft. where are you going to be putting your pets this coming

year, given the competition from softbank? perspective,ur softbank is not a competitor. the scale of their funds and the scale of investors they are looking for, it is a different business. we are in late stage venture capital. there is a lot of segmentation or it we do not compete with early-stage venture buffs or softbank. there are a big niche is for big iches for big segments. they are either a follow-on or a strategy. sandy miller, good to have you here. the european union is investigating a potential leak of sensitive information following a report that hackers breached the diplomatic communications network.

according to the new york times, hackers got access to the diplomatic communications, including thousands of cables that reveal concern about donald trump's administrations, struggles dealing with russia and china, and iran's nuclear risks. certainly a story we will continue to follow. coming up, this company has opened up its first underground tunnel for demonstration. how the underground tunnel theork could transform future of transportation. facebook's leadership is called into question after a year of scandals in controversy. ciscol hear from former ceo who thinks sheryl sandberg and mark zuckerberg can weather the storm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: it has been a difficult year for elon musk, but not for

the company. the company unveiled its first completed underground test tunnel in hawthorne, california, putting them one step closer to realizing musk's vision of a zero emission transit system that he hopes will alleviate traffic in l.a. it is just over one mile along the headquarters and will portal -- hurdle cars up to speeds of 150 miles per hour. he put $40 million of his own money into this project since its founding of the company looking to build similar tunnels in chicago and d.c. bloomberg sarah mcbride, who was at this event. what happened? sarah: the event was super fun. dazzle andzzle, people wanting to take a ride in the car. elon was there, his girlfriend, his mom was there. it was super fun to get to ride in the cars. emily: talk about what it was

like. the trip i went on was a little bit space agey. you got any modified tesla. it has been modified so the wheels can fit along grooves at the side of the tunnel. in this batman like elevator and you come out into a tunnel, a small tunnel with a lot of flashing lights, then the car kind of takes off. caras to be a self driving so elon musk says in the future it will have to be a tesla. all the demonstrations were on teslas. emily: elon musk just tweeted this. they are demonstrating the high-speed targeting 4000 vehicles in our at 155 miles per hour. walk us through how this actually works at scale. it sounds like just a car on a track. it is really sense

old school. as you say it is a car on the track in a tunnel. but because it is automated, elon musk thinks there will be many, many cars going together, probably a lot tighter than in an existing tunnels. it will not just be one tunnel. he is hoping that in the future it will be layers of stacking tunnels. timethough one car at a can fit in a tunnel, if you have a row of three or six tunnels, that is a lot more cars traveling at once. because they will go up to 150 miles per hour in these giant networks of under cities, if that happens it could take congestion off the streets. emily: what sort of firm interest has there been from cities? we'll cities just order up a terminal? -- tunnel? sarah: there was a whole

delegation from the city of which has entered into exclusive negotiations with the boring company to build a high-speed train to the airport. they are putting the finishing touches on that deal. company has been talking to officials on the east coast about a tunnel going between washington, d.c. and maryland -- baltimore, maryland. hasreview for that tunnel already started. in l.a. he is talking about building a tunnel from dodger stadium to the metro red line. and all kinds of cities are interested in using these tunnels for utilities. 20said he is fielding inquiries a week from cities that my want to use these tunnels for electric cables or water, things like that. emily: fascinating developments. sarah mcbride.

anything but boring from the boring company. meantime, nasa has disclosed it is investigating a hack of employee information of current and former employees. those who were hired, transferred, or left the agency from 2006 to 2018 may have been impacted. the agency does not believe that any of its missions were affect it. still ahead, highlights from our conversation with former cisco ceo, including his thoughts on including gender diversity and whether big tech companies can recover from tarnished reputations. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in the latest episode of studio 1.0, i caught up with former cisco ceos, one of the longest running ceos in tech history. it was a wide-ranging conversation from his outlook on facebook, mark zuckerberg and sheryl sandberg's leadership, and the lessons from mean in in corporate america. i am a big fan of sheryl sandberg and lean in and i believe in gender diversity. i was the first ceo that asked her to speak to my leadership team of 3000 people and were part everybody to read the book. emily: i remember that. >> i said, you are too tough on the women. we have to lean him. -- lean in. emily: you think she is too tough? john: she was saying we have to control our investing in lean in. when you are breaking out of a challenge, you have to be able to do it by making bold statements. emily: as much as i have

benefited from lean in and the message, you cannot lean in with the doors and nailed shut and don't companies need to lean in as well? john: yes. you have seen cisco's example and i was there. our board female before people started using those numbers. we did not do it because it was just the right thing to do, we had talented leaders who were female and they were really good. it is easy to do and a large company. people at the same rank should get see -- pay the same level, period. at the start up, if you just required people to interview one female for everything comic we saw numbers change -- everything, we saw numbers changed are medically. emily: what do you think cheryl and mark could be doing differently? john: this is where i am a believer in playbooks. challenge, handle a

or when disaster strikes, or whatever you want to call it. the first thing you do is determine how much was external created and how much was internal. you paint a picture of what your company should look like coming out. i think it is important that all of the high-tech companies and the leaders do that. and they bill eyes that, -- and they realized that in today's world you have to be very real. you have to be realistic that you cannot stiff on government. you have to work towards the goals. you have to build trust relationships and track records being able to do it. the minute you find yourself with a major challenge coming in front of you, you realize how serious it will be. a think struggling for tech versus good and bad, and are we really a force for the good, for the majority, not just for america but around the world? i think we can be and i think we

have lost that focus. i think it is important we get back to it. emily: do you think facebook is a threat to democracy? john: no. when companies are doing well and the leaders are doing well, everybody sings your praises. the minute i tripped up people turned on me that i never dreamed would it we came back. every time we got knocked down we came back strongly. that is the most likely for facebook. what they do have to do things differently. herly are good people. you have to say what it looks like at the end any have to work and say how do we get there. emily: do you think facebook will recover? company that does not constantly think they are under threat is a problem. -- jeffn amazon where bezos is a really good leader.

he said to his employees that amazon could be one step away from failure or it if we do not have the courage to reinvent ourselves, if we don't deal with issues that matters, we will get left behind. 40% of the fortune 501 not exist in the next 10 years. same is true for high-tech companies. if companies do not navigate through problems they will get left behind. emily: they said they will create 50,000 new jobs and you have people in new york protesting in the streets that they don't want amazon in their city. why is that? john: anybody that does not want amazon in the city should think about it more. to create an environment where we create more jobs than we destroyed. i would love to see them locate one of their two locations in the midwest, because that is where we are losing jobs. it is an area that if we don't create a startup culture, we will have the pattern we are seeing now. a member, i lived in north

carolina and georgia and west virginia and ohio and indiana and illinois. for the first time, people in will not of the world have a scaled's lives as their theirs and same for children. i think the high-tech community has to jump in and make a difference. cisco ceo john chambers. you can catch my full interview tonight at nine: 30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. pacific. range ofa wide, wide topics. that covers it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." you can follow our global breaking news network tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid eter fitement for the te spine. roger: i truly understand your back pain. in my 40's i wrecked my back. i could hardly get out of bed, i had to crawl hands and knees just to be able to stand up. until ireally worked was introduced to in version. the relief i got from