emily: welcome to the "best of bloomberg: technology." the ride hailer gears up for what could be the biggest public listing this year. we discussed the prospect with some early investors. state officials are in the early stages of a probe into google focused on antitrust and privacy in the largest coordinated

effort to take on big tech since the 1990's. we hear from the texas attorney general. digital service was born in the wake of the bumpy rollout of healthcare.gov. now is stepping up to give americans that are access to government services. first to our top story. a beer's challenger to uber and americans are taking a close look at america's second-largest ride-hailing company ahead of $2.1 billion public debut. but can the start of win them over?- startup win them >> 2019, the year so many highly anticipated companies plan to go public. t two standout, described as focus versus frenzy. focus is uber, folks on rapid expansion, food delivery, and flying taxis. plus a valuation that bankers say could soar to $120 million.

focus,y be described as growing out of their cofounders 2007 startup, which connected college students looking for rides. it has focused almost solely on growth in the united states. going from less than a dozen cities in 2009 to 95% of the country and 2019. ft now claims it controls the internet percent of the u.s. ride-hailing market and is starting to go international, ,aunching and -- in toronto keeping up with its rival by getting in on scooters, and also working on self driving cars, buying london-based blue vision labs, beefing up staff on a taunus technology to over 300 people. yft has are recorded a slew of major investors, but as it

prepares to go public, it is trying to work more. -- lure more like doubling its right account to 1 billion and less than one year. yearue jumped up 541% last from just 343 million. with an estimated value of 20-20 $5 billion. inpite losses increasing 2018. while second out of the gate to launch, it is first in line to go public. months ahead of uber. in an increasingly volatile market, the hope is that investors will hail lyft's ride. emily: we also caught up with an early investor and lift board member along with her partner at her capital firm. >> on the very first pitch that they came in with, it is a pitch

that i still have and i like showing it to stanford students. but they talk a lot about why transportation was so critical to the fabric of the united states. canals,rted off with and then it went to railways, and the showed highways. landscapee physical of the country changed and the economy change as a result. the question that john and load imposed that i felt was fascinating was what is the next transportation revolution, and do you want to be a part of it? my answer and mike's answer was absolutely yes. there was nothing else in the market that was a transportation revolution. emily: ube already existed at this pointr. thiser already existed at point. >> no. >> and it was a black car hailing service. >> they were originally taxi,

and that they were uber black. there was a pocket of time where , we can find in the market was the car -- was zip car. emily: what do you see? >> when you invest as crazily to early as we do, you have to have an opinion about where things are going. we were early in the sharing economy, and we had this idea that the internet lets you locate something unused and the smartphone will let you locate something unused and moving. so we were just looking for network transportation, and when logan and john walked in the room and describe their vision, we were like ok, those are our guys. emily: this is a company losing almost half as much money as they are making. they brought in 200 -- $2 billion in revenue, they lost him was not punched million. almost 900st

million. how do you justify that? >> we think about the long game. we always return to the origin story and why nine years ago we were complete buyers. the unique nature of this business is that this transportation revolution still has not played itself out. there is so much more to be done, so much more to go. if you think about the potential of network transportation as mike talks about, the ability for people to not just share the ride, but to figure out all of the different ways in which they can get from point a to point b. whether that includes an autonomous vehicle or not, there are so many ways we will be adding and rethinking transportation that it will start to change where people live and how to make choices about where they go. so we have just scratched the

surface of what is possible here, and that is my excitement. for a it is not unusual tech company to go public and still not make money, but lift is saying they make -- may never make money, may never be profitable. why should investors buy into that? >> i don't want to speak for lyft or their numbers too much -- emily: please do! >> some products, it is so compelling, it will be satisfied. ridesharing was just one of these ideas. i don't know if you remember the first time you ever took a lyft, but you just knew instantly it would be a huge success. people throughout the world would be energized to want to get to places this way. and what the market will be satisfied, sometimes the best way to great value is to move

very quickly. our belief is that transportation is being reinvented and that is a race to be the category king. in the early days, value is created by the -- by gaining market share and satisfying demand. it is not always the right strategy, but in this case, the companies that have moved quickly have one over those who didn't. emily: i agree it is something users want, something i want. that said, what is the value of it? who's to say this isn't the next snap? going public, and a year later, it's worth a third. >> again, it is a quiet period. there is little i can say about the company specifically and the financials is typically. -- specifically. but i returned to that notion.

when you look at the original pitch document that they pitched , you look at the founder's manifesto and actually the founders letter. there is this incredible consistency to why they have built this business. oftentimes, mike and i are looking at a company and we are investing in a businesses that we believe will be here not just 10 years from now, but 25, 50 years. we call them thunder lizards, legendary businesses, whatever. we want to see companies that have this incredible length in terms of the story that they have. one of the things we have seen consistently is that these companies that have that characteristic have this storyline to them that is consistent from not only day one , but it goes throughout the length of the story of the business.

and when you compare these three documents that i have seen, there is this incredible story of why this company needs to exist and why we believe that investing into these founders nine years ago was a good idea. consistent, and that creates and authenticity that we absolutely love in the founders that we invest. coming up, u.s. attorneys general are looking closely at whether google presents an antitrust case. our interview with the top lawyer for texas. bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, listen on the bloomberg act come in and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: last september, jeff

sessions called a meeting of state attorneys general to discuss whether google and facebook were suppressing conservative views. smaller group of officials have begun looking into possible antitrust or consumer protection violations by google. this comes at a time when presidential hopefuls are calling for a breakup a big tech firms. a rallying cry that is even reach across the aisle, with texas senator retreating -- reach weeding the criticisms, saying it is the first time i've ever retweeted elizabeth warren, but she is right. to discuss, i spoke with texas attorney general ken paxton on monday. ken: we have serious concerns about both of those issues. with antitrust, the power and wealth of these companies. we have a history of looking at those issues and breaking up companies that are too big. we also have concerned about privacy.

of transparency in how they collect and use this information, consumers are not being paid for this, and they are a vulnerable -- there are multiple populations like children getting their data gathered and we have no protections for them. emily: google released a statement in response to this probe, if you will, or early stages of a probe, saying that privacy and security are built into all of our products and we continue to engage constructively on policy. what kind of action, given your concern, do you think needs to be taken? ken: i think we need more information. a lot of the questions were answered very generally about analytics, so there's not a lot of clarity for state attorney general's to understand exactly what they are doing. google hasd that thousands of thousands of data points on every consumer that use them and knows more about you than you do.

it is concerning that most consumers are not aware of the gas of data that these companies have. and then how they are using it and selling it, and obviously, the consumer is not getting any of that money. emily: i'm sure you are very well aware of elizabeth warren's proposal to break up big tech. here's what she had to say at sxsw about a week and a half ago. warren: the opportunity to come up with what you do best, to come up with a great idea, to compete on a level playing field , is taken away by these platform giants. those thingseak apart, and we will have a much more competitive, robust market in america. emily: you have got republicans on your side of the aisle, like ted cruz, agreeing with her in principle. do you think they tech needs to be broken up? ken: i'm not sure yet, but i

certainly have concerns. i've talked to a lot of competitors were being pushed out, and they have no choice in how they respond, because there is such controlled by a company like google the controls 89% of searches. it does put the smaller companies starting to be purchased or pushed out of the marketplace. so there are concerns about competitiveness and companies being able to start up and compete. emily: republicans and generally resist the government getting too involved in the private marketplace. what makes this different? yeah, we tend to be free market, want lots of competition, and that's the key word. when you have companies that dominate the marketplace, becoming monopolistic, will competition goes away. then you have this argument consumers may be harmed. obviously, the eu has are defined google billions in two different cases. there are concerns about the

competitiveness and the opportunity to create products that google does not push out of the marketplace. emily: have you feel given concerns about data? have you feel about facebook specifically, and would you be interested in taking on a similar exploration of whether facebook deserves scrutiny as well? ken: we are looking at companies like facebook and google, not just limited to those two. it is any of these giant companies that are dominating the marketplace and potentially harming consumers and causing consumers to be in a position where all of this data is controlled by one or two companies and the consumer does not have access, don't get paid, and they don't know how it is being used. do youthink -- emily: think consumers should be paid for their data? ken: it should be looked at, is incredibly valuable information when you some -- no so much about every consumer and are

selling that information. there ought to be at least some greater transparency and the consumer realizes what they are turning over. emily: looking at google and facebook and others, is it fair to say you are also looking at amazon and apple, and microsoft? ken: we are just beginning, we don't have specific copies we have targeted, but we're looking at a broad range of companies and trying to determine are they involved in viewpoint discrimination? are they protecting consumer data? how do we get more transparency in the process so consumers are treated fairly? of theseknow how much companies are protecting consumer data or who they are selling it to. emily: last year, we reported that this exploration of google came out of a meeting with then attorney general jeff sessions out of concern they were suppressing conservative views. where you access meeting -- at

that meeting? ken: i could not attend, and we are concerned about that. it happened this week in the texas senate, putting up a facebook post about a born alive bill to protect children who are born alive. that content was taken down by facebook, arguing it was engagement debate -- bait. they also took down a facebook post by an individual senator. i don't know what engagement bait is i thought engagement was what they wanted, but it is an issue coming up more and more. emily: that was texas attorney paxton.of -- ken social media heavily relies on algorithms, but as we saw in the new zealand mosque shooting, it is not always work. we dig into wide next. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> as we sit here, 99% of isis and al qaeda content we take down, ai systems flagged before any human sees it. that is a success in terms of rolling out tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community. emily: that is what mark zuckerberg told the senate judiciary committee last year, and this is what facebook newsroom posted the day after the new zealand mosque shootings. in the first 24 hours, we removed 1.5 million videos of the attack, of which 1.2 million were blocked and upload. so how to that video keep getting uploaded? on monday, we talked to a professor of technology and digital business at the wharton school, also the author of a new book that looks at how algorithms are shaping lives. also joining us, bloomberg tax global executive editor tom

giles. , not just it was bad on facebook, but on youtube and other platforms and social media. we know it is bad. when this many people can see such a violent, gruesome imagery , and when these companies struggle to use the tools that they have at their disposal to pull it down. it is a terrible thing, it is a lot of views. and as we saw, those things are getting politicized by other parties. professor, we know that it took 17 long minutes for the video to be caught and taken down. but then why some a hundreds of thousands of times and still make it through when clearly facebook does not want to. -- it. >> it is clear they do not want it on their platform and have taken a number of steps, but we have to recognize that live videos are problematic for these algorithms. most firms have a three-pronged

approach to catch this content. first, they have created a large database of known offensive or extremist content. anytime a video is uploaded, they compared to that. live videos, by definition, do not look like a video they had seen before. emily: why have live video at all? it is clearly dangers. >> for their business, the new idea of growth they have been looking at. and it has a lot of potential, and a lot of opportunities. people at a concert, streaming what happens. i could be streaming to my i could be streaming to my friends, hey, i'm on bloomberg. that is the appeal, but the catch is that they have a lot of machine learning that look at the content and predict the likelihood the content is offensive, but is not an exact science. you have a video of saudi shooting, it could be a terror related content, or could be sunday at a shooting range, some

of the uploading a video game. it gets to be problematic. live video in particular is very hard. emily: now they know it is a problem, is there any way to put the genie back in the bottle, the monster back in its cage now that this is a future on the site? do you delay live video? >> that is the question that has come up. like on broadcast television, you do not see the terrible things that happen. the wardrobe malfunctions, what have you, because there is this delay. in theory, that is the way it is supposed to be. practically speaking, when you have millions of people at any given moment putting live video out there, i don't see, and maybe you can explain, how you can't physically delay live video. it is not even become alive video. >> you call it live, but you delay it a little bit.

that helps to some extent, but in the end, no algorithm will have 100% accuracy. you do rely on human beings. humancompanies have moderators and rely on users flagging offensive content. but that takes a few minutes, if you hours, sometimes. one has to come in some ways, deal with this. how did question is not the video get through, i think it is unavoidable. the question for me is what exactly are these firms doing to police the content? can they be more transparent, are there independent audit? that is a question of values, the point was made these platforms have done a lot to take down terrorist, isis related content. but not nearly the same efforts have been taken to eliminate white supremacy, for example. often, you will hear this is -- or that or the

this does not cross the line. what about the bigger problem that white supremacy online feeds these violent acts. it is a tough line between what is free speech and what is purely promoting hate on the platform and needs to go away. for every decision, there will be somebody on the other side. but they have to take aggressive action. they have to view themselves as media companies that have the take on the responsibility of curating. are aannot hide behind we platform, letting users share with they want. i think users do want some policing, so we want them to take a stand. author of "a human's guide to machine learning," and tom giles anotherlams google with penalty, but regulate are still scrutinizing other tech giants

apple, amazon, and facebook. bloomberg tech is live streaming on twitter, check us out. this is bloomberg. ♪ want more from your entertainment experience?

just say teach me more. into your xfinity voice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome.

♪ "the bestcome back to of bloomberg technology." $1.7 billion by the e.u. in an antitrust judgment, the last of a trio of $9.3s that have racked up billion in penalties. the search giant is making changes with how it displays ads. there is less risk of new fines in the future. >> when i find that the numbers that we have now, and the intentions of google in the android decision, this is also

to say, we don't have a noncompliant issue as it is now. we will of course keep following this, but i think it is positive that google takes steps that allows for more consumer choice. stable, ceo at a search engine, and garrett give and go culvert -- joined us to discuss. richard: we have quite a large fine but the balance sheet, this is baked in. expectingare not these fines to cost a ton of money. i do not think it means they will never be looked at again by

european competition authorities, but there are bigger fish to fry. shownhe last 10 years has is that european regulators can go after these big tech companies and extract large fines, get support for it politically without getting major pushback from consumers. emily: you have applauded the e.u.'s decision. what does google changing its practices mean for your business? richard: thank you for having me. this fine today is something that we welcomed and consumers welcomed. it will not change an awful lot in the marketplace. google had been given basically a cease-and-desist order which says, stop doing what you have been doing and they stopped in 2016. in these two-sided markets, the market is tipped in google's favor. they will go out of this and

say, we paid a tax for taking over another market. we ask for the commissioner to go further and ask google to right the wrongs it has done to this market like in shopping and android. emily: what does putting right the wrongs mean? google controls 75% of this ad market from 2006 to 2016. richard: you have to look at this and say, google has all the data, basically has all the market. people say, why can't you compete? they have got this and trench meant with -- and trench meant and -- give up market share. emily: what is google's response to this? they pointed to this being just

a few complaints. geritt: google's response is one -- they won because they have the best business in the best algorithms to provide these ads and products to the people who pay for them. when they were in control of 70% of the market, that gives them that power to continue and grab more and more of it. it is difficult to see how that would be changed. google and its investors are confident they will not be kicked out completely from these markets. the fines, they are willing to pay them. emily: if google has owned 70% of this ad market, with these changes, how does that percentage change? richard: i do not think it changes very much at all. they will continue to control it and have at least 70%. nothing has changed in their

behavior since 2016 when they removed exclusivity clauses. this is a company that has lost its moral compass. this is the third time it has been found guilty of anticompetition. today alongg fine with the others, but from google's perspective and is just a tax to take over more odd -- markets. emily: google is betting big on new gamenveiling its streaming at the game developers conference in san francisco. it will let players access high-end games on the web without buying expensive consoles or personal computers. it is nicknamed the netflix of gaming. google introduced its own game controller. i spoke with the vice president bill harrison tuesday after the announcement. bill: the new generation of

platforms combines playing and watching games into the same experience. it is powered by the technology that only google can bring to bear. only google bring certain types of content? will this have exclusive content? announced the formations of google's first and we have shipped hundreds of development tools to leading studios. they are hard at work creating games. emily: will you be licensing content? more expensiveis than typical video streaming content. phil: we partner with game publishers and developers big and small. some of the leading lights of the game industry such as take

two, bringing there an aging -- amazing experiences to our platform. it is about bringing youtube creators in the mix where a youtube creator can bring their fans into the game, and allow game developers to connect with more and more people seamlessly across all the screens in their life. emily: if this is successful, it could mean a huge shift in the gaming market. thedo you make sure experience is consistent, given differences in bandwidth? phil: that is the magic of google technology that runs in our data center that allows us to utilize our advantage of and thatts in -- allows us to take the developers original division -- vision and stream it to the gamers home.

it allows us to stream up to four k with all the latest visual and audio capabilities and technologies that gamers are used to, but without the need for a dedicated box console or pc. emily: from google to the white house, we talked about how his career in tech helped prepare him for his time in washington. check it out on instagram, shoppers will be able to buy what they like right from the app. could it be the next big revenue driver for facebook? this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in the heart of nonpartisan tech group has been working to bring government services to americans online. it has helped speed up veterans disability claims and breakdown technical barriers for immigrants. we caught up with the

administrator and started by talking about the long and bumpy history of health care services like healthcare.gov. >> it is crucial. you do not always see in government people bringing user centered design. it is about the veteran, the doctor, and the student, and putting them at the center. if you write specifications and do not talk to users, you do not end up with a good consumer experience. googleyou worked for where things work at light speed. why move to the government? matt: the mission and the impact , the meaningfulness of being able to see the impact you can have is deeply gratifying. technology, you can cherry pick. you can choose to serve one particular market.

government needs to serve everybody and when he talked to somebody over thanksgiving dinner table, they can see the impact. emily: has it been a culture shock? matt: yes. are ae to joke that we bridge between the worlds of technology and government and they do not always speak well together. worked under the obama administration and you now work under the trump administration. what has it been like working for two different presidents? matt: we care about implementing systems so government systems that millions of people use work really well. we have had support in both administrations. it is not a partisan issue to , or achnology is broken veteran trying to get their benefits or a student going to college, for them to get the information they need and the

service to work well. we are gratified to make progress. emily: the president is taking on google and facebook, accusing them of bias. is that fair? matt: i am just worried about, if you have a particular doctor that wants to submit a payment for medicare, does it work? thatnk in the same way d.c. does not always understand silicon valley, silicon valley does not always understand d.c. and the more cross pollination, the better. emily: what does silicon valley need to understand better? matt: i was at sxsw and i sat down eating a hot dog and somebody pitched me on an augmented reality dance lesson. i think silicon valley can do more about the services everyone needs. emily: many democrats gathered

there and are taking on big tech , and the attorneys general are investigating whether google presents an antitrust case. do you think so? matt: i do not want to take a position on that, but when i worked in government there were earnest people making sure the best quality of search results showed up. the federal trade commission, the department of justice, they need to look at consumer harm and good. emily: how about a broader question, senator elizabeth warren saying big tech needs to be broken up and amy klobuchar wants an investigation. do you think big tech broadly needs to be broken up? matt: for me personally, it is not so much a matter of breaking up as big companies need to realize they will be scrutinized . i think most realize and accept

the fact that no matter what, they have to think about their impact not just amongst their consumers and their markets, but among the entire country and the world. emily: you handle some of the most sensitive data about americans. google and facebook have a lot of data about us. isn't it clear way cannot trust them with our data? matt: if a tech company or any company loses trust, people will start to leave. they can take their data out or stop using the company. , if you think me about the u.s. government, what is the trust and how can we make that work better? a poll came out and for the first time the u.s. government .as listed as it were a company of the top 100, it was dead last . there is a lot of ways technology could make government work better. emily: we see areas where

technology is failing, a massacre in new zealand being posted. they were almost powerless to stop their own power, so what can they do? matt: that is an interesting case, because there is the notion of something you do not want to show up like spam, and the notion of real-time things. this idea of something going viral and people live streaming terrible stuff, i suspect the tech companies have not had the time to adjust to that model. i would not be surprised if engineers throughout silicon valley are thinking about adjusting so it does not happen again. emily: we are seeing technology working with the government, and that has caused in google's place, employee protests around the work with the pentagon. google ended a contract to help

the government interpret aerial drone footage. is that a mistake? matt: reasonable people can have different viewpoints. i was speaking to the ceo of microsoft recent way, and he had an interesting position that microsoft is a platform and the platform should allow all kinds of customers and clients to come clean. you cannot -- come in. howcannot anticipate everybody will use it so people will be grappling with these issues. seey: if you like what you on instagram, you now have the option to buy it. the new e-commerce strategy, this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: after years of posting beautiful images of food, fashion, and design on instagram, users will be able to

buy items they like. instagram is testing a shopping feature with a handful of retailers including nike and revolve. shoppers can pay with fees are, mastercard, and paypal. mastercard, and paypal. youn the instagram app, will be able to check out and purchase a product which is unlike we have seen -- what we have seen before. they would redirect you to a website or app to complete your purchase, but it gives instagram another line of revenue beyond advertising, which will be extremely significant. emily: how much business and traffic do you think this will drive for paypal? bill: this is building on a phenomenon with small retailers

and businesses having new forms to meet buyers. instagram is a great new experience and instagram has been a great forum for sellers to meet buyers. this has been building for a long time in terms of buyers connecting with brands and sellers. now they can complete the purchase in context on instagram . it helps more activity happening . this is something we hear from sellers all the time, this is important for them. this is an interesting new place for sellers to make more buyers. emily: how big do you think it can be for you? bill: if you look at our marketplace and partner business, separate from ebay who was a partner we have worked with for a long time, our top 20 marketplaces that we work with already $85-- are

billion in volume and growing 41% year on year. are read want to connect our 30 plus million sellers -- we want to connect our 30 plus million sellers with buyers. there were a couple places a smaller seller could go to sell online. now there is an explosion of new forums that they can sell, and we want to help them to the best places where they can be buyers. instagram is quite important and we are excited about enabling the checkout. we are quite excited to be powering some of those capabilities, especially buyer transactions as well as seller transactions and partnering with them. emily: facebook is going through a lot of changes.

we talked about ad targeting. mark zuckerberg said they will shift more towards private communications. how much revenue do you think this will drive, instagram commerce will drive for facebook? sarah: it is hard to say because it is so early, but it is important to keep in mind that facebook's legacy business, the news feed and advertising will not grow much more from here. it is already so saturated in these big advertising markets around the world, so the company is invested in figuring out there next business models. e-commerce is something they mentioned on the earnings call is a big priority for the future as well as things happening in messaging which may be harder to monetize. this is one of the few bright spots they have that is maybe more proven than some of the

other things like cryptocurrency and encrypted messaging. emily: let's talk about the less bright spots. facebook and instagram are getting played by hate and misinformation -- played to -- plagued by hate and misinformation. bill: we partnered with facebook across multiple forms for some time. we have a growing partnership. one of the things that we enable is fraud tools, things that operators to place make sure they are getting buyers that are legitimate and sellers that are legitimate. it is something that across all the different forums, we provide buyer and seller protection. separate from how we engage here , across the way we engage with our consumers and help them shop

without sharing financial information. we help merchants connect to more of these forms. a number of things are being addressed. can this be a great forum for commerce? i think you see a number of sellers engaging with buyers, so it is a great forum but this makes it better. we are excited to partner on this, not only providing tools the saleshelp with going in and out, but how do you combat fraud. consumersyou think will have hesitancy about sharing their credit card number with facebook through this kind of transaction? well paypal present -- event that from having to happen? bill: when you use the paypal button broadly, it is helping you do not have to go through the friction of giving a card. users want to provide a card users can make

those determinations where they feel comfortable. we provide the ability to check out and not type those things in, which puts it out of the process. either way, we will give the user the choice. emily: you are taking friction out of the process, but in light of the more recent privacy concerns with facebook, well users want to share and store their payment information with instagram? bill: you see a lot of users wanting to connect with sellers and brands already, so making a place where users feel comfortable doing that is important and something we are working together on. usersk you see a lot of engaging and something. i think that is already happening. this makes it even better for

those users. emily: we mentioned nike, revolve. what other retailers? sarah: i think it will be a small group for now, but in the future, all these people that have created their businesses on instagram, based off their followings will be able to build a marketplace. that is uncharted territory. emily: you will be able to buy kylie jenner's lipstick on instagram. business today just had a more than $1 billion valuation. businesses that have been built up via instagram followings will have a more direct way to sell and maybe will be able to see more into how that works. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." we will bring you the latest in

tech throughout the week, 5:00 p.m. new york, 2:00 p.m. san francisco. the sure to follow our global breaking news network on twitter, tictoc. this is bloomberg. ♪ this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving simple. easy. awesome. stay connected with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

scarlet: i'm scalet fu. this is "etf iq," where we focus on the access, risks, and rewards offered by exchange traded funds. ♪ scarlet: the fee wars spread to junk-bond etf's with the fed preaching patience. what is next in this red-hot as a class. professor kim harvey of duke university explains how not to get lost when factor investing. and sky is the limit for this etf, except investors want clouds in their forecast. the first