>> the senate returns today at 2:00 eastern time to begin debate on the so-called dock fix legislation that determines how much the government pays doctors who treat medicare patients. later, members resume nomination on john to wednesday. -- owens. a motion to waive the budget act, the doc fix bill and a procedural vote to formally begin debate on legislation containing a five month

unemployment insurance extension. the house not in session today. members return tomorrow at noon eastern for legislative business. among the bills being considered under suspension of the rules, one that authorizes $150 million in aid for ukraine and expands sanctions imposed this month by the obama administration against certain russian and ukrainian officials. this bill passed the senate last week by a voice vote. votes tomorrow are post poped until 6:30 p.m. eastern time. you can watch live gavel to gavel coverage of the house on c-span and the senate here on c-span2. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> host: david cohen is the executive vice president of the comcast corporation, and he's our guest this week on "the communicators."

be mr. cohen, when it comes to the comcast/time warner cable proposed merger, what's the biggest hurdle that you see facing comcast? >> guest: so what a surprise we should start with that question. well, obviously, we're going to have a serious governmental review of the transaction. but i'll be honest with you, i think the transaction is a lot less scary, it's a lot less large and a lot less complicated than some people would like to make it. so when you think about it in the video space, this is not a horizontal deal. we don't compete with time warner capable anywhere. there isn't a consumer in america anywhere who has a choice between buying comcast products or time warner cable products, and at the end of the day, we're going to have under 30% of the market, so not particularly scary. there's one thing that is appropriate to think about and to discuss, it is the implications on the broadband

side. and i think there's a very good story there as well. lots of pro-competitive impacts, pro-consumer impacts from the transaction as a result of the increased scale and the increased investment. and, again, not a very scary story when you look at market share. something less than 40% of the wire line broadband share. but if you factor in wireless, and i just think it's indisputable today that wireless is certainly beginning to be an effective competitor and substitute for at least many uses of broadband. market share is as low as 20%. and, again, national share and broadband, not sure what that matters. the issue is local share. and in no local market will there be be any less choice after the transaction than there is before the transaction. >> host: well, want to get you to respond to what david carr in "the new york times" wrote after the announcement of the proposed merger. for consumers, cable is not just television anymore. it is where the internet comes

from. and should this deal go be through, more people who want to cut the cable cord will still have to buy their broadband from a cable company where prices go only one way, up. >> guest: so a lot of respect for david carr, but a lot of mistakes in that statement. so first of all, in terms of buying broadband today, consumers are going to have the same choices after this transaction as they had before this transaction. the implication of that particular theory is that somehow this transaction is going to reduce choice for the purchase of broadband. that is just not true at all. number two, according to the fcc 90, about 93% of americans have access to broadband, the wireline broadband today. and 97% of them have a choice of at least two broadband providers. so it's not a single-choice market, again, as mr. carr represents. and unless the notion that

prices on broadband only go one direction which is to go up is, again, true only if you look at sticker price. but with promotions, prices for broadband have been amazingly stable. and when you realize the additional speed and the additional capacity that we have built into our broadband network, today comcast consumers pay 92% less per megabit down of speed that is delivered to their homes tan they did a decade ago -- than they did a decade ago. so sharply declining effective prices in the broadband market. >> host: joining our conversation on "the communicators" is how'd buskirk of -- howard bus curbing of communications daily where he serves as editor. >> you tell us what the timetable is and what seems to be taking a little time in getting that in? >> guest: sure. so we're, the current plan, there's no definitive date for this, but the current plan is to

do our filings and public interest statement and applications for license transfer early in april. my guess would be probably in the second week of april. that's roughly i the time period that we always said this would take. as you know, you have covered transactions before, the public interest statement is a major, major filing, and it does take a considerable amount of time to prepare and to prepare thoroughly. so this is all just part of the mechanics to get the process started at both the fcc and the justice department. >> one transaction i spent a lot of time covering was at&t/t-mobile, and i realize the fact set is totally different here, but we're starting to see a lot of opposition to this. there's social media, and i'm just wondering, i mean, are you concerned about the level of opposition that you're starting to see? >> guest: so, i mean, there's clearly been opposition expressed to the transaction, but i think it is also safe to

say that in in any media transaction that's been up veiled in the last 20 years, there's always been opposition. tends to come from the same group of people whose basic argument is anytime there is any consolidation in the media or telecom space, the sky is going to fall, the end is going to -- the world is going to end as we know it, the internet is going to end, and those predictions have largely been discredited in multiple prior transactions. i think they are equally untrue today. and i'll say, i think i've been struck by the absence of rational, knowledgeable voices in this space coming out in opposition or even raising serious questions about the transaction unlike at&t/t-mobile where you had a really credible and serious economists and antitrust experts and antitrust lawyers saying from the outset what is at&t thinking here?

it's number one competitor acquiring number four if a straight, horizontal transaction, absolutely eliminating or reducing consumer choice. and never any of those voices weigh in in this transaction because of the fundamental differences in the transaction. >> well, you now have the psychological problem of taking one of four national competitors out of the market that you did with t-mobile, but i think a lot of the questions have circulated around the issue of with this acquisition you would control, i think, 40% of the national broadband market, and there's questions, i think there's starting to be questions about when is big too big. i mean, is there some limit to the size of how big one operator can get? >> guest: so, great questions. let me sort of start, i mean, a lot of the opposition from this group of people, as i said, who oppose everything is based upon pig is bad -- big is bad. and whenever you get big, that's

a bad thing. and sometimes big is bad, i will acknowledge that. but be sometimes big is really important, really necessary and really good. and that would tend to be in high capital expenditure industries, in industries where innovation is fast be moving and where you need a lot of investment in r and d and innovation to be able to keep pace. and that's our industry. so the size, the rationale for this transaction is all about scale. we are going to get bigger. i'm not walking away from that, but that is the critical benefits from this transaction will run from that scale; the ability to invest more, to spread the investment and plant in r and d across a larger customer base to enable us to compete against our real competitors. time warner cable's not a competitor, charter's not a competitor, cable vegas' not a competitor. -- cablevision's not a competitor. dish, national company, a, the and, the, global company,

verizon, global company. increasingly, netflix, national quasi-global company. and most of those companies are bigger than we are. they all have a larger geographic reach. most of them are bigger by revenues, by market capitalization and/or by customers. so this transaction's all about increasing competition, creating more consumer benefit be as a result of gaining additional scale. that shouldn't be scary to people, and i think knowledgeable people will look at the transaction and will say, hey, this is a really good thing for consumers to create a near national cable and broadband competitor in order to compete against the national and global players that are shaping this marketplace in the future. in terms of broadband market share, i want to reiterate because it's just so important. if you only look at wireline broadband, then we would have a market share of something less than 40%. but as soon as you factor

wireless in, it's a market share of 20%. 20% is not scary. i'd argue that 40% isn't scary because the relevant market here is not national. the relevant market is for you, for peter, for anyone watching in this show what are my broadband choices. what are the choices where i live in terms of broadband. and there's nothing in this transaction that is going to reduce broadband choice for any consumer in america. >> host: david can cohen, but when comcast bought nbc universal, there were conditions put on by the fcc including some net neutrality conditions. what conditions would comcast accept to get this deal done? [laughter] >> guest: so other than what we've already said about extending the nbc universal conditions including our commitment to abide by the fcc's open internet rules which makes us the only isp in the country that is legally bound by those rules today, other than

extending those conditions to this transaction, we need to wait and see what the regulators say. we really don't think there's a need for additional conditions here. but we are very respectful of the process, and as howard pointed out, we haven't each had a chance -- even had a chance to start the process yet. so when the time is right, we'll have discussions about that with the justice department and the fcc. >> the fcc, for example, the wireless base, there is, there's a psychological thing where they've been pretty clear that they want to have four national carriers. do you think that psychologically they're going to have some kind of perspective on how big is too big and whether -- i know what you were saying about overall market share, but don't you think at some point that they start to draw the line? >> guest: so, again, i have huge respect for the fcc, for the career folks at the fcc, i have a tremendous amount of respect for tom wheeler, the current chair, and all four of the

current commissioners. i think they're going to look at in this based on the law and based on the facts and not on an emotional commitment to something amorphous about, you know, how big is too big. but specifically, the good news, i think, for the american consumers, the good news for this transaction is that the fcc has spent a roth of time -- a lot of time working on the question of how big is too big in the multichannel video marketplace. two extended proceedings about the question how big a share can one company have in this marketplace, both times the commission concluded that they wanted to set a 30% horizontal ownership cap. shouldn't get higher than 30% of the multichannel video marketplace. in both cases the d.c. circuit struck down that ownership cap finding that the fcc's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the facts, unsupported by the law and that, in fact, a single company could have a much higher

market share than what the fcc had determined and still not have adverse impacts on the market. notwithstanding that ruling, which is the law of the land today, we have agreed that we'll divest up to about three million customers to bring us underneath the 30 be % horizontal -- 30% horizontal ownership cap that the fcc twice tried to put into place. so i think the extent there's an emotional attachment to the question is how big is too big, i think we are coming in underneath the level at which that emotional attachment might exist. >> one other question, you mentioned tom wheeler. after the february fcc meeting, wheeler was asked about his meeting with the sprint officials about the possibility acquisition of t-mobile, and one of the things he said was, well, at least they came in, and comcast never did before announcing its deal. was that, was there a reason or was that a mistake not to go see the chairman before?

>> guest: i don't think he quite said at least they came in. >> well, he did say comcast -- >> guest: he said we did not come in. that was a factual -- >> comcast -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> guest: we don't believe that the fcc is in the business of issuing advisory provisions, and i think it was out of respect for the long history we've had with the fcc that it's never in our interest to put an fcc chairman or an fcc as an institution on the spot to ask for an advisory opinion without the benefit of a filing and the full analysis and review of any transaction. so i didn't, i didn't perceive tom wheeler as being critical. i think he was making a factual observation, and as somewhat of a professional in this space, i'd sort of take it as a compliment. and i'm not sure he meant it as a compliment, but i take it as a compliment that, you know, we understood the role of the fcc and the way the process works

and maybe sprint and soft of bank didn't quite understand those rules. >> host: david cohen, one other factor in all of this is congress can. and will you be testifying before congress when they hold some hearings on this? >> guest: so we already have one hearing scheduled so far when wh is the senate judiciary committee hearing which will be april 9th as currently scheduled. i will be the comcast witness at that hearing and, again, we've been to this rodeo a few times before. we toroly respect the -- thoroughly respect the role that congress has in its oversight role of the justice department and of the fcc even though there's no decision making role by congress. be and, frankly, we look forward to the public hearings as an opportunity like appearing on "the communicators" is to make our case and to spell out in very clear terms the strong pro-competitive, pro-consumer benefits of this transaction and the absence of any material risk

of any competitive activity as a result of it. >> host: so many of the articles after the merrier was announced -- merger was announced were about you and your political influence. what did you think about those articles? >> guest: i'm always a little humored by articles like that. peter, you've known me for a long time, it is not my favorite thing in the morning to wake up and see an article about me. but, you know, look, i like government. i like politics. i've been involved in politics and government for 25 years, and the old, that old classic line some of my best friends are elected officials. and they really are. i respect the work that is done, and i enjoy my relationships with them. but i, having been involved this the political arena, i know there are no quid pro quoses, there are no guarantees, there are no preset expectations. any good elected official -- and

i'd like to think that many elected officials who are my friends are all great elected officials -- are going to make decisions on the merits based upon what they believe is the truth based upon the facts and the law at the time that they look at it. and at the end of the day, if an elected official who we have a relationship with this thinks that this transaction is awful for consumers or doesn't agree, doesn't believe the facts that we're presenting forth, they're going to oppose this transaction, and that's their job as elected officials. and i'll respect that judgment just as push as i'd respect the judgment -- just as much as i'd respect a judgment in favor of the transaction. >> i want to ask how much data you anticipate having to file with regulators to get this thing approved. are we talking boxcarloads full of documents? >> guest: i'm sure there will be a significant amount of data. remember, what we file at the justice department is not public. that is a private process. what we file at the fcc is

largely public although confidential and proprietary data may be redacted, and there may be certain things, certain elements that are filed that are not part of the public record. so, you know, in connection with our public interest statement we with will be filing applications for license transfer, and there are hundreds of licenses involved here. so that will be, those will be voluminous. there'll be the public interest statement itself, there will be several affidavits that are attached to the public interest statement and on which the public interest statement relies. so you'll have, you know, hundreds of pages of public filings right on day one. in terms of what follows, that really goes to what the commission asks us to file in supplement which will come a little bit further in the process than with the filing of the public interest statement. >> guest: and sometimes in cases

like this the fcc will seek information from competitors, they want to do sort of a market snapshot. do you anticipate that's likely in this case? >> guest: yeah. so i, again, the justice department -- i think the justice department clearly will talk to competitors, programmers, others in the ecosystem. with the fcc process, what will happen is we'll make our, we'll file our applications and public interest statement, and then this if some amount of time, a week, two weeks, three weeks the commission will issue an order which puts that public interest statement on what's called public notice. and then we'll set a schedule, and there'll be some amount of time for people to file at the fcc and then some amount of time for people to reply to those filings. so you'll actually see the positions, and people will come in and meet with fcc staff and with individual fcc commissioners, and there'll be

exaround today -- ex parte letters filed that disclose the existence of those letters and roughly speaking what was said in those meetings. so all of that becomes part -- >> right. but sometimes they go be beyond that, and they're trying to build more of an industry snapshot because they want to see -- that's where the questions about how pig is too big in the -- >> guest: again, i -- maybe, but not and, remember, a lot of entities, the fcc doesn't even have jurisdiction over to. so most of what happens at the fcc is going to build off of the record that is created as a result of putting the public interest statement on public notice and creating a process for anyone when has any interest in the -- for anyone who has enter in the transaction. i'm not saying they're not going to solicit additional comments, but the fcc process so public, it's very unlike the doj process that almost anything they do they will want to make part of

the public record of this proceeding. >> host: david cohen is the executive vice president of the comcast corporate. he also serves as chair of the trustees of the united states of pennsylvania where he -- the university of pennsylvania where he graduated from law school. he also serves on the national boards of the urban league and la raza. how long has comcast had its eye on time warner cable, is that something you'd answer? >> guest: well, you know, it's interesting, it's pretty easy because we did file our s4 with a proxy, and so i think it is safe to say that we always are interested in looking at possible attractive acquisition opportunities and for probably a year or two before this was announced there were off and on, you know, light conversations about whether it made sense for comcast and time warner cable to be put together. and, you know, over the course of a year there were discussions among multiple players in the industry with comcast and with

others about cable consolidation, most particularly conversations between charter and comcast, between charter and time warner cable, between charter, time warner cable and comcast. and then ultimately, the deal was struck between time warner cable and comcast. so we're very disciplined. in the way in which we think about, the way if which we think about financial transactions. we want to make sure anything we do is digestible from ab operational -- an operational perspective. comcast cable is functioning at the highest level that it ever has and really in a distinctionive way from the rest of the -- distinctive way from the rest of the cable industry, and we would never want to take away from the operational excellence that we have at comcast cable. but with us focused on the future of the company and our balance sheet and, you know, brian loves to ask can the

question we're very can comfortable with where we are today, but five years from now, the enyears from now, what is this competitive landscape going to look like? as i said, the additional scale that comes from this transaction gives us the ability to continue to invest in innovation and r&d to insure that we remain at the head of the class in terms of delivering high quality, very attractive and appropriately priced video, high-speed data and telephone services to residential customers and to business customers. and, you know, brian keeps all of our eyes focused on that ball in a great way, and it's that frame of how do we continue to be competitive and impactful in the space with a balance sheet and financial discipline that michael brungs to the table -- brings to the table and the optional compleans that a neil schmidt and a steve burke at nbc

universal bring to the table. >> host: in the few minutes we have remaining, i want to ask you about other issues comcast is working on right now, peering agreements. is that the wave of the future? >> guest: well, i don't know if it's the wave of the future, but it's the wave of the past. peer agreements and interconnection agreements have been in existence since the birth of the internet. it is how the internet was built, it is how the internet functions. comcast currently there are 40 traffic provider, content delivery networks that are out in the marketplace very aggressively competing to sell access to the comcast network. we have over 8,000 internet edge providers who access our internet through a variety of interconnection and peering agreements mostly derivative through those 40 effectively wholesalers of access to our internet. so internet interconnection and peering agreements, the vast majority of which, by the way,

are settlement-free; that is, they are free connections to the internet. it is how the internet was built up, and it is absolutely impossible to imagine an interwith net that does not continue to rely deny internet that does not continue to rely upon that web of of agreements in a very competitive market and one that is working extremely well from a competitive and a financial perspective. >> somewhat famously, netflix's ceo reed hastings was very critical recently of these agreements, and he said this kind of leverage is effective against netflix which is pretty large, imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future. and my two questions about that are, one, do you expect the fcc to look more closely at this issue and, second, how do you respond to mr. hastings? >> guest: so the first question's easy, i do expect the fcc to look at this. i think they were looking at it before reed hastings spoke and, again, i have tremendous confidence in the fcc and in the current leadership of the fcc,

and i think we'll be able to make a case along the lines that i just made in response to peter's question that this is not a place where government intervention is helpful or necessary. in terms of mr. hastings, i have a huge amount of respect for him. he's built an amazing business. he's a great partner of comcast, and by the way, i think he'd say comcast is a great partner of his because if it wasn't for comcast and the cable industry and the investments we've made in broadband, netflix would not be as successful as it is, and netflix has clearly enabled us to sell more broadband subscriptions. but his argument, with all due respect, on this issue is essentially hogwash. [laughter] it has nothing to do with access to the internet. that has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's not a matter of stronger net neutrality which is what he talked about. the transit market is intensely competitive. as i said, there are 40 companies who are out there selling access to our pipe and to our broadband, and the

history if it ever becomes known will be that it was netflix that was the moving party in terms of making in this deal with comcast. and the reason why was because they wanted to cut out the wholesaler, deal directly with us controlling more than 30% of the traffic on the internet. why do we have to pay a wholesaler? we can get a better deal by going and dealing directly with comcast, and that's exactly what they did. >> host: and finally, mr. cohen, recently the "wall street journal" had a headline that apple ask comcast are exploring a tv deal. didn't see you quoted in this article. what's your response to that headline, and what's the advantage of working with apple? >> guest: well, you didn't see anyone from comcast or apple quoted in that story, and i'm going to just say, you know, we talk to people all the time, and i'm not going to have anything specific to say about the discussions with apple. other than to point out that there is another example of how intensely competitive and fast-evolving the entire

multichannel video space is. here you have a company, they're the most valuable company in the world by market capitalization, a company that generates $40-$50 billion a year in cash flow, and they're working as hard as they can to figure out an entry into this market which will be a new competitor that isn't there now, and it's further underscores why there shouldn't be any material concern about comcast/time warner cable transaction, because there's nothing but more, different and more interesting competition that is coming in this space down the road. >> host: david cohen, executive vice president of comcast, and howard buskirk of communications daily. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider.

>> coming up next, eps administrator gina mccarthy, she testified on her agency's 2015 epa budget request. after that, air force secretary deborah lee james addresses the women and international security organization. and later the senate returns at 2:00 eastern time for a debate on the so-called doc fix legislation involving how much the government pays doctors who treat medicare patients. >> last year virginia state senator kay deeds suffered a personal tragedy when he was stabbed by his mentally ill son. before the incident a judge had issued an involuntary commitment order for senator deeds' son to receive treatment but no beds were available. today at the national press club, senator deeds will talk about his efforts to change the mental health system in his state. you can watch his remarks live starting at