with what were the causes rather? >> i think it is a timely. i found three main causes. my colleagues already found two, but i have a new one. i think the main causes -- [inaudible] too much concern or too much interest in north korea, but to less information or to less facts that journalists can get. because the government don't tell the truth. they think the information is there power. so they used the information. they offer the information when they are necessary. not when we are necessary.

and then the north korean government don't tell -- [inaudible] the second cause, the poor environmental about media industry, as some have already said, too much competition between media companies and between people exist. and too little -- too much space on newspaper and too much time on tv news. so we have to write reports, whatever, everyday, every night. so sometimes we'll have enough time to verify the facts and check. it's reality. and i think some reporters have

the first belief that north koreans do not argue about their article. and then the last code i have, ideological -- [inaudible] i want to bring -- [inaudible] you know, everybody have their own view of north korea. so do the journalists. some are conservatives and some are -- [inaudible] so usually the conservatives want to blame north korea, right? and the progressives want to verify. so when conservative journalists meet, conservative also received

conservative pundit, or and vice versa. progressive meet progresses. i think it is likely to have the kind of -- [inaudible] so yeah, we -- and that -- [inaudible] >> just keep follow up on that from north korea. in the old line there was no -- [inaudible] from north korea even though we made some false reports are but after kim jong-un on take his position,. [inaudible] so if we make any report on the north korea, especially regarding one of the top leaders, and then, you know, one

day or two days later they show this to us. that's very characteristic thing over these days. >> they do have the internet. i mean some of them to have the internet and they do, i can tell you they'd read -- >> does this lead to more caution and care in reporting? does not impact that at all? >> i heard the reporters who cover in the unification ministry. they made us some, the complaints against north korea. because north korea made the -- the reports.

those kind of things are happening right now. >> i have a real taste about -- [inaudible] in 2012, i remember in the summer, in august, i and my company will target up north korea's missile attack. they announced we were attacked you and your company. at the time the six media outlets -- [inaudible] >> right. and actually cyber attack, but i'm not sure. usually be perceive them it was done, cyber attack done by north korea. >> i think the three of us have been outsiders, i guess if

you're not an rok -- so outsiders covering south korean we can agree with that sharp division of an attitude. is also a temporal factor of the mood of the nation. my time being assigned and solis 2001-2004 which was sort of the crest of the sunshine policy. and i got a sense that officialdom which was the kim jong-un government, of course they were stung invest in the success but i thought that sort of steeped into the media that there was a hopeful, that some of the behavior that north korea that could be seen objectively as killing any spirit of sunshine was still sort present in the most positive light because there was a mood of a nation a service supported it, a sense that there was a peace dividend, check to be cached but never get around in the cold war for korea and here's the time. that led to a duty of wishful thinking that sort of tried to prop it up. while at the same time a mood in

japan turned extreme hawkish and here in the united states, 9/11 and it also, the axis of evil. the mood was hawkish and ugly some of that discourse although it shouldn't come it tends to see the into the framing of a story and through the template of the coverag coverage you knou still have to do work and report that there is a certain atmospheric, north korea never tends to of itself in those cases. >> you will always see the way north korea is pursued by comet states, isolated states. a lot of, north korea claims it's not communist anymore. isolated and was talk about north korea's -- helps the genoa summit. you see these kind of pejorative terms and the language, national news agency when they are really

unnecessary. i don't see why -- [inaudible] spin i don't speak for reuters anymore as a left the firm about a year ago but i was part of the debate that took place when kim jong-il was still alive about whether to continue to call it stalinist. a day to day people say know north korea hates it if that's not a recent message in and of itself but is it accurate. i room one editor seniors think whewhen he's dancing present our dig under the pale, and that's okay? my joke at the time was some dissent is a stall and complain? [laughter] fact of the matter was, the mainstream media on the whole mood away from using stalinist as that trapped in amber. because of me this is a country isolated and impoverished so maybe in some respect also as microbreweries, and it's, there's no one size fits all description because when not in the 1950s.

>> i think as american journalist we're always seem to be as objective as possible in our coverage. apparently except when it comes to north korea. this was when the political aspects start to influence journalism coverage of north korea. it's a different situation when it comes to politics affect coverage in south korea. but international community i think north korea by its own actions has returned itself into kind of a rogue state. that little situation has seeped into the coverage as well for a lot of outlets. >> chad, i want to ask you about some of the unique challenges to an organization like nk news, where you are reporting on a daily basis. that's everything you do is report on north korea. but you are also working, a lot of people you're working with are not trained journalists.

how do you adhere to the same standards, or how do you strive -- what are some of the unique challenges -- you do work with a lot of scholars that are not reporting on contemporary issues. so that the variety. it's a great resource for, there's the aggregator portion, also a lot of great tracking devices that you work with specialists to develop. but then there's also a lot of reporting on contemporary events. but again not everyone has the same training. what are some of the unique challenges of? >> you know, we are aware of that. and as a result we've had input from one particular personality very well known.

he is given us guidance. i wouldn't say that we are not up to the reuters a standard or ap in terms of having the resources for that kind of back and forth editing, and having three, for people looking at one piece before it publishes. but we try our best. you know, when we get things wrong, which we have done in the past we call it out. we issue a correction. we will alert people through social media and e-mails think some -- we've got something wrong here. but it would say at the same time i'm very proud of what we done because several of our journalists can they keep getting poached by the likes of reuters, financial times, kbs. so you know we must be doing something right in terms of the quality. >> my prepared remarks and country to what dr. shin was saying about too much, there may

be to me specialist outlets but i was in my earlier i was going to mention nk news as one of the rays of light of the future, its existence and what they're doing at this early stage because presumably they will grow and be valuable. but also just that there is a crop of a young twentysomething, a younger generation of north korea watchers, korea watchers to go to korea, learn korean and the train as if, a korean special and they work in journalism. the outside world certainly needs a lot more of that for korea, for south korea itself as a vibrant economy of 50 million people, cultural products. >> the funny thing is talking about standards, look at all those mainstream newspapers to keep getting it wrong and dropping the ball on north korea. were of the standards? why is there a lack of editorial rigor when it comes to north

korea? >> i think we should probably open up to the floor. we have about just 15, 20 minutes left. i'm going to ask that you wait for the microphone and then please identify yourself. right here in the center. >> hi. carnegie endowment. as a former journalist myself coming north korea in south korea i really wanted to say how wonderful this panel is come and hearing from four of my great journalistic colleagues who i've known and respected for such a long time, so thank you so much for all of your insights into remarks. i have a question for gene and the question come a separate question for dr. jinwook. my question for gene is, basically if you could share some of your tactics and skills

that you've used in your information gathering and to fact finding in your verification that you just north korea versus outside of north korea come in journalism and in your reporting in general. because those of you who aren't journalists in the realm, there are different ways to verify your information. get different outlets. you go to record your primary or go to a roundabout way and as many giveaways you can go about it but you mentioned the whole to source verification before reporting. in a country like north korea did you find yourself having to develop different skills or different tactics to try to get a second confirmation? on more sensitive facts, not just cultural. so aside from just the mayors of being on the ground in north korea, if there were differences and similarities and the skills and tools that you used in your information gathering. and my question to dr. jinwook is come to speak to practically

everybody, all different, people of all different capacities and rules when it comes to north korea, whether it's government, think tanks. i had a question about think tank experts, and mr. lee, you mentioned supplying false information. if you could offer a suggestion now that i'm in a think tank and it applies to me also but if you offer a suggestion to north korea experts in d.c., perhaps if there is as reported here, everybody, if they're certain gaps you have noticed in their understanding. if experts in north korea with a different lens for whatever reason they do it is there something, is there a lens or something about north korea understanding that you wish some experts had warned you about that would perhaps make their assessment more, either accurate

or well-rounded for example? arthur suggestion or certain it north korea that you wish thinking experts in d.c. could work on or something that they're missing, something, if these people knew ask about north korea i think there and think of north korea might be better or more whole? >> thanks. >> just on the point regarding north korea experts can i will let him answer the question as well but i would encourage experts to see people go in and out of the country so you get a better understanding of what the situations on the ground because looking at north korea from the outside can also be very different from looking at it from inside the country. i'm not sure i want to divulge all the secrets to how it is i got my stories by the way, but i would like to say that any good journalist whether inside because you are outside the country is going to get the stores if they do the right

sources. a lot of times journals don't have the time or make the time or don't have the resources to reach out to the people who have the knowledge and information to verify certain pieces are given certain pieces of information. but its extent important obviously to be talking to people in face of cities around the world in various fields and practices to develop the kind of relationship so that they know to trust you and that you know to trust their information. so i spent a lot of time doing that both the forest are working in north korea and afterward. >> actually, for me the second question is to disagree with the answer. i believe -- but i would like to answer the first question because i prepared about that.

actually this is 10 solutions, what is to be done. 10 methodologies to overcome the journalism. although i think journalists to do with north korea have to study, have to think about north korea, we have to be a professional not only for journalism but north korea i think that that is why i understand north korea in universe of north korean studies. and then after having studied north korea in theory i can find methodologies and need to make lots of contents why preserving the principles of the journalism.

so i will just briefly give the title, 10 title, maybe helpful for you all. one is the basics. crosscheck, cross checked, crosscheck. when we crosscheck the information, we can get more information in doing so. and the second, major -- summit from north korea. for example, we can make a -- with the data north korea offe offers. the third, contact north korea directly, like jean. then we have to --

[inaudible] from the society of academia, social sciences or something like that. and the fifth, fact finding. the woodrow wilson center, niku project was in this document. and six, making short work of intellectual -- summit and seventh, making international sources. that is why i in here as a correspondent, washington correspondent for two years.

eighth, a newsgathering in the propaganda image from north korea. yeah, we can find some hidden information in the movies. they gave us through on tv i think. i have some success story in my book. and ninth, persuade with my own experience. it is very persuasive. and the last, provide my own opinion poll, policies. a 10 methodologies with these tactics we can report a lot preserving. >> let me ask so, mr. lee, before you respond, can you do -- are you to unique in that you

really specialize in an area where, i guess my impression of the field of journalism is that it is in some ways like diplomacy where i was talking to ambassador kimberly today and asked him about a former colleague of mine, we were studying korean together. she invested a number of years studying korean and just now in pakistan. in the field of journalism, are you, can you really come in the is can you really specialize in one area to the extent that is being suggested? >> it varies by the organization of policy. in the case of my is 19 years at reuters most overseas, there was a five year limit on posting. after which you could make an argument tuesday that he would be more like a financial, you would lose benefits.

you have gone local or something but i think there is some element of kind of the same with the state department likes to move things around in the sense you just don't want someone getting stale on story. but when it comes to special editions i as much where criticl language is involved, and also source maintenance in a secretive country, some of our china guys, i say hours, but reuters has been for waterbird of time, source information can't be wasted. there's no point in saving to bogotá or some place like that but it varies. there is a need to bore down. i don't think, i mean, you do any busy to go like seoul in my time we have the world cup for soccer and we had plane crashes, and social disasters, contentious politics of all kinds of subsidy to juggle and then there's the whole economy, a couple of reporters and economic newswire. so it varies.

i think on between me aside to do tend to cultivate u.s. specialists. >> in korea are some in media have some special journalism with north korea but number is limited. just a little bit of media, just specialist of north korea. then -- there are a lot of think tanks in washington. and they are doing a lot of good jobs especially the carnegie endowment that continue to working in there. they are doing same thing in north korea. it's very helpful for us to cover north korean news.

and also korea, u.s.-korea institute in size, they usually have one time breakfast meeting in a month. and also they show a lot of the satellite images so we can write a lot of the stories with the images. just if i add one more thing, or make a recommendation for the think tank. why don't you invite north korean officers or professors, academia from north korea the united states? the think tank -- united states government tend to invite north koreans, and then that would be

very helpful. i used along force information from think tank, -- [inaudible] the agencies can a lot of agencies who are selling the north korean information for money. so it's not a neo-think tank. some type of super think tank like agency. >> i think one obstacle to bring north koreans is you have to pay for everything including -- >> united states, lots of money. [inaudible]

>> should be on the bottom. >> we are being recorded. >> i think that's a great suggestion to if you could please talk to government officials in washington to let us do that, that would be great because it shows we're experiencing right now with this administration is all these issue. so a lot of the think tanks want to invite north korean official to washington we can't. so very recently was october 21 on the 20th anniversary, foreign relations had an event with -- oh, shoot, who was at? i think it was north korean -- was ambassador -- i forget.

it might've been the ambassador but a senior north korean official in europe because they are not allowed, the north korean ambassador to are not allowed to leave new york and traveled to washington. so there is that limitation of the boundaries but it could also please help us persuade the government, we would love to invite north korean officials to d.c. >> i was outside of the room so i don't know whether you have already handled this one, but my question is about the mindset, mindset problems. i mean, the idea of problems, or the parity of newspapers or any of the media on the same effect, the same instant there are

always different directions of writing the articles which make the readers confused. this is true on the part of the organization, media organizations but also on the part of the individual reporters. what do you think of the mindset? >> that's an excellent point that dr. shin was touching upon earlier. where you have, depending on the ideological centerpiece of the paper. it's presented differently. did you want to add anything on that? greg. >> thank you, james. committee for human rights in north korea. some of the panelists have mentioned the north korea media reporting has some unchanged

under the kim jong-un regime, at least quicker. of the question for ms. jean lee. we remember the north korean media launched absolutely vicious attacks against justice kirby, chair of the u.n. commission because of his sexual orientation, against president park because of her gender, against president obama because of the fact he is an african-american. if you have opportunities to talk to north korean journalists, provide them some guidance or train, do you ever get a chance to tell them how insane this is, how out of whack it is? it's not even 1950s. its 13th century. do you think they understand? might be doing this because they order to animate be done for domestic purposes. but did you think that some of them at least understand what's going on? to think that some of them at least understand the basics of international human rights standards?

>> well, going to your earlier point about how quickly they respond, as i was saying earlier they do have internet access in certain quarters, including inside, although certain people have to have permission to access the internet as we know. but i do have conversations with north korean journalists on a regular basis. but i just want to go back, i was going to the ap archives a couple years ago was back in new york and the archivist had asked me to look through a piece own coverage turn the korean war which was absolutely amazing, such a trove of incredible information. but one of the things i noticed in our copy back then was that instead of referring to them as north koreans we just call them the reds. so you know, i think north korea is behind the times when it comes to being pc, definitely. but we have this problem in the

west as well, and throughout history. but i do have opportunities at some point to talk to caseinate about the coverage and give them some pointers indeed. i haven't talked to them about their descriptions of president park or president obama, but if i get the opportunity i will try to bring that up spent i've been called part of the reptile media by north korea. i wear it proudly. disc and i don't want to shed. >> we have time for one more question. we will take to. ..

but less of the non-sensationalist. and i am wondering, were there any non-sensationalist subsidy stories that you filed for that say, working for other organizations filed because you would want to say something negative about your own editor comment that in fact your editor just didn't run because there was no interest in not? and if that was the case, was there possible at times to slip in some subsidy of background about north korea in to pay a story covering dennis rodman, sort of like a senate writer and

mayor. that would be the question on that. >> if you could actually pass it the other way. there we go. thank you. >> dennis helprin from u.s. korea institute. i was hoping knowledge you could answer a question i've wondered about. last year columbia journalism school in the korean-american have to read the ortho master's son is going to win a pulitzer prize. so i bet it and then i read about mr. adam johnson, born in south dakota, threw up in arizona, went to undergrad, went to florida. i couldn't see that he spent any extensive time in korea or speaks korean. is bio doesn't indicate that. when i read the book, especially the parts of the object he issue at my former job i interviewed this a key on three or four occasions in tokyo and washington and it seemed to be,

i don't thought the guy a psychic. i've been to north korea, but never pyongyang. but the martyr cemetery. and so, my question is the pulitzer committee is that fools. they gave him a prize. how is he able to write that book when we talk about how hard getting access on north korea and i know part of it with his imagination. but part of it had details that were quite -- that seemed quite perceptive. >> it was a worker fiction. we should keep in mind. and also, anyone could write a book based on what is available in north korean propaganda, which is what he did. it is not reflective of what life is like on the ground. >> again, novelists have a long history of using exchangeable to mirror up in some do it very

well. mr. helprin's comments call to mind the currently boiling controversy including the novelist journalist suki kimmitt, which is on the christmas reading list. she had been criticized by her university employers for having written a book. there's a lot of controversy i'm not privy to what detail she promised not to write. her argument and she came out with it today on her website, which was for background she taught at the pyongyang state of university and technology and wrote an account to she is already a fairly acclaimed writer, so a received a big audience. now people say she wristed north koreans appeared her point was you don't catch any depth without immersion and she treated it as an emotion project and the jury is out on how often that can be done and whether it should be done and what risks it entails for future people go

renamed. compared to what is often available, i think it was probably worth trying to do it that way. >> i think that i've been a debate among journalists. certainly in my circle, a question of if you sign a contract, if you sign an agreement, one of your jobs as a journalist is to protect your sources. >> yeah. i am not privy to how she disputes than a sure the contract compared to the other spirit or other ancillary issues that we don't need to get into here having to do with the christian identity of the teachers themselves and their motives. it is a tough question. she is arguing for the greater good is essentially what she is paying down the road. i haven't read the book. it is an interesting approach. as chad has pointed out and will say again, sometimes it does seem like people are just making it up when it comes to north korea and make it a license because it is an arcane topic

and disorder phantasmagoric aspect of the regime and his propaganda and those sort of things liven things up and somehow a lot of sense get covered in that kind of go well, it is north korea. >> it is very difficult in south korea to figure out the future of north korea. the reaction of people monitored by the north korean orchestrators. they actually, john yang in 2001, with the e.u., we met a lot of people.

but the group of idea, even though we did it in north korea, but we didn't see north korea and the propaganda theme. >> in reference to your question, i mean, we had to reader surveys where we ask what topics you cover more of. the interesting name is when you put these surveys out you put these surveys out, there is wmd, human rights, blah, blah, blog. the thing that continuously comes back as feedback is people want to know about daily life in north korea way more than any other topic or so we have a column in north korea where we have various factors come in and talk about very mundane aspects of daily life. how to date, just the stories,

but it can only really be done accurately outside the country. but it is encouraging and that there is the very strong interest in learning about the reality on the ground. >> we could go on and on, but i'm afraid we need to draw this to a close. i want to thank all of you for coming and spending this time reflecting to what you do. so please join me in thinking. -- thinking. [applause] please thank you for coming today. again, one more time for pyongyang university and ambassador jounyung for helping us organize today. thank you.

[inaudible conversations]

>> a senate committee yesterday look at the nfl's blackout rule, which blocks local tv stations from broadcasting football games in a team's home market if the stadium is not sold out. senator john mccain testified before the senate judiciary committee about a bill he introduced that would remove antitrust exemptions for sports leagues that impose blackouts. and we will hear from an attorney with the nfl and groups representing football fans. >> mr. chairman, i am also supposed to be at a foreign relations committee. would you mind if i went ahead with my -- >> senator mccain, i was going to suggest that the ranking member would agree that you go first and then we would ever opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member grassley, i thank you for allowing me to testify in thank you to senator bloom at all for making this hearing happened to senator blumenthal's

commitment to advocate for consumers have made him a valuable partner to work with on this issue, an area where the rules and regulations far and off and leave consumers holding the short end of the stake and i this morning to discuss blackouts in why the continued use of blackout rules and policies fail to serve the interest of consumers and in this case, loyal sports fans, i will truncate my opening statement just to say the simple fact is that the rules as they are today only serve to benefit sports leagues and their member teams at the expense of the hard-working fans who support them so loyally through their money, time and passion. just last year during the nfl wildcard playoffs, fans of the cincinnati bengals, indianapolis colts and green bay packers came very close to experiencing blackouts when those kids hadn't sold out just days before the kickoff. the blackouts in these regions

r-romeo bird and when at the last minute, local businesses product tickets to bring the total about the nfl's required threshold. mr. chairman, there's something wrong with a situation where the nfl can say to the fans who have made the leap what it is today, you had at her purchase tickets or else. the nfl and his team have benefited including an exemption from antitrust rules, specialized tax status and taxpayer dollars to subsidize multimillion dollar football stadiums. they carry with them a responsibility to the public an obligation to treat loyal fans with fairness. we have been chipping away for sometime. there's still a lot of work to do. this year i'm happy, mr. chairman, to introduce the fans act aimed at eliminating the various causes of sports blackouts. this legislation would continue the nfl and other leagues and i trust exemption on end of

blackout practices including circumstances would including circumstances when standouts during contractual disputes between broadcasters and cable and satellite companies result in blackouts. we would strongly preferred that the leak take the initiative itself and demonstrate leadership by preforming anticonsumer policies and practices. let's be clear, though the league failed to act, we should do everything we can to stand up for consumers by the end of fans act and other initiatives. i look forward from hearing on following panels to finally blow the whistle on sports blackouts once and for all. i would like to say again, you come from the state that is huge as far as worse broadcasting is concerned. i particularly admire your courage on this issue. again, it is just unconscionable to have average fans be deprived of the ability to see an activity in they pay for.

it is a no-brainer in many respects. if we aren't able to succeed, it is frankly a tribe of the special interest over the public interest. i want to thank you for your leadership and the ranking member who as always i have the greatest admiration for and respect. thank you. >> thank you so much, senator mccain. i appreciate you being here. i know it is a busy day and busy time of our closing day of the session and i want to express my personal thanks for your leadership and courage in sponsoring this bill and working with me on it and i look forward to continuing our work together. i know you have another meeting and certainly you should feel free at any time to leave, despite the powerful and riveting remarks that i'm about to give, i know you will find it difficult to break away. >> thank you via thank you.

a victim by senator grassley to come to arizona for the super bowl and join many of his can insurance who are smart enough to spend the winter with us. thank you. [laughter] >> thank you, senator matt cain. we are going to give opening remarks and unfortunately we are going to have to take a recess because of the votes on going right now. we will come back at the end of those votes. we hope not too long from now to continue the hearing at that point with the remainder of the witnesses. i will give my opening remarks and senator bradley would get his. as senator mccain said so eloquently, americans love sports and they deserve to see them on their terms, not on the terms prescribed by the professional sports league in blacking out what they think americans should see rather than what americans want to see on their terms.

the competitive teams of professional football, baseball, hockey and basketball leagues represent a rich and vibrant part of our american culture. they contribute immensely to what makes america the greatest country in the history of the world to professional sports leagues generate billions of dollars, thousands of jobs and critical economic act to be in multiple industries. the super bowl is in fact the highest-rated event on television and last year, the nfl playoffs collectively accounted for the 10 most-watched sporting event for the entire year. so these games are part of what makes america great. most of these games were carried on free over the air television and i believe we have to keep it that way. sports fans power this media and merchandising juggernaut a purchasing tickets and merchandise watching games on tv

in supporting their teams through thick and thin. these billion dollars professional sports league survive almost half of their revenue from likeness and tv rights to table, broadcast and regional sports networks. some estimate those rights cost upwards of $17 billion a year. a large bill, a large cost that is increasingly passed on to consumers in the form of higher monthly rates for cable and we have evidence that this very table when we have had a recent hearing on some of the proposed mergers. sadly, in return, fans of the public are often treated like a fumbled football, sometimes even a kicked football when places like oslo, new york failed to sell out a 74,000 person stadium, the game is blacked out

for local fans. when powerful cable companies and broadcasters failed to reach an agreement, it is often the threat of holding sports programming hostage that is used to negotiate higher fees. and by the way, higher rates for consumers. even the internet can't escape the blackouts. when fans live too close to their favorite baseball team, but not close enough to actually watch them on television, daily face online blackouts that forced them to drive to the next city to catch a game. these blackouts are loathed by fans and rightly so, hated by consumers and even reviled by most of the industry stakeholders in the business of television. the good news is we can do something about it. the nfl, the nba comedy mlb and nhl received tremendous

assistance, huge benefits from the congress in putting their brands, their sport and advertising before the american people. this public assistance take several forms, but chief among them is beyond tie trust by the major sports leagues. essentially, every major sport the egg prevents coronation and price-fixing. sports leagues are an exception, almost a unique exception to this antitrust rule. in the broadcasting -- sports broadcasting act of may 261, congress granted special exemptions from the rules that governor other companies, permitting the professional sports flicks to coordinate fixed prices for negotiating outcast rights. the country affords these teams their special status because of their special role in american culture. but that doesn't give them the right to abuse this privilege

and the government certainly shouldn't endorse abusive behavior. the public benefits, the public trust. the fcc recognized that this would make a red flag this september on the nfl's anti-fan blackout policy. chairman wheeler of the sec announced at that meeting, and i'm quoting, federal government should not be a party to sports teams keeping their fans from viewing the games. i am grateful that all five fcc commissioners joined together in a bipartisan vote and repealed their blackout rule as i have called for they are doing along with senator mccain, senator brown, congressman higgins and many more. but despite the fcc's actions in september ,-com,-com ma sports leagues in the nfl in particular retain the power to blackout games through their private

contract agreements. i believe these blackout policies are anti-fan and anticonsumer because they disregard the public trust that the leagues have because of this special benefit and public advocates that day was the and because of the trust they had to their fans and the teams. moreover, these policies are in a front to the direct and indirect investment made by federal and local governments that have provided tax exemptions and public transportation, infrastructure stadiums and exemptions as i mentioned from antitrust. that is why it joined with senator mccain to introduce as 1721, furthering access and networks come in the fans act and that is why i have joined in seeking support from my colleagues and i believe that support is growing, that we have

momentum on our side. this bipartisan bill that leverages the antitrust exemption that joins against the elimination of these blackout policies. let me put it very simply. unless -- unless the leagues and blackouts, there will no longer be exempt from the nation's antitrust laws when they negotiate their billion dollars television contract. the fans act would remove language in the fallout that allows the nfl to maintain their local sports blackout policies when stadiums deal to sell out. it would require the lakes to instruct anyone carrying their game that they can no longer hold sports programming hostage for higher fees and cable rates and they would rate more life games available on the internet. i want to make one thing clear. this bill does not use the heavy

hand of government to force the sports league to do anything. it doesn't require them to and blackouts with the threat of fines or a force of inaction. it does and the blank check on the government to the leagues and it takes away congresses implicit endorsement of blackout policies. fundamentally, it represents a bargain to the league. they can continue enjoying their exemption from existing law if they treat him fairly. if they want to continue their blackout policies, the government won't stop them, but they will no longer get the special public and if it's an protection from antitrust enforcement that they currently have. i want to know note particularly that they particularly that the spirit of a fact-finding mission. we are obviously not going to pass this bill out of the senate or congress this year, that i

look forward to a lively debate and senator mccain and i are open and committed to working with all of the stakeholders on their ideas for changes before reintroducing this bill again next congress, which we expect. thank you very much and i yield to senator grassley. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. you've been burrowing your explanation and purpose of the legislation. i particularly complement to you for taking on a strong, powerful voice that you are taking on and that is what has to be done if you make changes sometimes. i think the witnesses who are here and work for word to your testimony. i think we can all agree in one fundamental notion. no one likes sports blackout. the sports leagues and their member team don't like them. television providers don't like

them and of course sports fans definitely don't like and. a particular issue in iowa is that we don't have any major league teams, said the entire state one way or another falls within the blackout territory of six different teams are the cardinals, the royals, twins, brewers, cubs and white sox. i can tell you the periodic lockouts are a very frustrating experience for the fans of my state. so there is no question that lockouts are an exasperating experience and disfavored. the question is how best to the demise blackouts and minimize while protecting the rights of private parties to negotiate with each other at arms length. on that note, i will add one other comment. as we all know, the federal communications commission voted unanimously in september to eliminate the sports blackouts.

as a general matter, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of mandating policies that parties are otherwise free to negotiate privately. at the same time however, i think we need to be mindful of the flipside of the same coin. more specifically, as a general rule, the federal government should be in the business of mandating which provision should not be included in private contracts. at a time such a step is proposed, we should tread carefully. so the chairman just said we are beginning discussions on this in consideration of it and i'm happy to join in the dialogue. i think the witnesses once again and look forward to the hearing as a start of the dialogue. >> thanks, senator grassley for your excellent remarks. we are growing -- i apologize, take a recess now. i want to thank the witnesses for your patience. we will be back literally as

soon as we can and will take the second panel at that time again. my thanks and apologies. we will be right back. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> -- in order to have been. we have done so on the theory that without blackouts, fans might stay home and watch the game on tv of the ticket sales necessary to support the team might dwindle as a result. the economic assumption has now been called into question the proponents of the bill argue that there is no evidence to support it. fans, they say, will attend games at the ticket price is

right, regardless of whether they could also watch the game at home as an alternative you at the moment, however, i am not yet prepared to support the f.a.n.s. act without additional study in my part. i am particularly concerned the bill might unsettle legitimate contractual expectations of the sports leagues bargain for the broadcasters without an appropriate phaseout. you can also like to take a closer look on the economic evidence on both sides of this issue. but i agree that the issue certainly merits the attention of congress. professional sports leagues have asked for and have received exemptions from the competition laws that most other american businesses are required to comply with. those antitrust laws are an important and effective tool for showing free markets and protecting low consumer prices. as ranking member of our antitrust subcommittee, i take a keen interest in ensuring that our competition laws are

functioning well and having their desired effect of protecting competition. for that reason, imo open to examining whether the professional sports leagues and their current forms current forms on sound justifications and if not, how congress might act to modify those exemptions. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. i'm going to ask the next panel to come forward and take your seats. actually, before you take your seats, why don't i swear human, which is that you know, the custom of this committee. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. by way of introduction, let me give a brief bio of each of the witnesses today. william blake is the chief of the media bureau at the federal

communications commission. he has served as the dtv transition coordinator for the fcc, counsel to the administrator at the environmental protection agency and principal deputy legal adviser at the u.s. department of state. he was also a partner willmar cutler pickering, halen door, david goodfriend is the founder and chairman of the coalition, largest multi-issue of the policy organization for fans. he is currently the president of goodfriend government affairs and served as deputy staff secretary to president clinton and to mediate legal adviser to commissioner suzanne mass at the fcc. he also previously served as vice president of law and public holiday at this now for you sally greenberg is the executive director of the national consumers league. she testified numerous times

before congress on consumer protection issues from 2001 to 2007. she worked at the consumers union. she served for many years on the board of directors at the alliance for justice and the halt, an organization that focuses on protection of consumer price in their interaction with lawyers and the legal system. direct waldron is a partner at cutting him berling, representing a range of technology companies online, social and media come needs and communications client before the fcc, the ftc and congress. before, jerry served as the senior counsel on the house subcommittee on telecommunications and worked on the committee staff for over 10 years. thank you all for being here today. let's begin with mr. lake. >> good morning, senator blumenthal and senator lee.

i am bill lake, chief of the at the federal communications commission. i am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the recent fcc action to eliminate our sports blackout rules. a bit of history may provide useful context for action. our sports blackout rules specifically prohibit a cable and satellite operators are airing any sports event that had been blacked out on a local webcast tv station pursuant to a private blackout policy adopted by sports league here at the commission adopted a sports blackout rule for cable in 1975, finding that the move is necessary to ensure that cable importation of distant signals would not reduce ticket sales and let's leave the sports leagues to refuse to sell the rights to their offense to distant stations, which could in turn reduce the availability of sports programming to tv viewers, which was the principal concern of the commission.

we later adopted similar rules for satellite carriers and open video systems. as you know, the commission voted unanimously to eliminate the sports blackout rules on september 30 of this year, finding that they were unnecessary and outdated today. the repeal of the rules took effect on november 24th. the commission's actions followed an open and transparent public rss that began in 2011 with a sports fan coalition filed a petition for rulemaking with the commission. after careful review of the comments we received in the proceeding, the commission found that significant changes in the sports industry since the rules were adopted had eliminated the justification for the rules. first, for the nfl, the only lake for which the commission's sports blackout rule continued to be relative. ticket sales are no longer the primary source of revenue.

the massive popularity of pro football means that the primary source of income for the nfl has shifted to television with tv revenues, the main source of revenue approaching $6 billion this year. total nfl button is reportedly exceeded $10 billion in 20 or team. fatcat, the increased popularity of nfl games has brought fans to the stadium that make it exceedingly rare. in 1975, almost 60% of nfl games were blacked out because they failed to sell out. last year, only two of 256 regular-season nfl games, less than 1% were blacked out and no games have been blacked out so far this year. moreover, in recent years, blackout that affected only a few nfl markets such as buffalo,

cincinnati and san diego. finally, the commission determined that the impact on consumers on eliminating its sports blackout rules would be minimal. the nfl's existing contacts with the broadcast networks extend through 2022, keeping games on over the air stations to release that timeframe. the commission found it is highly unlikely that the nfl would find it more profitable to move its games from over the air stations to pay tv in the absence of the sports blackout rules. in conclusion, i would like to note that i'm limiting my testimony to the commission's decision and its rationale. elimination of our roles does not prevent the sports leagues from continuing to have a sports blackout policy and the commission does not take a position on whether congress should eliminate or modify an existing antitrust exemption to

have such blackout policies and worse place. again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you, mr. lake. mr. goodfriend. >> thank you, senator blumenthal, senator lee and senator klobuchar. members of the committee, we appreciate the fact you have an idea of sports is to testify on the side they act. my name is david goodfriend, founder chairman of the coalition, the largest multi-issue and advocacy organization public policy arena. founded in 2009 where tens of thousands of members across the u.s.a. and are the bipartisan, diversities and board of directors. the government should not subsidize their support anti-fan at the knees by professionals or sleep. when a sports league receives a public benefit, the skin should get a fair return or the subsidy should go away. that is why the coalition is proud to have led the successful

at per and the blackout rule. the blackout policy prohibits a broadcaster when tickets don't sellout 72 hours before kickoff. the fcc rules you just heard ulster the anti-fan policy by pain companies likewise to impose such blackout spears sports fan coalition on with friends from nashville to emulate and others at first culminated in a five to zero vote this past september or he to close the blackout rule and they couldn't have done it without senator blumenthal from you and senator mccain and others. as a thank you for that. that was a great moment for fans. the problem is the nfl's policy remains in place. the nfl should end its policy once and for all, effective immediateimmediate ly. fancy local blackouts and you know this. listen to to fancy told the fcc how they feel.

dennis nine 9/11 were tonawanda, new york said quote, i'm a disabled vietnam vet. i also suffer from poster that stress disorder. i am unable to attend the bills games because of my disabilities. watching the bills on tv is one thing i look forward to every year as well as to help me with a ptsd. the split on tv and the others who gave for our country, close quote. mary bash said for people like me disabled, the blackout rule is discrimination against people with disabilities. i can't physically attend the live team in any arena. a second home with only the television to bring the sports arena thing else i enjoy watching. the nfl does not reflect the times today. technology has changed. where do they think all of that money comes from quiet it is that the consumer that buys products from advertisers.

it is that the taxpayer who built the arenas. it asked the american citizen who hopes to foot the bill, close quote. real, submitted to the fcc. we saw economists from stanford, michigan and other institutions submit detailed explaining why the blackout policy doesn't serve its stated purpose of getting more fan since the. listen to other professional sports leagues. we submitted data depositions from the commissioner of ace bob ,-com,-com ma commissioner of hockey said recovered of our blackout policy because it doesn't work in the fcc agreed with all of this and the goblet of their own sports blackout rule. now the nfl should do the right thing. listen to economists, other leg, commissioners come fcc, members of congress and the local blackout policy. congress should pass the f.a.n.s. act. the antitrust statutes currently shield lakes from liability when

imposing local blackout and the f.a.n.s. act would dispose of this get out of jail free card. we also believe they should be used in sponsoring contractual disputes between companies. they take care of that, too. finally, i would like to make clear the sports fan coalition puts forward as many games as possible and free over the air broadcast tv. the migration of sports has created problems. look at los angeles or time warner cable took over and went top in like 70% could not watch their dodgers play in a great season because they did not time warner cable. when major league baseball and the l.a. dodgers have refused him or subsidization, fans have a better access to the dance and putting them on broadcast is one way to do that. a revised a fan site could require a certain amount of games on free over the air tv so

that fans have access to at least some games. thank you you look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you for image, mr. goodfriend. it is greenberg >> yes, good morning another blumenthal, senator lee, senator klobuchar and senator franken. my organization, the national consumers league was founded in 1899, the nation's pioneering consumer organization and our nonprofit workers in the united states and abroad yet we very much appreciate your infighting that could tumor point of view for this very important bill s. 1721. i'm delighted to see fellow minnesotans here because i grew up going to minnesota vikings games in minnesota twins games here i am an avid fan. i love watching professional sports, but like me, millions of americans to find themselves in part by the teams they support. however, the professional sports leagues are also multi-billion dollars businesses that benefit

from a multitude of public subsidies. these take the form of exemptions from federal antitrust laws, tax breaks and federal funding or stadium, infrastructure support for manasseh pali blackout policies that benefit lakes in our broadcast partners. as the lakes enjoy huge tax break some of their right to question what they receive in return for the public and it is. for example, harvard university study recently calculated 70% of capital cost of national football league stadiums have been provided by taxpayers, whether they are sports fans or not. it's one he told bloomberg said he estimated the tax exemptions on interest paid by the municipal bonds issued for sports facilities cost the treasury $146 million a year. over the life of the $17 billion of extent that issue to build stadiums since 1986, taxpayer studies to bondholders will

total $4 billion. lavish public subsidies for stadiums aren't the only way taxpayers subsidize professional sports. the rising cost of acquiring sports programming is also cable bills have gone out that more than three times the rate of inflation since 1998 due to the widespread practice of channel bundling the increasing cost of sports programming pass to a cable and satellite subscribers in the regardless of whether they actually watch sports. sports programming costs are a major driver of the fight between broadcasters and cable television providers over retransmission fees that contributed to the increasing number of programming blackouts. in return for the government largess, lavished on sports leagues, the essential services are cut to subsidize publicly funded stadiums. cable and satellite fans are

angry or bills go up due to ever higher cost than the games even make it on air. the game is clearly raked in favor of the national sports leagues and taxpayers get the short end of the stick yet it is indeed time for congress to step up and begin to level the playing field and that is why ncl is proud to sponsor the f.a.n.s. act. it would rain and cable rate hikes, reducing incentives to blackout in and giving consumers access to online game broadcast. to elaborate, the bill condition sports league antitrust exemptions on the requirement that the partners games as a result of contractual disputes with cable and satellite companies. ncs believes they should not be used in ponds. does the bill helps to reduce the incentives to use blackouts as a negotiating tactic and that

programming interruptions. second, the bill emanates the exemption for vocal blackouts in the event games do not sell out. and it markets such as buffalo, many have larger stadiums, but smaller populations and bass are less likely to sell 85% of their seats. and still, living in teams categories by conditioning the antitrust exemptions on the provision of alternative platforms like the internet. this would particularly help major league baseball plans to live in states like arkansas, connecticut, nevada ,-com,-com ma oklahoma that are overlapped by separate clubs in their home television territory than that is subject to local blackouts. the bill collects an historical anomaly by bringing major league baseball under the auspices of the clayton antitrust act and the same way the nfl, nba and nhl are currently treated.

in doing of the statutory conditions placed on existing antitrust exemption by this bill would also apply to mlb. i would like to reiterate our strong belief the f.a.n.s. act shows the preferential policies like antitrust exemptions that professional sports leagues and joy at the expense of taxpayers and sports fans alike. thank you very much. >> thank you for a much, but his greenberg. >> of money, senator blumenthal, senator klobuchar and senator franken and members of the committee. my name is jerry walter and i am outside counsel to the national football league on television related matters. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the nfl's commitment alone among the professional sports league ensuring that all of its games are available across the country via free over the air television. for more than five decades from five decades come to sports by casting has been a key component in the strategy, enabling the nfl, major league a file, nba

and the nhl to put their games on breakfast television. in the nfl's case, the league has agreements to put all 256 regular-season games and all playoff games on free tv. that is the claim that no other sports we can make about all this playoff games. let alone all the regular season games. i games. quite fit with the sports broadcasting act is working to benefit fans in the public interest. for this reason it attends to take a business decisions would ultimately be harmful to fans. for contact committee at the strategy serves three main goals. first because nfl teams generally play once each week, the league tries to make each game a special event and obtain the widest possible audience for those games. sakic, the league wants to encourage strong fan support in each local market. and third, the broadcast television agreements generate

substantial revenues that are shared equally by the 32 nfl clubs. plus, clubs of buffalo, green bay or minneapolis or see the same amount from tv as teams in the new york city and chicago media markets. to promote these goals, the nfl has long maintained a blackout policy, which is incorporated into the league contract with the broadcast networks. the hallmarks of nfl games are full stadiums, excited crowds in competitive games. sold-out games improve the experience both were fans in the stadium and for those watching on television. increased attendance at games also help support local jobs, businesses and taxpayers in the leagues business judgment is that it urged the subject as well. some may disagree with the lakes television policy, strong television ratings matched with high attendants demonstrate that the policy is working. the debate about blackouts of

nfl games can be seen a context. nfl game blackouts are at an all-time low. last season, only two games were blacked out across the league. he sees then, there have been no blackouts. so over the past seasons and two thirds with almost 450 nfl games played, there have been just to blackouts. this reduction reflects adjustments in the nfl blackout policy the league has made over the years to promote both game attendance and viewership. the sports broadcast act encourages broad-based gain viewership. congress passed the law in 1961 to enable weak agreements with rock cats networks sharing of revenues. under the sba, the nfl has created the most proconsumer television planned in sports today. the nfl has maintained it commitment to broadcast television, even extending its

contracts to 2022 with its broadcast partners despite the dramatic change in the broadcast industry and frankly transpired the other sports leagues on free tv and towards television. the f.a.n.s. act would ultimately harm fans by creating uncertainty around the future of sports on free television. a possible result would be to migrate popular sports programming for an free broadcast television tv. this committee has long cautioned against such a move. it has untenable conditions on the antitrust provisions. the antitrust exemption is third-party such as a television station in a cable or satellite company have a contract dispute. get the nfl is not a party to those contracts and is absolutely no control over the outcome of these disputes.

no business can plan its operation under laws that could change at a moment noted, due entirely to the actions of their hearties. in conclusion, nfl television policies they possible by the fda wringer wide range of outstanding television content each week. the nfl and the other sports leagues practice televising games on free over the air television is made possible by the sba. these arrangements benefit fans entering the public interest, that the underlying policy should not be audited. thank you to take any questions. >> thank you, mr. waldron. i have questions that i am going to pose to you and then yield to my colleagues and i am particularly grateful to senator klobuchar, head of the antitrust subcommittee of the judiciary committee for being here today. you mentioned the uncertainty of fans.

the reason for their uncertainty right now is the potential deprivation they suffer from blackouts. there may have been few this year, but the potential for blackouts is what creates the apprehension that they may be deprived of access to these games. so i wonder whether you have additional evidence that was not presented to the fcc that you have to present to this committee or whether it is your contention that the fcc failed to consider the evidence that you present it in reaching its conclusion. >> senator, i have two comments. one, it was mentioned that a sports economist provided a study. actually, dr. hall center also submitted a study saying that an important reason why the nfl keeps games on broadcast television is because it is able

to control its product. there is conflicting evidence before the fcc. i respect what mr. lake said that the fcc made one conclusion. the nfl business judgment is that this is very important, but i think it misses a larger point that senator, with respect to your constituents, they have seen every giants game this year, last year from a year before coming here before that all the way back to the early 1990s. if you like the nick's games, all of the next games are on cable television. they have to pay $80 a month to get the next games, rangers games ended in almost all all of their yankees games. but they have seen every one of the giants games and i daresay every one of the jets games going back the same timeframe. for for recognized there a blackouts of nfl games. they are few and far between. the nfl's commitment to broadcast television making stands out among the other sports leagues. >> at the threat continues to exist in connecticut and around the country that they will be deprived of access to those games and if the reality is they

are seeing the games anyway, why continue with the threat of black in them out quite it seems to me that your contention is the blackout policy is essential to your business policy? in fact, it is the antitrust exemption that is essential to your business policy. without the antitrust exemption, you wouldn't be able to negotiate the enormously lucrative rockettes agreements you have and the revenue-sharing that you enjoy and as a condition for receiving that very public and unique benefit, why not eliminate the threat to connecticut consumers and others around the country, fans across the united states that simply because of a failure beyond their control of big business interests, to reach an

agreement, they may be deprived of access quite >> i recognize the sports broadcasting act given exemption to other sports leagues and the nfl has used that exemption very responsibly by putting overwhelmingly its games on television. to be clear, major-leaguea fall testified last year before the senate judiciary committee. will the reason why the world series is on fox television is because of the sports broadcasting network. so it ensures that broadcasters and i would say if you look at the nfl in comparison to the other leagues, the league has used its antitrust exemption very responsibly by putting so many of its games, all of its regular-season games and all of its playoff games on free television. i acknowledge that last year there were two, this year there have been none so far, they are few and far between. the overwhelming number of games are on television. we think that it's responsible use of the sba.

>> the overwhelming number of games are also sold out in the stadiums, are they not quite >> yes, that is correct. >> why the blackout policy quite >> over the long-term, it does serve to promote the benefit. in the late 1990s, 25% of games were still being blacked out. >> aren't there other actions that the teams regularly take during the 2012 season at the miami dolphins bought tickets to prevent a blackout for seven of its eight home games, the jacksonville jaguars have covered approximately 10,000 feet that ever banfield since 2005 reducing their stadium capacity from 76,000 to 67,000, the teams regularly take action to fill their stadium, giving away tickets, selling them for less than face value,

so was to avoid blackouts. >> senator, i view that activity as very pro-fan. i think it is evidence that the clubs understand. the nfl doesn't want blackouts. senator lee and senator grassley made that point in their opening statements. no one likes blackouts and that includes the nfl. the examples you have shown our folks trying to respond in the league adjusted the policy to be more responsive. we think over the long-term it has served in the business judgment of the leak that is sergey. asked that shows, we take extraordinary action to avoid them. >> i will take this action with you in the other witnesses, but now turn to senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. thank you two other witnesses. i thought i would start with you, mr. waldron. the blackout was put in place in 1861. a separate quite >> the sports broadcasting act was adopted in 1961.

>> okay, good. most of the money made by sports tickets has been pointed out in the testimony at that time came from ticket sales. today nfl games are consistently a amount of most popular programs are in my state where we are proud of the vikings and with that comes a significant increase in revenue as pointed out by the other witnesses for the league. the cost of tickets is also significantly increased. it is a big expense. to sports teams needs the same they did a century ago? if not, why do we still have the same role quite >> no question those facts are all right. this is in the record. it may surprise people that as much as a quarter of the revenue of the nfl comes from ticket sales. ticket sales remained important. nfl has the balance. they want popular games on television and they want a stadium that is full. you can imagine a scenario in which the other sports play 162

games are 80 games, so every game is not a special event. in the nfl they make every game is special event, so they try to balance maximizing the full stadium capacity with the engaging a stance on television. it is a balance in their frankly adjusted the balance over the years. we do think the blackout policy strikes the balance correctly by encouraging fan attendance and also encouraging fan engagement over television. >> thank you. mr. lake, the sec unanimously voted from airing sports events blacked out on a local station. what prompted the fcc to change its stance and is there anything preventing the nfl or other sports leagues from cable and satellite offers now quick >> what prompted the commission's action was the change in the sports industry since 1975 we adopted a rule. principally the two fax the senators have noted in 1975, the

principal source of revenue for the nfl with ticket sales and over 60% of the games failed to sell out. those are both reversed. tv revenue is a source of revenue for the nfl and most games are sold out. what the commission concluded from outlays that there's very little risk with the elimination of the fcc's rule would lead the nfl to move its games from broadcast television to pay-tv. the object of our role from the outset was not to maximize the revenues of the sports leagues or the broadcasters, but to try to protect the rider viewers to see games. at the time there was a tactic, it was thought that the rule would help keep games on broadcast tv by eliminating the risk that if the cable operator, for example, imported a

different station, that might lead the leagues to fail to sell the games to that distant station in more viewers will lose the right to see the games. we concluded because of the changes in the industry at risk no longer existed and therefore the rule is outdated. i should note though that to your last question, the commission's action simply eliminates the support for the private black out policies that was previously in the commission's rules. that action does not prevent the leagues from continuing to implement their blackout policy as a private matter without fcc's support. although, as i say, today blackouts are increasingly uncommon, the risk of blackouts continues. >> thank you here does anyone want to add anything to that? the witnesses? mr. goodfriend. >> thank you, senator. this discussion would be helped

by understanding how we got the law and the first place. talking a lot about adding trust exemption as though it has always been there. let's talk about how we got here. in 1953, the united states department of justice antitrust division succeeded in litigation with the nfl on antitrust. are you commenting -- >> yes, we are commenting. it might not have been your smartest move given that the senators here are from minnesota. >> i was realizing that i started talking. but we give you brats are. >> we're not at all distracted, rb? [laughter] >> i was just thinking of senator feingold and kohl. they would've enjoyed that. >> but we are on here now. keep on answering. >> i love the color purple. thank you.

so 1953, u.s. versus nfl, the department of justice succeeded in winning litigation against the nfl for violating antitrust laws. why? there were four things the court pointed to that was going on. number one, the leak restricted the broadcast of games locally during a home game. number two, the leak restricted the broadcast of an away game in the home markets. number three, same restrictions with respect to radio and number four, a kind of blanket power given to the nfl commissioner to restrict our cast overall. the court said no. three of those four violate antitrust laws. one, the restriction of broadcasting games locally during a home game, the judge allowed to stand. i was 1953. in 1960 coming to football league, the american football league came along and did a deal with abc television networks

whereby you pulled all the teams broadcast rights ended one nationwide deal. so the nfl tried to do the same thing. enter the same type of deal with cbs. no said the court heard that violate their 1953 order. so what did the nfl do? became right to this committee. the united states congress. they said we need your help. how can it be fair that the afl get to pool its broadcast rights but we don't? that is not fair. and congress agreed. the act was expressly designed to overturn the 1953 eastern district of pennsylvania decision while at the same time, preserving that courts decision to allow local blackouts. that is how we got here. it was to overturn a case brought by the united states department of justice during the eisenhower administration. so what does that mean for today's discussion? accords in 1953 and congress in

1961 both premised their decision on the importance of local ticket sales, on the importance of maintaining the economics of the leak. that was over half a century ago. it is vertically legitimate for this to read this if the statute and ask to the same economic principles apply today, we sports fans coalition believe they don't. moreover, any time the government gives a gift to a professional sports league, and is perfectly legitimate to ask, should any conditions be attached to that gift? does the gift still makes sense? it is after all a gift from the american people to a private multibillion dollar's organization to get an antitrust exemption for your type of business practice. >> thank you are a match. my time has expired. >> senator franken. >> mr. goodfriend, instead of blackouts during retransmission contract disputes, it is

especially concerning to me because that could potentially affect fans of any major sports league. such contracts -- contracts negotiations seem to be growing increasingly contentious each year. last year, for example, negotiations between time warner cable and cbs led to a month long blackout programming that affected millions of consumers and as you know, comcast propose the acquisition of time warner cable has been reviewed i.d. fec and the department of justice. is a deal that would unite the two largest cable operators in the country and in my view as i've made very public should be good. i think it is simply a bad deal for consumers. i don't believe it would improve service or choice and i believe that it will result in higher

prices. a combined comcast time warner cable company would exert particular power in the sports programming market. mr. goodfriend, you've noticed both companies have long track records are trying to prevent individuals who don't subscribe to cable viewing games. can you explain what that means and tell us what you think the implications of the proposed acquisition deal would be for sports fans. >> thank you, senator franken. let me note that the sports fans coalition is on record opposing the merger of a petition to deny the fcc to that effect. your question regarding the effect on sports. my learned friend from covington and burling mentioned how holzinger, the economist who opposed us in the sports blackout proceeding, interesting to note, mr. singer also authored a paper that we cited extensively in our pleading that said when a cable company owns the regional sports net work,

the tendency is for fans who don't subscribe to that cable company to not be able to see the game. that is the trend as opposed to letting independent regional sports network that has carried more widely on providers. mr. singer and his colleagues went on to conclude that the bigger the local cable company the worst problem to and that made sense intuitively. if i give up revenue by not sharing sports review, the smaller you are, the bigger i have nonetheless a lawsuit that is to me. that was the conclusion of singer at all. in context of the merger, the proposed merger to comcast and time warner cable, take a market like los angeles. los angeles today has time warner cable annecy mentioned earlier, time warner cable owns a regional sports network. the merged entity would require roughly a quarter million new subscribers. what does that mean? a local cable company getting bigger.

as a result, the trend we see today when time warner cable owns dodgers games and won't see too at the games are seen by everybody, it is just going to get worse of the cable footprint gets bigger. as well as sports fans coalition has chosen to oppose the merger. >> thank you. i'm going to give him a little different subject, but i think mr. waldron, this is addressed to you. we have spoken a lot today about the significant taxpayer support and public and if it's leagues, including the nfl and i think as a country, we provide such enthusiastic sports professional competitive teams in part because iraqi knives all the ways in which they can enrich our culture. yet we have a team in the nfl that continues to call themselves by an offensive name, a racial slur. the use of the name is hurtful

and insulting to so many people in our country, including in my home state of minnesota, which where we have a large and vibrant native american community. i have heard from tribal leadership in my state who understandably find the same offensive and harmful, as do i. a simple step would be for the nfl to address the need for a name change. what is the lead considering doing at this time quite >> senator, i recognize the importance of your question. i'm not in in a position to answer it. i advise the leak on television matters, but i will consult with them and get back to within answer. >> i would appreciate that. thank you here in mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken. just to continue with some of what we were discussing and i think mr. lake address part of

this issue, mr. waldron, i guess it is your contention that the fcc failed to consider certain evidence and therefore reached the wrong conclusion by five to zero vote? >> sure. i am not embarrassed to say that. i think it is an assessment of uncertainty. .. cannot prove that he's right anymore that i can prove that mr. lake is wrong when he said the fcc's prediction was changing the sports blackout rule will have no effect on what the nfl does with respect to it. their judgment in looking at the evidence and looking at the sports economist study and the dr. singer study, they said, no, that was their judgment looking at the evidence. the nfl has been at this for 50 years. it actually wants to maximize the number of people in the stadiums. >> things have changed over that 50 years. >> i understand that, and they watch this every week.

the nfl watches this every week. >> isn't the present policy in effect to the disadvantage of certain cities over others, certain fans over others. for example, the ralph wilson stadium in buffalo represents 28% of the population in this city, that stadium can hold 28% of the population compared to the capacity of soldier field in chicago which represents 2% of the population of that city, the stadiums in the new york area probably even a smaller percent which may be the reason that they are the threat is there for new york, connecticut and maybe falls more heavily on buffalo, cincinnati, san diego, tampa bay where economic recession population trends have made the

markets less robust. is there discriminatory aspect here and also insofar as frankly if the elderly disabled and folks who can't attend? >> first is i think the league has recognized different stadiums in different clubs are in different situations which is why it has adopted and adjusted its policy and adopted more flexibility and frankly the flexibility that was adopted in i believe it was 2011 or 2012 frankly it has benefited tampa and san diego and cincinnati and that's one of the reasons why we have not seen that. to the point about the elderly and we have all seen the studies that may surprise people. >> it by me and i let -- will let you finish on the elderly and the disabled people of modest means who may not be able to afford tickets right now. if you're worried about filling

the stadiums why not just lower the ticket price? that's the way the market only works. you have a immense benefit of an exemption from the normal market forces and the antitrust exemption. why be greedy about a? the antitrust exemptions are the key -- keys to the kingdom. they are the goldmine for you and it seems to me you continue to take a step too far. isn't it in your own enlightened self-interest to eliminate that legislation? >> all the sports leagues enjoy that legislation. congress passed it to benefit the public by putting sports on that was the judgment when congress passed in 1961 and it has been a benefit to the league. we recognize that but i think it also has served as a benefit to the public in that regard. the doctor singer study bill slated earlier it does have the downward pressure on prices for the very reasons that you cite.

if you want to put people in the seats you lower your prices then you have an incentive because of the blackout policy. most have an incentive that you pointed out. >> your important comment about the elderly -- many of those people can afford it and get to watch every sabres game they will have to pay 80 to $100 a month. to watch every sabres game and that's for six months of the season. to watch their bills every one watches all the games but all their away games every buffalo bills away game is on free television in buffalo and as many as are sold out so we think the league has used its benefits responsibly to benefit the public. >> i'm going to ask some of the

other witnesses to respond to the point that you have made very well mr. waldron. mr. lake in essence i think you have heard mr. waldron say that yes -- the sec could and should have adopted a contrary inclusion. what would you say to that? >> we held a public proceeding in which we received extensive comments from a wide variety of parties including conflicting presentations by economists and the conclusion of the five unanimous emissions was based on that record the elimination of our sports blackout rule would not be likely to lead the league to move their games off of the television onto pay tv. we noted, the commission noted that the contracts today extend through 2022 so that ensures that they will remain on television at least with matt. matt. >> the fcc in essence to put it from a fans perspective found no

uncertainty as to what would happen to broadcast. >> is certainly concluded that the likely result would be not to take games off on their television. >> mr. goodfriend do you agree with that and smaller cities and fans in those cities and the threat to fans in the larger cities as well? >> senator you will note from our prior conversation i care about the small-market teams very much and i think it's a little bit of a red herring to argue that all this is made possible solely by the united states congress in granting the antitrust exemption. the nfl is not running a charity. they are highly profitable multibillion dollar organization. they put their games on television because that's where the money is. they put their games on broadcast because that's where the audiences. the day that pepsi and budweiser in gm stop paying top dollar for

top ratings on broadcast we will see a change but until that day comes the nfl is maximizing its revenues as any rational business sector would. professor of the university of michigan and the submission that he made to the fcc pointed out that even under the most exotic assumptions the threat of a local blackout might put a few thousand more people in seats on any given sunday. contrast that with the loss of revenues from taking the game off broadcast. it would be in the millions, perhaps tens of millions so professor ford concluded the rational economic actor would say i'm not going to give up all that money on broadcast tv side just broadcast tv site just to put a few thousand people in seats. that's why intuitively you could say there really is not going to be too much of a connection between putting games on broadcast and having a local

blackout policy or an antitrust exemption that sustains it. rather the league will make money. that's what it does best and if it thinks it's going to make more money putting games on broadcast will do so and if it thinks will make more money putting on the espn as we so if monday night football or putting games on thursday night on the nfl network it will do so. it already has i think it's important to differentiate between what the league gets from this local lockout policy and broadcast tv. i think it's a red herring. to threaten taking games off broadcast unless we get this antitrust exemption for local blackouts. the numbers just don't add up. >> thank you. ms. greenberg what does this mean for ordinary consumers and fans? how are they impacted? >> well, there's a problem with people being able to afford to go to games through their figures are from 2010 to 2013

the cost for a family of four to attend an nfl game increased by 8% to $459. so that is out of the pun intended, the league of many many families so of course they turned to free broadcast to get access to their games. i am curious about something that mr. waldron has said on several occasions, that the team, the nfl has evidenced a lot of flexibility about the blackout pool and wonder what evidence there is a fact. i think what we are really talking about is as david has pointed out is is it's enormous with profitable, not an act of charity on the part of the nfl. it's anonymously profitable for the league to have games on broadcast television and what that's why they do it, not because they are so flexible and i don't understand fighting this

blackout rule issue and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them and they could be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. for fans it's critically important for those fancy can't make it to the game for physical disabilities because the costs are too high because they have kids at home. i am puzzled by why the nfl is fighting your very sensible proposal. >> mr. waldron has any consideration being given within the nfl and i know you can't speak for other leagues but within the nfl to changing the blackout rule? >> actually after the fcc repealed in late september commissioner goodell said he was going to study it in my understanding he said the owners committee is studying this issue. >> is there a timeline for

possibly actually reversing the rule? >> i'm not aware of any. i can get back to you. >> if you could let us know whether there is a timeline for the committee i would appreciate it. what will be the determining factors in the consideration that the owners and they are the ones who decide. >> yes, yes. >> what will be the determining factor in their decision? >> it's a really good question i will come back to a comment that was made. my colleague mr. goodfriend referred to in study saying that blackouts increased to 4000. that's the league's contention and so that's the balance that the league has faced which is we want to have fan attendance at me want to have games on television and that's the balance that we face and it has been adjusted over the years in order to frankly take care of some of the large stadiums that were out there and lots of

consequences. that is the consequence which is the incentive for fans to attend as well is maximizing broadcast television. we don't like blackouts. no one likes blackouts that they serve at balance and that's exactly what the committee is looking at. >> i would strongly encourage them to do the right thing on their own. i think they would become heroes rather than the opposite which they are now. it is an outdated, outmoded obsolete rule which in many respects to be very blunt the owner seem to work hard to avoid imposing as a matter of practice. that's why they issue free tickets or low-priced tickets or fictionalized their attendance in other ways. i don't mean fictionalized in the sense of fraudulent activity but they go through the pretense

of filling the stadium so as to avoid the blackout which is against their interest and the threat of the blackout gives them a black eye no matter what they do. so i look forward to hearing more. >> i will share that perspective. thank you senator. >> ms. greenberg i hear about cable rates all the time and when we talk to cable companies they point to the cost of sports as driving in many respects these rates skyward. is it fair to blackout games after driving up those costs to the fans of an effect buying the cable service? mr. waldron is racist consideration as well. >> absolutely not. consumers are right to be furious about the fact that they are paying these high rates and pay not even have access to the sports programming that they are

paying for them not to mention all the other subsidies that taxpayers and consumers provide two sports teams. so no it is patently unfair and that's one of the reasons why we are so strongly supportive of this legislation. we think consumers are angry about it and they have a right to get access to the programming that they have paid for. >> and when you go back to your client, whom you have represented well here today, i hope you will remind them that we are acutely aware of those other public benefits that the league enjoys and not just the league. it's not meant to put the focus only on the nfl but those benefits and subsidies and infrastructure whether it's

transportation or stadiums or other kinds of public benefits that professional sports enjoys and we have chosen to single out one which is the antitrust exemption. but these public trusts really demand a public trust from the league itself, special public benefits in my view demand recognition of that public trust from the league. do any of the other witnesses -- mr. goodfriend? >> senator blumenthal there is one category that has not been mentioned that is harmed by the local blackout policy and i want to make sure this goes on the record. local broadcasters, local grocery stores, local businesspeople often scramble at the last minute to buy up lots of tickets in order to avoid a blackout. if ever there was an example of