proceeded to write a warrant that covered every american citizen. but that's what section 215 is,@é it authorizes theb8nñk bulkp5?qg&ta collection, it also has a lone 1)tkh?ñ provision in it that lores the threshold.;z(ñ zeuípi >> guest: lowers the threshold from probable cause to reasonable4çm suspicion. probable cause has been mi with made1v? part of the constitution and there are 200 years of jury verdicts and court decisions that establish what probable cause is.

>> guest: that allows the federal government to search the content not just the metadata, but the content of your e-mails and phone calls. this amendment was offered last summer by zoe lofgren and myself, passed the house. a virtual veto-proof majority and was stripped out. so we came back and said let's offer this amendment again on the freedom act since we know it's probably going to pass and it'll become law let's try and get some real reforms in there. unfortunately last night the rules committee decided to allow no amendments to the freedom act.

>> host: what's a back door? >> guest: a back door is a loophole. so there are two types of loopholes in our security, our national security surveillance. the first type is where ostensibly they're going after foreign foreigners, okay? so they say since they're not covered by the constitution, we can collect the content of their e-mails and their phone calls. well, guess what? when they collect all that, their accidentally scooping up your data too because your e-mail may go overseas to iceland to canada so they harvest all of that data. now they're sitting on a big haystack of data that contains your data even though you're not from a foreign country. what we've found out and the fbi has confirmed this, they're going into that haystack and they're searching it for other crimes, not terrorism. so they're using this incidental data collection that was supposed to be collected on foreign people, they're using

that to collect on u.s. people, and they're searching it. that's the back door. >> host: congressman, has technology lessened our privacy? >> guest: it's not technology, but it's the government that has lessened our privacy. it's made it easier to violate your privacy the fact that this technology exists. and i would argue just because it's easy to search your data and it's less intrusive to you they don't have to come many to pick your locks and take your papers out of your drawers like they did. >> host: called the end warrantless surveillance of americans act. what is that? >> guest: this is a bill that ted poe, zoe lofgren and i have introduced, and we're worried

about the warrantless surveillance of americans, sort of the back door where we've said okay, we understand you've collected this data on all americans accidentally, and we don't even want to keep you from searching that data, but we want you to have probable cause and a search warrant. and so that's what our bill to end warrantless surveillance on americans would do. it would require, like our constitution does, probable cause and a search warrant. and it would also get rid of the presumptive authority that's been given the intelligence community under executive order 12333 which is an executive order that the presidents, previous presidents have made, every president remakes and the intelligence community -- we can't even know right now what they think that authorizes because they've kept that classified. but our bill would rein that in as well. >> host: congressman massie your kentucky colleague, mitch

mcconnell, is supportive of the current patriot act. have you discussed this issue with him? >> guest: i have not discussed this with the senior senator from kentucky. obviously, he and i agree on a lot of issues. this would be an issue where we disagree. >> host: thomas massie, republican of kentucky, thanks for being with us. >> guest: thank you very much, peter. >> you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. we caught up with house judiciary committee member susan suzan delbene. she talks about laws regarding e-mail privacy. >> host: representative suzan delbene is a democrat from washington state, she represents the 1st district can. currently in her third term, but prior to coming to congress representative, you have a tech background. what is your background? >> guest: i do. i actually started in biotech as a bio major in college. i did research out of college and worked at a biotech company

and then got my mba and ended up working at microsoft and also ran a start-up and helped really innovate new technology and ended up here afterwards, and i think that unique combination of being able to understand technology and the way it works and make sure we have policy that allows innovation and also protects consumers is kind of a unique perspective that i bring to the table. >> host: what'd you do at microsoft in. >> guest: so i worked on many products. i worked in e-mail in the very, very early days, probably before most people used e-mail, and then i worked on embedded systems, software and things which aren't computers which now we think more of as the internet of things. worked on window cans 95, so i guess that will date me right there, and then on mobile devices, the last area i worked, which now is you think of as phones but the early days of

mobile devices. >> host: back at that time did was there legislation was there congress involved, were there regulations as to what you did? >> guest: i think there really was not as much focus on policy at that time. devices were relatively static in that you had a computer and you kept your computer and your information was on your computer. i think the big difference that we're seeing today is the amount of data that's being exchanged the amount of information that's stored in the cloud or stored on servers and other places and that's created a huge new set of opportunities but also means that we have to make sure policies are in place to protect privacy to make sure there's appropriate security and there's even international implications in terms of how data moves around. so the internet has created a huge change there. >> host: and is congress aware of it? is congress up-to-date, do you think? >> guest: i think our policy is far from being up-to-date.

we have policy that's actually you know woefully out of date. we have copyright policy from 1976 a lot has changed since 1976. we have electronic communications privacy act which was done in 1986. i started working on e-mail in 1989 when mostly people could just send an e-mail to someone else they worked with, and now we have, you know, e-mail as a standard form of communication, one of the most popular forms of communication and yet we still have a situation where a piece of paper in your desk drawer is held to warrant standard, law enforcement would need a warrant to access that information. but in e-mail -- an e-mail you have that's been stored in the cloud for 180 days or more is not subject to a warrant standard because we haven't updated laws since 1986. and there are many areas where we need to have policy that's up-to-date and works the way the world works today. >> when it comes to ecpa, that's something you've been working on. what are you working on

legislatively? >> guest: well, we have a couple bills out there really focused on making sure we have a similar warrant standard for digital information just like we do for physical information. and so we have one to address electronic communications in the particular, to make sure there's a warrant standard for those e-mails that you might have in the cloud. and to be clear, information stored in the cloud actually generally your documents, etc., should be held to a warrant standard. but we also have a separate bill that i'm a cosponsor of to make sure that we have that same standard for geolocation information. so everyone's carrying a phone around with them now, they have it in their pocket, there's geolocation information there, they're in the car etc. we want to make sure that information's also protected by warrant standard. so there's two bills one that just protects the electronic communications side, one that does electronic communications and geolocation together. >> host: so has technology lessened our privacy? >> guest: well i think we've

seen more recently with bulk collections in the nsa with the fact that, you know, people are sharing much more information and maybe not realizing what some of those implications are in terms of sharing that information, they may not realize what privacy policy is really in place or isn't in place, so definitely we need to put some new rules in place and make sure people are aware of what those rules are so they can make sure their information's treated appropriately. >> host: congresswoman, you've also become caucus chair of the internet of things caucus which is what? >> guest: so myself and congressman darrell issa from california, we founded the internet of things caucus, and it's really to highlight that we have so many different types of connected devices that aren't traditional pcs or tablets or even your phone. they're your wristband there's the thermostat in your house, there's the connected crock pot and your car. there are many, many different devices now that are connected that have information that they're sharing, and we want to make sure that policy is up to

the date in terms of helping make sure we support innovation in these areas but also make sure that we have appropriate protections for consumers. >> host: do you find your colleagues coming to you because of your background? >> guest: definitely people come to me to talk about technology issues. i think a lot of them are very complicated. we have issues that, you know, people might not have experience because they haven't used a new piece of technology. we have folks who aren't necessarily using e-mail and phones the way a lot of folks do. we even have people who still print out their schedule every day and carry it around, a piece of paper in their pocket. so understanding how policy impacts kind of a world where technology has changed the way things work is, can sometimes be more complicated. and so being able to make sure we educate lawmakers on not only keeping policy up-to-date, but maybe even how to be a little more forward looking is going to be very, very important now and going forward. >> host: as we speak, the house is getting ready to vote on an update or a replacement to the patriot act.

first of all was the patriot act effective? is it effective and should it be replaced? >> guest: well, i this i the i think the patriot act was used in ways that people didn't even anticipate. i'm on the judiciary committee with congressman sensenbrenner and he'd be one of the first people to tell you it has been interpreted in ways he never anticipated in popular with respect to bulk collection of data for people who haven't been accused of doing anything. just storing data just in case. making sure we rein in the nsa and we end bulk collection is very very important for the piece of legislation we have today the usa freedom act, is really about making sure that the patriot act is redone in way that actually puts the boundaries in place. but i think some of the original authors thought we were supposed to be there but clearly have been interpreted in a different way so that we end bulk collection, we make sure there's more transparency to process than what's happening in these foreign intelligence

surveillance act courts or the fisa counts as they're called and make sure we have a public advocate to make it more of an adversarial system, someone who's arguing the other side so it's not just one side going in to the court and arguing their case. that's a big part of making sure we put that balance back in place between security and civil liberty. >> host: susan dell men ney democrat of washington, thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you very much. >> and representative doug collins of georgia talks about regulation of the internet. >> host: doug collins is a member of the judiciary committee and he's vice chair on the subcommittee on courts, intellectual property and the internet. he's our guest on "the communicators." congressman collins, i want to start with net neutrality and the statement that chairman tom wheeler fcc chairman tom wheeler's made, and i want to get your reaction to it. the internet was simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making

the rules. >> guest: well, i think what's interesting from mr. wheeler is the evolution of his own statements and i think that's one of interesting things over the past year. now, we have recently introduced a resolution of disapproval. based on what that says is it's something that congress has at its disposal, and frankly, i believe we should be using more to rein in what we believe is agency law, is the way we're looking at it. what goes back to the interesting comments was if you go back a little over a year ago, mr. wheeler was the exact opposite side of this issue. and after some conversation it seems like, with the white house and some other issues that were coming from the administration they decided to delve into it. so what we decided was it's better left to congress. something this massive something this far reaching to everyday people needs to be decided in the halls of congress by their elected officials not

by a group sitting in an office building somewhere in downtown d.c. so that's what we said is this resolution of disapproval doesn't change law, it just simply says what they have said is not going to be valid. >> host: so a resolution can be effectively negate what the fcc did. it has the effect of law. so, therefore, let's say it passes. do you have cosponsors on both republican and democratic sides? >> guest: yes, we do. we have the chairman of the judiciary committee bob goodlatte is a cosponsor of ours, but it's also be released by senator rand paul on the senate side as a companion. we believe this is the most simple, direct route. procedurally, it can get through the senate without having to go through filibuster so this is something that a checks and balances. for me, it's simply a constitutional issue. it's congress being congress. it's not saying we're weighing in saying there might not need to be something happening. i know the chairman of energy and commerce, chairman upton and

others, have looked at ways we can affect regulation. my resolution does nothing to affect them. if anything it empowers them. it lets us start back over and say congress needs to be involved in this, not the unelected bureaucrats making decisions for us. >> host: so when it comes to the issue of net neutrality, title ii for broadband would you be in support of that? >> guest: well, i think the issue that really the fcc brought out is we're not making a comment at this point on specifics but we are saying the internet needs to be open and free and something that the government -- anytime the government gets involved there's this open-ended pandora's box. whats it going to lead to next? and in judiciary committee we've had herrings in which they -- hearings in which they can't answer questions about what their own rule will do. let that be an issue for congress. let that be an issue for elected officials which it is on the radar but not be put in place by bureaucrats who have no, you

know really consequence from the elected populace, and that's what we're doing. we're going back to the constitutional role of this. >> host: congressman collins another issue you're working on in judiciary is copyright law. >> guest: yes. >> host: what's the status? >> guest: the chairman, two years ago chairman goodlatte, said we're going to look at an overall copyright revision. and it's something that's been needed for a long time and it not only hits music but publishing, just the whole realm of copyright. what we have found in over 30 something hearings is there is a definite need involved in the copyright laws and how we relate to the world in that. specifically from my perspective, we have found issues with the copyright office itself and how it relates to the library of i can't congress and not being able to function in a role that it should and the other thing for me is music licensing. the evolving way we get our music delivered and how we listen to songs. i remember growing up listening to the radio or going and saving my quarters and dimes to go buy

a record. that's not the way people listen to music anymore. it's more digital, it's streaming. and what we have found is when we've dug into this, for me we introduced a bill called the songwriter equity act and it simply says there's three ways kongwriters -- not the performers, the folks who work behind the scenes -- there are three ways they're able to be paid two of which the government controls, one of those dating back to 19, the early 1910, 1911 time frame when we had player pianos. and the other one is a syncing right. government has its fingerprint on two they don't on one, you can take a guess at which one the songwriters get a fair and equitable value for their product. it's time for government to get out of this process, to let the market-based approach work, and we're seeing that through the copyright office. the registrar has been wonderful at giving ideas and i think we're going to see hopefully some ideas move that will bring

our laws into 21st century now. >> host: are songwriters supporting your bill? >> guest: very much so. >> host: does it support them? >> guest: it does. and what it basically does it does some simple changes like, one, be allowed when they go to rate court -- which they have to now -- they're allowed to take in evidence from when the performers get their royalty rates set which right now they're not able to do which in most any other court from my background as an attorney, why are we not allowing evidence that has an effect on that product not to be used? it also lets them go out with sections of 115 these are areas in which the streaming rates, and it says let's let them have an ability to do a fair market or what the market rate will bear. it doesn't say they're going to get more or less, let's let them compete because this is the way that they, if one of the song writers put it so aptly, this is the way i feed my chirp. i create things -- my children.

and that's something that we as a country especially in this new digital economy are going to have to come to grips with, that our intellectual property is something we're going to have to value and trust and also reward for those who take that risk. >> host: congressman collins, how does that music bill affect those who may use spotify or itunes, etc. >> guest: what it does is basically what you have right now is a model that has been based -- which we're good friends with we use their products, we pay for that. and look it simply says the business model they grew up with is something that's going to have to evolve and change because we're seeing a whole industry, basically, affected by an artificially-set parameters by the government. and for those of us conservatives, we feel like that's not a role for government. the marketplace can bear this, the marketplace can work with this and we're working with all of the entities right now to come up with a path forward that can be fair and equitable for all involved. >> host: we've talked on this program many times about how the digital technology is changing many different industries but

it's also changing a lot of laws that we might not be aware of, isn't it? >> guest: it really is. when you think about it, we talk about from my generation we talk about buying with an album. even later on coming up with cd, but buying a hard product, well, that's not something that my children even relate to anymore. but yet part of -- there is still a market out there, and part of the rate structure, it's called the mechanical rights, goes back all the way to the early 1900s. we're talking roosevelt and taft and wilson time frames and it was because of player pianos. and those rates have not changed very much in over 100 years n. this new economy, we've got to look forward on how we're dealing with those with publishers and songwriters to bring it up-to-date and then dealing with the streaming, how we deal with that. it's not something just for songwriters. we're seeing this evidence from performers such as taylor swift garth brooks. they're recognizing the fact the way the laws are set up now are not, in a sense fair.

i think it's a great thing for the committee to take a part in and look for it, because it's not just the music it's publishing, it's the, you know, first sale. there's all kinds of issues, so i'm proud that congressman goodlatte has taken this up as part of the committee. >> host: do you see this legislation working its way all the way through the house senate and to the president? >> guest: we think over time it will. and it may come in pieces. i mean, there's been some discussion we do it in one big chunk, but i think we're probably going to see pieces. i think one of the things that came out of this for those that are watching is the issue of the copyright office itself and how it's structured inside the library of congress and some of the privacy issues there, some of the issues that we're working through that have now developed that maybe we actually need to take a look at their structure and how they are functioning as an executive branch and sort of that dual role that they serve. so it's been really good. the hearings have provided us something that i believe the people expect congress to do, and that is to look at how their government works and how they

actually serve. so for us it's been an eye-opening experience and a very good one. >> host: doug collins republican of georgia. >> guest: thank you so much. appreciate it. >> "the communicators" airs every week, saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and again on monday on c-span2 at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. for more go to c-span.org/communicators if you'd like to see some of our previous programs. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> both the house and senate are in session today. the house gavels in at noon live on c-span, the senate at 2 p.m. eastern live here on c-span2. we talked with politico reporter lauren french about the agenda in the congress this week.

>> host: and just one more week on capitol hill before the house and senate go out for their memorial day break. joining us for a look at that last week ahead is lauren french. she's a congressional reporter with politico, and two big deadlines ahead lauren, the patriot act and the highway trust fund. the house passed its bill dealing with the patriot act nsa surveillance renewing expiring provisions. what's the is status of the legislation in the senate? >> guest: so that's a lot more complicated than it was in the house. the house passed it to the senate with an overwhelming number of members supporting the usa freedom act, but that legislation is really not being picked up in the senate. mitch mcconnell wants a clean reauthorization of the patriot actñr the program most notably known for because of edward snowden and the release that he did. but there's critics there of the patriot act and the bulk collection of american data who want to see the usa freedom act

or a bill like it put on floor instead of an extension of the patriot act. >> host: mcconnell and rand paul finding themselves on opposite sides of this issue? >> guest: yeah. senator paul said he would filibuster if 34eu67 mcconnell put up a clean extension of the privacy act. he is very worried about the privacy concerns without warrants or without proper notification so he could filibuster that bill if it came up to floor. but mitch mcconnell is pushing heavily on other republicans to supply the votes needed for a clean reauthorization so they can move on to other pressing deadlines. >> host: then let's turn now to the highway trust fund. that's another one that's facing a deadline. delaware democrat tom carper tweeted about the bill, calling for a two month extension. he says today senator boxer and i are again back with a bill to compel congress to fix the trust fund this summer. what's the status of the funding for this short and long term?

>> guest: so funding will run out, and right now the current authorization for the highway trust fund ends the end of this month. and lawmakers are in a very strict deadline with the upcoming construction season. there needs to be money available to keep those infrastructure projects going forward and building. so what is happening here is you see in the senate and in the house a two month extension of that authorization to give lawmakers much more time to figure out how to pay for a long-term extension. mostly everyone involved wants a five-year or longer extension of the highway trust fund, the question and kind of the sticking point is how to pay for it. democrats are advocating for an increase in the gas tax but that's not a popular proposal among republicans. >> host: and then the senate moving forward with trade promotion authority politico reporting dems look to start senate trade war next week. what do you think we can expect in floor debate, and will the senate finish this by the end of the next week when they're supposed to be out?

..

not going to allow church searcher overpeer him.he is what he really lived in him as a successor at the state department. without these documents without all the documents requested in a letter over the last year he can't have hillary clinton test by because he doesn't have the evidence he needs. sheehan says she only appears before the panel one time. she comes than the new evidence comes out once the documents are made available they miss the opportunity to question her. without the document she won't be appearing and trying to amp up pressure to get those documents in for six months. >> we will continue to follow

you on twitter. your hit list@lauren french paired in the website "politico".com. >> leaders of the telecommunication industry

gathered for the show now called the internet and television expo. speakers include fcc chair, tom wheeler. he talks about the recent adoption of open internet rules. he is followed by a panel of cable ceos from time warner and cox communications to criticize the new rules and later in the session coming ceos from showtime amc and affect discuss programming decisions affected by the media landscape. the three-day event was held in chicago. this is about an hour and 25 minutes. >> thank you alfred. it is great to be here at the table -- wait a minute. it is great to be here at intx the internet and television

expo. people listen in the title of the show anymore. i heard that michael powell now said that cable is a dirty word. i remember when the show is very creatively named something like ca tv 77 or something like this. and then some young whippersnapper and barbara york because nothing ever happens without barbara yorke, change the name to the cable show. and now you have moved on to that. congratulations on once again reimagining and reimaging this industry and this gathering. you know reflect them back on the days of catv and forward to the broadband era is to trace an

amazing path from community antenna television to the expansion of television and now beyond to broadband. you deserve congratulations for what you achieved as cable companies, video companies and as network builders. you also deserve and alfred made comment about this. you also deserve straight talk about what it means now that you are first and foremost broadband companies. you have pledged as an industry to assure that the internet remains open and free and in that goal we are in violent

agreement. we do differ, however on just what that means. we part company according to your recently filed a motion papers over the so-called internet conduct standard the requirement that internet service providers not engage in comdex that impairs an open and free internet. same goes beyond the obvious bright line rules of blocking throttling and paid prioritization. the internet conduct standard sql is a going forward rule. often people say to me, you know, i know that you won't do anything crazy on this internet conduct standard.

what about those people that follow you. my response is i take you at your word that you will protect and open internet. what about those people that follow you? the purpose of the open internet order as not to create an obstacle course to test the ingenuity of isps and how they structure certain activities. it is rather to address broad outcomes. not just the bright line rules of blocking, throttling and prioritization. the purpose of the general conduct standard is to address effects that are antithetical to the concept of openness. namely, to not unreasonably

interfere with or disadvantage access to the public internet. so too with the application of title ii two interconnection agreements. on june 12th, when this order goes into effect there will be in effect strong protections to shield against harm to an open internet. and from that point on we cannot go backwards. now, beyond the open internet, however i want to celebrate today the two great accomplishments of this industry. accomplishments that run from your roots to today and one

great new challenge created by your evolution beyond cable television to become the nation's dominant broadband provider. part 1 of this story begins with the primary business of cable systems when it was video. tivo is an investor in infrastructure a feverish competitor and an innovator. the first accomplishment of that era of course is the coaxial wiring of america. it is something that took an enormous effort by what began as a remarkably entrepreneurial but also fragmented industry. a required a tremendous amount of civil engineering and a tremendous amount of ingenuity to make the extraordinarily

diverse circumstances of our far-flung nation. it was accomplished against a the determined opposition of the telephone industry i recognize from the very beginning the threat inherent in a second wire into the home and office. and it was accomplished despite legal constraints friendly offerings that were downright hostile. as everybody in this audience knows, the investment that set the foundation for today's industry was undertaken for purposes that have almost nothing to do with what the industry has become. what began as a coaxial cable

network designed to retransmit broadcast television signals has become literally an essential part of our country's infrastructure. the metamorphosis began with smart engineers recognize that fire and co-axial networks could be combined to produce very high speed transmissions. in the intervening 25 or so years, the resulting hybrid fiber network has become an enviable combination of cost effective efficiency and scalability. it has become the enabler of one of the most transformative developments in human history. in the process it is also provided in illustration of the challenges of the challenge and

response. the challenge and response nature of competition. this is a theme that i tried to focus on during my time at the fcc. that's where every challenge there is always a response. two decades ago the cable industry began to expand its broadband capabilities. the television telephone responded by releasing dsl. it had not been deployed in american homes. both cable and telco customers benefited and both businesses flourished. the resulting cable competition helped bring us to where we are

today. vastly better transmission speeds in an unimaginably larger and more vibrant internet ecosystem. the second great accomplishment of your industry was the expansion of programming that you, and to be fair the dbs industry or your distribution network facilitator. the great increase in programming is a reflection that your industry's entrepreneurial energy and investments have had on the broader ecosystem. good distribution systems do that sort of thing. they invigorate and new uses.

you know, today's viewers may not be fully conscious, but the increase in the quantity quality of programming according to professor david waterman, chief economist, the most astounding chapter in the history of television. that story can be told in a quantitative fashion as well. the number of cable tv networks has grown from a handful of the mid-1970s to over 900 today. the fcc itself stopped counting at 565 in the annual video competition report for 2006. in investment terms cable networks spend only about 250 million on programming in 1983.

30 years later that figure has exploded to over 26 billion. more than twice the program spending of all the national broadcast networks combined. and the result is an enormous inventory of programming. that expansion of programming is seen and heard in shows that push the boundaries of creativity like the sopranos, homeland madmen all of which appear on cable channels. it also greatly expanded sports programming. we all remember when it was the game of the week and that was all you could see. now you can watch the ohio state buckeyes every week all the way to the national championship. he knew i would get an ohio state line in here somewhere. but if that some say this is

truly the golden age of television then it is you that made this possible. and like your entry into internet access in the 90s the creation of so many programming possibilities in this century spurred others to respond, including new and potential competitors who use your broadband pathways to deliver video to their customers. which brings us to part 2. last year at this gathering, i said that you had become more than about video. that you had become broadband and that your new business had

become and would be going forth broadband. and that is true. because as you know, lester the cable industry had a critical tipping point. in the second quarter of 2014 and for the first time the number of cable broadband subscribers exceeded cable tv subscribers and the trend has continued. you have wisely changed the name of the cable show to emphasize the internet. but there is a more profound name change going on. you are no longer the cable industry as michael powell said yesterday. are the leading association of leading broadband providers.

it is something to celebrate. now the recent decision of comcast and time warner to abandon their proposed merger has relevance to this point. brian roberts leadership and his simple and poignant statement that it's time to move on was not only a thoughtful response, but it was also directionally correct. it is time to look forward, not backwards. this is not the time to dwell on the reasons why the federal communications commission and the department of justice

reached the conclusion that this proposed transaction would not be in the public's interest. but it is important to understand that the tipping point from cable to broadband came while this transaction was under review. we recognize that the industry had changed and we saw concrete evidence of a new competition and business models made possible by high-speed internet access. in other words we recognize that broadband had to be at the center of our analysis and the video was massive and application of flows over networks and that could be supplied both by the owners of facilities and by competitors

that use broadband pathways to compete against the owners of those brought in pathways. this shift has implications far beyond the transaction for the industry at large. when i appeared before you in the second order of last year at the moment when this tipping point was happening, i made two points they remain important today. first, i said that we have to assure the openness of broadband networks and the internet for all who offer users. i am living up to my commitment at that time that you can be assured that i will raise this issue every time i am invited to address an mct a gathering.

back in when it comes to broadband, the cable industry has important technological advantages and very limited regulation. it is to engage an understatement in an unusual situation. the only way to maintain that situation is to uphold your responsibilities. so now your principal business is broadband. the service you offer is critically important to all americans. from getting and keeping a job to staying in touch with family and friends accessing entertainment engaging in government, not to mention doing schoolwork if you are a student

and countless other explanations . and the broader ecosystem you help support is extremely important to the creation of american innovation and growth of the american economy. now as you have changed, so at the issues and the obligations and the opportunities. this is the key challenge for your industry. first to continue to invest and innovate said the united states has first-class brought in transmission facilities. second to live up to the commitments you have made in the

open internet debate to avoid discriminatory act avoid discriminatory acts that will impair the value of broadband and affect the internet for those who make use of its manifold possibilities. there are some factors that can complicate meeting his obligations. you don't have a lot of competition especially at higher speeds that are increasingly important to the consumer of online video. a fully competitive marketplace would bring with it intense and constant pressure. pressure to improve just as it did in the days of cable dsl

competition. more competition would be better. and that is why we granted the preemption petitions filed by two communities that wish to expand their gigabyte networks into surrounding areas in putting those were people had no broadband at all. now i recognize the challenges of what we are building. to encourage it is not to assume its immediate appearance. and while i know that it isn't enough among two-year geographically defined way of looking at the industry, i believe as some in the industry have demonstrated that it can also be an opportunity. let me tell you a story. many years ago at end cta, when

we were trying to grow out of the business we passed out little lucite paperweights in which were embedded small dried flowers. an imprinted on those paperweights in bold capital letters was plant a flower in the vast wasteland. by bringing competitive alternatives to viewers the industry did just that in the video business was changed forever. then your industry went on to upgrade, to compete with the telco and dominate broad and. now the question is whether consumers will have competitive alternatives for broadband, to

hearken back to what you did before will you now plant a flower in the competitive broad and destitute. now i know that the only rationale for such an investment is to investigate economic return. that is why the open internet order we can start today to put broadband providers in a situation where they could profit from the value of their investments free from any limiting rate regulation. history proves that absent competition a predominant position in the market such as yours creates economic incentives to use the market power to protect your business in a way that is ultimately

harmful to consumers. this is chairman powell's message and is well celebrated silicon flat irons beach in which he identified for internet freedoms is essential for the industry to preserve. this is a recognition repeated often cents and most recently in the open internet order that it is not just useful but necessary to ascribe rights to the users of the internet distribution system vis-à-vis the owners and operators of the system. your challenge will be to overcome the predominant position in broadband to protect your traditional cable business. the internet will disrupt your existing business model.

i know i am not telling you anything you don't know and you know you can take that to the bank. it has done that to everyone. my thought today is you've disrupted your business twice before on the path from catv to cable programmers to broadband. those who stay on are the ones who embrace change in ways large and small, and the fcc has done and continues to do what it can to meet its broadband related challenges and responsibilities. large measures of course include the open internet orders to secure on investments while also prohibiting action that would harm the open internet.

the open internet requirements are intended to safeguard the internet dynamism by assuring what your companies have pledged that cnn remained open and free. the commission has its work to do to clear obstacles to competition. we will proceed whether to adopt a multichannel program distributor. and to be candid i favor a technological neutral definition that includes in her date-based companies that choose business models that fit in the status. ..

i intend to assure that you do not confront successive rates. today, the wireline competition bureau is issuing a short public notice calling for comment on the pending ncta and petition for reconsideration seeking to clarify the commission's intent from its 2011 reforms to level the cable and telecommunications

rate for pole attachment. once the record is refreshed, my expectation is that a recommendation will be made to the full commission to taking action that it can to further align cable and telecommunication rates. now i know that this industry and this association do not support the recent open internet order. i've made claim hopefully throughout this presentation today, i believe the rules that are crafted provide what's needed to enable an economic return that will justify new investment and secure and open internet. but i also believe that we can

note where we agree and not only when we disagree. this year michael powell told congress quote, cable broadband providers are unequivocally committed to building and maintaining an open internet experience. we welcome the pledge maintaining improving, protecting the broadband transmission system is the right thing to do. america depends on it. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the moderator for this morning's first panel, media and entertainment reporter for cnbc julia boorstin. [applause] >> and now please welcome our panelists. first chief executive officer of cablevision systems corporation james dolan. [applause] next, the president of cox communications pat esser. [applause] the president and ceo of liberty global, michael fries. [applause] that chairman and ceo of time warner cable rob marcus.

[applause] and the president and ceo of charter communications tom rutledge. [applause] >> i want to thank you all for joining us here this morning. and on the heels of chairman wheeler's comments, i'm would like to have your reaction but for swift address the elephant in the room. we have five cable companies here. i think you guys may be could work out some deals in the next half an hour. you guys are sitting right next to each other. anything you want to discuss? >> let's move on to chairman wheeler's comments. >> where's brian? >> other than brian from everyone else is too. but seriously, what's the next

big thing because we are focused on time warner cable right never quit a great quarter computer great about the position resilient and not uncommon for the on m&a. >> tom? >> you know the world is full of possibilities but i can't tell you. [laughter] >> you have something to say. >> as chairman wheeler said, and brian said, it's time to move on. i like to see us move on to consolidation of markets, rather than paying attention to the entire country largest individual operators. into one market i know best, new york, which we share i think consolidation of that marketplace would provide one a great deal of ingenuity and much more access to resources for the customer, and lower

prices. and i think it would be a great business. >> you are proposing to give -- >> i'm not sure if i got asked about on a date or to get married. spent i think i'm proposing a commune. [laughter] >> what are you proposing? [laughter] >> what i think is that for instance, in new york if new york was one market if new york was operated like one market, that you would see things like wi-fi distributed throughout the entire marketplace, access to wi-fi him and that very important technology becomes ubiquitous throughout the marketplace. you see that ubiquity of other customers react with her broadband companies company marketplace would provide a lot of efficiency and there'd be a lot of opportunity for innovation. >> what does that look like a you compete along with verizon fire. you want to make a deal with them?

>> no. >> you want to make a deal with time warner cable? >> is. >> making some progress. >> and the other operators. look new york, that's one marketplace. if you look at marketplace los angeles, chicago, et cetera, if the operator as one, i won't say one company but one operation there's a lot more that we could do. >> what do you think, tom? >> i agree. the deal that we had that didn't work out a lot of trade swaps and the logical putting together of assets so that you could get the scale, even at the local level that you need to be a quality service provider, and to roll out products in a way that are efficient and innovative. so the industry is still in the state because of the way to grow up having lots of tv market places where the efficiency of

the platform isn't painful to realize. that's true throughout the country so that are still opportunities all throughout the business that are not being realized. >> where does cox and all of the? >> for salafi like i am on match.com. we are all trying to update our relationship status right now. info about 10,000 people. [applause] a little awkward up here. i don't think any of us can at least jim may but i don't think any of us will speculative am going to talk about with each other. we are not going to understate in front of a bunch of people. cox enterprises come if we believe in a space with consistently in our history made acquisitions, did the right things for the business long-term. we are very committed to tended to agree with the concept that the our scale and benefits for consumers if we get some of the markets which we fit partial pieces of but it will take time.

>> what your perspective of someone who's not involved in the domestic market place? >> i'm baffled to be honest with you, and i'm baffled by the chairman should marks. i'll say it because he doesn't regulate my business. [applause] i'm very curious. on the one hand, he says that the cable industry through consolidation through scale, foster innovation programming as a closed network and yet there's a presumption of guilt and punishment of success that the industry has achieved that i've never witnessed before in my life. [applause] for years for years i've asked european regularly and european business folks to look at the u.s. market for guidance. that is not happening today. i mean and i'll tell you, european regulars are also baffled by what's happening here. on the issue of scale, i would

say that we are able to achieve that in a country like holland, which is only 7 million homes. we can own those homes into income 100%. and regulators see that's good for infrastructure and investment. good for everybody. we don't need to abide by rules that present some action that may be harmful but we don't know for sure but just in case we're going to do these things. it's terrible regulation. i'm sorry. i will say what these guys are thinking it's terrible. [applause] >> do think there are lessons to be learned in the u.s. from the european regulation has been handled? >> yes, sure european regulators have focused on is a level playing field. they have focused on a light touch. you focus on infrastructure competition. they have not arbitrarily defined broadband as 25 meg comfortable. what incentive is there? why would he do it now?

there's a number of things that u.s. market could have learned and is it too late? i don't know. that's not my thing to you guys will find out but we're happy to be abroad let's put it that way. >> i see you nodding. >> we suffer from the stock -- the stockholm syndrome india stripper to be careful about our chapters. [laughter] i thought it interesting of the business as evolves. people at the calls and broadband company and we are but our cost of programming exceeds our broadband revenue just to put into perspective. we still are at video business and entertainment and communications service provider. when we serve building out networks with eyebrow kicks we weren't building to build broadband. we are building interactive television and telephones. broadband came after that but i

think what people call the broadband market today, 15 years from now would be a different kind of product set. and we call ourselves will be different, and we would discover products will be different or but our networks and the capability of the digital infrastructure that we have and our ability to provide quality service is where the opportunity is. i find these artificial distinctions really interesting academically, but they are not what i think about, marketplace perspective. >> rock, it sounds like you have worked very hard to grow the biggest subscriber numbers. >> i first want to comment on one of the thing because while i, unlike mike, have a business that is, in fact regulated regulated by the chairman of you like to operate in a different environment than he seems to live in. in my world broadband is incredibly competitive. i think the competition has, in fact fueled a tremendous amount

of investment on our part and its investment and we continue continue to make digging into it to make a broadband district broadband products better. i went with the problem really is to quit making broadband more and more capable and i think that is reflective of the success of the five in which we work. >> and i think to say the cable industry here come anywhere in the world, hasn't embraced the internet as a distribution platform for video is crazy. how many people out there are using a tv ad or product today? raised their hands general. that looks like 25 to 30%. if i asked the question left it would've been 10%. the fact i can watch whether it's my affinity to abhor verizon come anywhere i want, thousands of hours of content from looks like the same interface if that's not embracing the internet as a dissertation platform for video, i don't know what is. it doesn't come to me i think i agree with you. i don't think this is an

accurate reflection of what's happening. >> by the way, we embrace over the top video. we think it's a fantastic application of the broadband capability we deliver and we welcome it and we try to facilitate great experiences for our customers on that front. your question unabated growth, we long ago abandoned focusing on individual products as opposed to customer relationships and we are intent on growing customer relationships whether those are the few customers, whether they are high speed data only customers or ideally triple play customers. would like to sell as many customers as we can as many products as we can. so i kind of resist this notion of focusing on product centric definitions of customers. we want to expand the breadth of our customer base, seldom as they things as we can to that may not all have been at the same time so broadband customers may be a triple play customers tomorrow. similarly a video customer today may be a triple the customer

tomorrow. of course, every individual one is important so we are very proud of the fact we group you customers this quarter. >> before we talk about over the top and new offerings, i know you have some very -- i just want to get a couple more reactions to tom wheeler's comments. pat i'm curious how problematic do you think title ii is for your business? i know we have a lawsuit on behalf of the cable association. >> keywords get thrown together over time not detailed and title ii. we have demonstrated since 1997 were committed to the principles of net neutrality to we don't block sites. we are transparent about how we manage our networks and not taking one person, not choosing which it comes to your own. i think we have been demonstrating that since 1997 18 years. title ii is different. title ii is taking a business in a very heavily funded come in fact indicates colleges toxic

numbers, $23 billion we've invested internetworked since 1997. making all this investment, all of this risk, the rules get changed. while we are totally exposed and continue to invest in our network, all of a sudden the rules get changed the rules were written in 1930 to apply to business that has nothing to do with our business. broadband has brought so much growth economically to the country. we are already seeing early signs that within weeks after title ii coming out of the fcc that we are already seeing catchment fees go up seeing new classification of taxes. my legal costs are going up. that legal structure to do with all the filings and complaints and everything else that comes through this process. again at the end of the day my customer pays for the. you're hearing a repeat. i just don't think it's needed. it's unnecessary.

it was, herman cain was a presidential candidate who lives in atlanta. herman cain is on the radio and atlanta. he said something funny on the air the other day. herman said there's three things you know about our government. if it doesn't move they will find it sustained it create programs to support it. if it moves, they will tax it. and if it moves too fast they will regulate it. i feel like we create this american dream -- [applause] i agree. and somewhere we got out of sync with the regulators. we've got to find a more balanced. >> jim, what do you think? >> for us, i mean essentially i agree with what pat is saying but for cablevision we're in a very highly competitive marketplace. to be honest i don't see any of these regulations affecting as much of all. the competition is what

regulates our marketplace. he did say the competition is what was important. i do worry that one of the things i thought i heard that chairman say why something akin to government subsidize competition, which i think is very dangerous. >> one thing that you can focus on is his idea of disrupting the traditional tv bundle. it seems that a lot of ways i to embracing toward cutting with some of your new offerings. >> we are embracing the customer. we did an accounting study at the company and we attempted to associate all of the direct and indirect expenses with each one of our products. when we were finished with the study we found that broadband outperforms video by seven to one. for every dollar of profit in making video i make $7 in

profit in broadband. and we see the customer as wanting more and more broadband and wanting better and better conductivity. they want it in their homes. they wanted outside of their homes. they don't want to wait and if it breaks they want it serviced immediately and fixed the first time and those are the things we're focusing on. you just should typically word about cord cutting or breaking up with about? >> i can't believe you're jim. something i did here is that he said that is not embracing cord cutting but rather embracing the customer. i think the reality we all been with you is the extent their behavioral trends ways of consuming content that are better for customers, we have to embrace that. our business enabling customers to get what they want when they

wanted when they wanted and how they want it. and i think those of us who embrace it will be the ones who succeed spent the question is what does the future look like? we have swing tv and then you have verizon with its custom tv bundle, now being sued by espn. i'm curious where you see the future going in terms of over the top? you are bundling hbo now with broadband and hulu with broadband and leaders only one doing that. so far. i'm three to about the success of the slimmed-down bundles and what he would consider over the top cord cutter bundle. time, what do you think? >> there have always been cord cutters. most of the people of cut cords in the prior period before internet television was available would cut to go over the air. they would cut for personal reasons. they were about to move or go to

college or come back from college, or for economic reasons, personal reasons. that has always been going on. in the cable industry has tried adversaries times to put different packages together to satisfy people mostly income related, with television service. and if you sell a product to people that isn't what to expect in terms of the full access to the services that they in their minds think of as cable come they don't stick very well. these markets are very fluid. people come in and out of them. the more variety and package functionality that you can provide an individual, the better off you are as a company because your status and somebody. people's needs change through time. i think what's going on now is u.s. some products that are coming direct to consumers can

some coming in packages we so that you can mix and match those together and satisfy niche customers. people who buy hbo, by showtime some people don't. in fact, the majority don't. weblogs a choice in what they find in their script -- subscription package. i put that together is what we do to satisfy people. so where it comes from or whether it's over the top or whether it's part of some cable service, it really doesn't matter. why cable is is three different regulatory regimes for bits and to copyright regimes. and how you mix and match that and satisfy customers is the art of being a good packager. >> we are not burdened by the historical or the existing cost base to use operators are burdened by. when we look at it a very simple way. we're in the business of plug-and-play. we're in the business of seamless connectivity. in our case connectivity across wi-fi and wireless and mobile

business. we want customers to feel connected to our networks wherever they are and we want them to choose our networks because they're the fastest, the best the most reliable. but on top of that we wanted to put on our networks plainly or less depending on what it is they choose to do play with content, the internet come in the aspect of what will be offered across that network after choosing and all devices. they are becoming the vice agnostic. my kids watch their content on tablets or smartphones. they don't care where it comes from. what did netflix teachers? they taught us it is about the app, the user experience, the user interface. what we've done is adopted a nap essentially that puts the applicable experience together and allows you to search for content, find content in the we used to do on other applications. we have pretended ott a little bit in your. we launched our own version of a netflix product called my trying

to inspect my time. and it's about plug-and-play and to keep it simple and offer consumers what they want. why would they get rid of one or the other? >> it is at the store that gets missed. if you look at the consumption in general global event marketing consumption going on in the world or domestically than ever anytime in our history as a country where the world. much of it is because investments in the country sitting on the stage and made when you want to talk about cloud source, multiple tuners. we made a reference about over 90 tv at your app. huge libraries. we ourselves have giving our customers more places, or devices to view the content and one of those is on broadband network. it is enabled for this release of innovation that as long as i'm in the business of connecting customers to things they care about i'm okay. >> but the question is do need to be in the business of selling the most bond or can they pick

and choose speak using video bundle. sometimes i will and sometimes i will not. that's their choice. they are the customer. >> we are in favor of choice. to the extent we can effect for flexibility i think that's inherently a good thing. where there's a tendency to conflate two different concepts wine is packaging and the other one is technology delivery means. the reason we came to conflate them is for some reason that deal the programmers have cut with over the top providers seem to be somewhat more flexible than the ones that have been cut with traditional video companies. so i think that's a temporary state of affairs. on a simple question of packaging i think more flexibility is better. that said we've offer different tiers of service for many, many years. and by and large customers, the vast majority of customers and to take the larger bundle.

the reason is it's a damn good value. >> we are just coming off a week in with a big manny pac you'll fight with pirated in a brand-new way to extend new periscope in technology people found a way to get around paying for sports content. it's a very new technology and piracy has been around for a long time. piracy isn't in a problem but this raises the question since sports complex forces been such an integral part of closing the bundle together the are you worried about all these new technological threats that break apart the content of the bundle, internet or via a tv over cables because i don't think, i don't of whether the content bundle breaks apart. from our point of view buying content wholesale à la carte is probably less expensive for than buying it in packages from large content companies. but the big issue going forward

what you're referencing his security is a huge problem in the digital age and we have very fast high speed networks, storage that you can but is getting cheaper every day. so people can keep content and around the world instantly. that's true even of life counted because of the two-way network. the security of content and how content companies sell the products and whether they are secure or not and worth paying for israel issue. if you don't secure their content it won't be worth much. that's the lesson of which is on this weekend. >> i think there's another dimension to it which is the thing that was exploited in the case of a retransmission of a fight this weekend was actually the analog hole. is no way to close that. if the i can see it a digital device conceived and the real issue arose out of a massive

transmission of something that was otherwise simply seen by another person. i'm not sure how to solve the problem security wise but certainly for all of us who live in this ecosystem, protecting intellectual property is critical. >> looking down the road as consumer demand change, how are u.s. companies going have to adapt to these changing consumer needs? to our panels going on here at ncta about new millennials and the kind of expectations they have for how and when they want to consume content and how they want to pay for it or not pay for it. how does that change your business? >> they want access. they want flexibility to they want different sized packages. they want to use technology. they want to use multiple screens. we're trying to do that and at the same time periscope, these are real and that's the world we now do business in. if we don't manage it properly i watch our digital rights they

will still exist. there's good reason those apps are being used. but it's our new world but we have become one thing i do agree with the chairman is a had a number of moment in our history where we kind of reinvented ourselves in a think we are going to still have moments in my career going forward. when the future is very bright but i can look at her company and say, man look at what's going on. we rolled out gigabit service, more markets without in the next few months. i look at the fact that business services on the cusp of getting $2 billion in growth. we talked about customer relationships and i found most of the results from my public friends. we are going customer relations as an indicia. there's a lot of great indications that the futures their very bright and we should be excited. but we technological change deal with. we are going to grapple with as i go along and take a couple steps forward and step back as we go through this process.

process. >> we have amazing networks. we all know that. powerful networks that have overtime, more powerful when we reinvented those networks. we have great content relationships. we spend billions every with great content providers. what we missed is overused term is the app that allows that content to be accessed easily seen on multiple devices by kids, by consumers who want it simple. as we invest, all of us we are for sure come in that outcome in that experience, i think we solve a big series of issues that are good conversation. kids don't like cable. put the built a site, the experience can and should be incredible and will be angry find our customers when we launched arise in they don't go anywhere. i watch my kids on the excellent at. they don't go anywhere. it works well and is beautiful and simple we aspire to be like a great consumer company's we know that exist in this

industry, we've got it. >> we are out of time but i'd even work as a traditional cable system with all your new instructions. is your future all about broadband? >> no. i think, look we look at traditional tv. we look at us would like the convenience store. it's the note indicates that you've got to have but for the future of cablevision we will continue to innovate in that space and will continue to offer those products in multiple ways including the millennials who want to watch an hour of tv a day, but we know is most important to them is connectivity. and that's where we're going to focus. we are in a highly competitive market and we want to be the dominant provider so we're going to focus on what people want the most. >> unfortnuately, out of time. to people for it should not just in terms of m&a but also in terms of all the products and

interface of your offering consumers. thank you, the five of us for joining us today. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> and now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our next panel which will also be moderated by julia boorstin. first, the chairman and ceo of showtime networks, matt blank. [applause] >> next the chief executive officer of affects networks and effects productions john

landgraf. [applause] >> and the president and ceo of amc networks incorporated josh. [applause] >> thank you, guys. i'm sure you were listening backstage, and there's a lot of talk about over the top and have a cable tears are not so worried about court cutting because they also sell broadband, but for you, yet you think about cable carrying your channels. both a retransmission fees but also for advertising. how worried are you about court cutting? >> look, we need to grow our business. the traditional dissipation business is very mature right now. i think one of the key soundbites of this past week was

in the comcast earnings where the announced that they now had more broadband subscribers than they had the of subscribers to there's a very clear message. for a new tradition -- nudist beach has always been critical. we intend to grow households and we need new ways to do that. so i wouldn't say we are worried about court cutting. i think there's a lot of opportunity at a lot of different corners the market place to grow showtime and we want to take advantage of that. >> what do you think? >> i think we need to get to the consumer and i think that court cutting is a terrific techie term i think it's not as ubiquitous as people think it is. but i think what is true i think it was reflected in the previous panel that the interface by which people find and consume great stories and great content is shifting over time. and eventually what we're all working toward is having an interface that's comparable to the best interface that anybody

can field. >> you must be watching a lot of hbo now. what do you think? >> i think the previous panel it was encouraging to me because i think the changes that are being made are intended to sort of free up consumers from obligation and i think when i do that, it's a more pleasurable experience, more fun. i think a lot of that stuff which sounds disruptive and different henry capture the imagination for the consumer and he or she can field bad about what they buy and have more flexibility. and i think focused on mike fry's called it app i think interfaces are not really faceless. that are fundamentally when you get a great one, you just love to do that and if you combine

that with the feeling that you can get what you want anything cablevision is doing that when you want it, i think your motivation increases. i think you actually consume potentially even more. so i find it very encouraging. >> the question for showtime, effects is whether not you want to go directly to consumer. show time is working on an app. can you give us updates a? >> we've been talking to everybody and i think most importantly i've spent a good part of the past two years talking to that of every cable company about a map of bringing showtime to the distribution universe via broadband. that's a good place to start. we think there's a lot of opportunity out there. we're going to take advantage of. the question is when is the right time to go are the right players? that's something i think we'll be talking about shortly. >> hbo has been the market now for about a month. we don't know exact numbers it sounds like so far is often a

good start. do think there are lessons to learn? >> to finish on that, i think the one tremendous advantage we see come and we began to see with showtime anytime is consumers are getting used to but also to products from whether it's an uber right a movie ticket or dinner delivered with the excellent consumer interface. that's something as an industry we haven't really experienced. we have been able to bring an application like showtime anytime out there out of there and to see what the difference is when you can present your product with an interface that is consistent with the types of products that are being consumed due to all the changes in technology. that's a big deal. >> i think what we are all facing is that the number of broadband only customers was the minimus and i was going to be a large enough share of the market that each of us was a national consumer brand and i think these are three great consumer brands,

has to pay attention to the smaller segment of the market that is not only broadband. we have to figure out the methodology, and i don't want to discount the pathway through our existing relationships with cable operators who are i can also in the broadband business. the truth is the symbiotic relationship between programmers and operators have served as really, really well for a long time. we have a problem. we've got a group of 10 million homes and is going to grow to 29 probably by 2020 and we've got to figure out how to get there. certainly direct to them is one path but there's also path that goes through broadband, and just as an evolution of our existing relationships. >> i can also watch i want all of your shows and i can watch them on your networks are also sometimes on netflix or amazon. there are all these new ways that one can consume this content. do you see that eating into your court subscriber number?

>> i think which you can see right now is i think you can see that there's a lot of consumption of the very best content and i think our three brands have a significant percentage of the very best content. fortunately, for us we also a lot of that content and so we benefit from the consumption happening after our market. we've been focused i think aggressively at preserving the first window for our cable partners and providing really good like we of the stacking rights come in season four episode rights for all of our shows about 20 original series. we are focused on providing them to our apps as well as our own apps. on the other and there's tremendous value in the back in marketplace and it's largely replacing syndication. >> it sounds like ownership of the content is integral to your strategy. >> it is. we started effects productions

more than a decade ago and frankly, if we were in the business of renting as opposed to owning, i don't think we could make the numbers work but the ownership of content turns out to be a terrific business under domestic and a global basis. we have businesses that are very good at marketing and launching shows come and go those shows is a boon. i would have no objection to sing the backend rights of our shows captured by our own in granting service, our brand in the way hbo go captures the backend rights of its programming. i would have no objection to recapturing those rights inside the system if there was an economic pathway to doing it but ultimately we are in business in partnership with content creators and they're going to go with it to get the most creative freedom, the best marketing and get paid the best. the bottom line is syndication revenues which are increasingly domestic, revenues are critical to be able to compensate artists artists. >> agency is making that you

have this walking dead behemoth. is a been a real driver of life program and also review have different programming you have to worry about advertisers but walking dead has really been their unique in that live programming since. how do you encourage that our driver keep that show a live and what is the value of that life you? >> in the current advertiser regime which has undergone some modification and may undergo further modification, it's very important that is how they count goes and how the money flows. the underlying phenomenon of watching when something is scheduled when there's all of these opportunities to watch at your own choice on various different machines is a curious one, and i think we are seeing this effect that's both an empire at the moment and in "walking dead" which is increase ratings at 10 p.m. every sunday,

a thing seemingly of the past and it's occurring now. i think it is i think it is to some degree in response to a greater, growing trend of people watching alone on a machine and the binging and take advantage of all sorts of improvements in facility. but it does miss out on community. so there's a big lot of fun. of course, when you watch the super bowl live with the academy awards but there's an awful lot of fun when you watch the "walking dead," and the show after it called the talking heads and each week and i think you're seeing that experience in empire. of kosher thing certain network start and take advantage of liberal live with theatrical productions. we saw with the sound of music and peter pan and a bunch of coming. i think that's an awfully bright future that will be defined with

greater specificity about what wins at a time slot, but there's a totally cool time slot when the thing they because it's in service of people came together to you've got to get it right and it six against zach of on demand but i think it's a pretty rich television opportunity. >> first to go back to your question with john looking at this environment with netflix and all these competitions and home we see something that it's the more things change the more they stay the same. we've seen this heavy use of dynamic and in our business for the better part of 30 years in multipage, certain households just want everything. now when we look at hulu netflix, amazon prime we see the index very high in our

homes. so you can take a glass half empty or glass half-full view of the. a half empty would be how are you going to compete with a half-full which i prefer to take his we're seeing these heavy users and we are fortunate to exist in that very precious space where the audience is the same, give us more, give us more of this upgrade, you know serialized dramatic content, as much as we can get. the advantage we have in particular not being in an advertising driven environment is that we really don't care how somebody watches something. ..

creates tremendous value for a showtime subscriber. >> do you think needs to be a shift in measurement for you when you are trying to negotiate with advertisers? how broken is the measurement system? >> look it is different. it is more difficult is it that the fundamental advertising model is due for a massive raid pension. ultimately what the consumer is telling us is they are not willing to give a 16 bit of their time to watch 45 minutes of our code to your farewell to give us quality time for a relevant ad and actually bullish

and excited about the advertisers business ability to reinvent itself over time. what matt said is absolutely true. the viewership of our shows have gone up when you count those different streams and ultimately why we have an advertising issue that is very dynamic, very transformative will be different five years than it is now. the business of making great stories that engage consumers and are being paid for those stories is as good as it's ever been. i don't see it going anywhere. ultimately it all comes back to creativity and storytelling. i think the mode of interaction is vital to the consumer but no one will corner the market on great storytelling. it refuses to be corralled into one single bucket and i stress you can come back in a decade and they will still be healthy and other brands will be very healthy that will also be

healthy and 10 years. >> i want to hear about the content decision-making. we are heading into the up front. what is your outlook? how will it handle the fact there are these other competitors? >> well i think there is an evolution underway. there is the appeal of digital which has notwithstanding seven measurement issues associated with it. i think it has some provision that is not contagious. some of which is coming into the cable television, advertising organization and is getting much more specific in the data opportunities for being able to sell someone who wants to sell a product are improving dramatically. so it won't be like it was. it will be tremendously more for

people spending their money. that is a consequence of all the data collected in now organized most specifically through set-top boxes. so that is really a great tailwind. i think i will echo what john said. there are certain shows that are so popular and they have so much inherent appeal that it is an overused word high engagement. if you think about what your favorites are and how much you are like your favorites, i waited with phenomenal anticipation for comedians. i watched the first episode and i value those two things enormously appeared so i am watching with rapt attention when that stuff is on. but that is not lost on people who spend money. i think when you have things

that are favorite, you have some unique and premium when you combine that with improving analytics, you've got a pretty good proposition for someone who spends money because they want to move a product. >> i think you have an odd imbalance in the marketplace right now that josh alluded to which is essentially the standard for a 302nd commercial is a full view 30 seconds of the commercial with audio and the standard in digitally delivered internet video is 50% of the pixels for two seconds am for 22nd sonatas created a perception of ubiquity in the marketplace. that standard is insufficient. talking about the internet video standard i cannot continue. once it is sharpened up supply will contract to normalize. >> when you look at the changing way people are used to consuming and watching on netflix do you

think we'll ever see a world where showtime releases all the shows at once? >> i would never say never. we live in a quickly changing marketplace. we still like a model at or nearing a show comes the inner viewership will right away. cover seems a social activity behind the show from week to week. we could switch that tomorrow if it made sense. at the moment, we don't. we watch the consumer carefully. we are very happy with our current model. but we are also 100% flexible. we don't have to wonder about what impact that has on the advertising environment. we have a lot more flexibility to go more quickly if we had to peer in is also unreasonable to assume that different than those

we address will behave similarly. you can wait 12 weeks and watch homeland all at once if you want to. we always see any season of homeland future men this uptick in people watching the previous seasons on demand. we just want to stay flexible and take advantage of the marketplace. the >> all the different types of must impact the way you make decisions. when you decide what show do add to your lineup or what lineup or what a show to give an extra season, how are all these content decisions impacted by the changes of the landscape into the consumer. >> i think it is a very good question. puts a lot more pressure on us as programmers to look at the information in how people are using the service. john talked about it at length. we own most of our programming

now. that is incredibly important not just in terms of the really significant incremental revenue was generated from ownership but also the flexibility it gives you to make decisions about how the programming is distributed. we don't have to worry about what a studio will permit us to do. all of that favors into the mix. >> all of this stuff makes good at a better chance of it all makes agree that the best chance because in the old world when it was six seven eight nine, 10 and 11 and you have fragmented attention. you either can't adore you didn't. you do as good a nuanced and you missed it in a story that unfolded over time you were sort of out of luck. i think there is a huge bias towards good and great. >> good and greatest different now because of the ways --

>> i couldn't agree more with what josh and matt said. television used to be somewhat disposable. it was made on some level for the night it went on the air. valley make television and stories and reevaluate what the story development 10 years from now or 20 years from now. it is more like film and that it is a nice that it will return for a long long time. what that does is raise the creative bar whereas she might've asked yourself the question will people watch this on a sunday night, now you ask and we imagine two people sitting in a room talking about the show 10 years after it is years after it is off our air that's a much better question to ask in terms of quality. >> week to all of the shows we make. when you combine that with ownership it is really treated conversationally.

you wait for your friends to say electronically or directly you want to go watch blank. you haven't seen it. you ought to catch a benefit that were available through some pretty good point of access and the rest of our digital stuff you think i want to watch the best staff. it creates a life expectancy longer than it used to be. it's not feel syndication and i can watch a comedy at 10:00 p.m. when i'm exhausted. i think in this world it's a fairly big upside for the business. >> it's not just people talking over the watercooler over the water cooler. it's about telling their friends on facebook insider. does that have an exponential effect? and not tremendously there's oodles of leverage in good and i might ask rhetorically how many times to show you checked out

was referred to you by a friend who made a suggestion that you should watch it but you are quite sure of it and how many times when you finally got where you started this is good. i'll get in to it. the system is a new system, but quite a functional system. >> if you can think about how movie marketing is to be everything but if you market a violent turn people to the weekend scored three times the box office at no marketing doesn't mean very much because people figure out whether it's any good and we are facing the same thing. you've got to make a good television series because the best marketing is word-of-mouth if you don't get that. >> it's even true for movies. we had a movie that while some point turned up on showtime. it was very quiet very small and

hardly had we would call a big opening weekend. i do think a built-in belt and was tremendously enhanced. what john is saying is true for television pointedly and new but is also true. >> unfortunately, we are out of time. i have to ask when will when will i buy a showtime map. >> right now you can you showtime anytime through your local cable operator. [applause] >> looking for other ways to bring your product directly to consumers. thank you for joining us. we really appreciate it. [applause] >> section 215 authorizes the metadata collection or

extensively authorize. last week we found out that the second district federal court agrees with justin ahmad chennai that the patriot act never authorize these programs. but the nsa would tell you the programs were authorized by section 215. the fisa court proceeded to write a word that covered every american citizen. >> i think our policy is far from being at today. we have policy that is woefully out of date. way of copyright policy from 1976. we have the electronic communications privacy act in 1986. working on e-mail in 1989 when people send an e-mail to someone else they were quiet and now we have a standard communication

one of the most popular forms and yet we still have a situation where a piece of paper in your data store is held to one standard. law law enforcement would need a warrant to access the information. an e-mail sorted in the cloud is not subject to a word standard. the >> we are not making a comment, but we are saying the internet needs to be open and free and needs to be some thing anytime the government gets involved there is an open-ended pandora's box of what is it to lead to not. we say were looking to answer some basic questions about the rule. we simply say at this point, let that be an issue for content which is on the radar but not put in place by bureaucrats from the elected populists.

's >> this morning the group attacked our defenders and human rights watch will be hosting a discussion about sexual assault in the u.s. military and a new report about retaliation against victims here is some will talk about finding in the report and then they will hold a panel discussion here at the national press club in washington d.c. you are watching live coverage right here on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

.. [inaudible conversations] >> getting underway shortly as the human rights and the group protect our defenders posting about assaults in the u.s. military and a new report on retaliation against victims. we will hear from the senior counsel of the u.s. program of human rights watch as well as victoria phipps, retired captain of the u.s. army and policy director of protect our defenders as well as a women's rights researcher from human rights watch.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] grammar >> for coming today further by

report embattled retaliation against sexual assault survivors in the military. we appreciate you coming today. i would give you an idea what to expect. we will start with the video which will be five-minute and then make inroads researchers and the human rights division will summarize nine and a member randa peterson his program and post policy there will give a few remarks after that phipps from the time he would get her perspective as someone who is a commander and also witness retaliation herself and at the end we have sharon urges who will do most of her speaking in this video but also be available to as the pressure about her experiences in the air force.

>> reporting sexual assault in the military is not easy. you hear the stories. they all have the same ending. and never a well. join the military in 2008. before all this happened my initial goal was to outbreak by father who served for 33 years >> we interviewed 150 servicemembers and veterans across bridges that the bill thanks there is retaliation their reporting sexual assault. we are talking about serious threats, harassment job opportunities, promotions disciplinary actions, criminal charges for many people they

found found reportedly said he gained enough to get her career. >> often times when you report sexual assault the person who committed the crime is somebody who also you were quiet and also you live when. so you share the same ground cumin same acquaintances come as a player come as a manager. there is no escape. >> there were rumors going around in my squadron that as a troublemaker, that i was a liar and i was isolated from my squadron. i didn't feel comfortable going to squadron functions. she said so in so touched her. i don't believe that. >> once the air force realized s-sierra was not going to give up, they should continue to pursue this i absolutely feel our daughter was retaliated. one of the supervisors sent out an e-mail to the other workers

within their area under a talented individuals to not communicate with her. >> we have the concept is team and gave you the person who made the complaint is not a team player versus the person who committed the crime. >> retaliation can mean more sexual harassment. >> escalates to where i thought they were purposely putting me on ships with the individuals assaulting me. there was an incident where fortunately i had to go over to the jungle's office to return some keys and he forced me on top of his desk. he just started. >> a number of survivors alike they started looking for things they've done wrong and were writing them up for performance

of a which was to create a record to discharge you from the military. >> previously he had gotten an award for being announced at a worker. but now all of a sudden he was not a good air bed of these infractions were hard to disprove. she was late for work but she had permission. this was stuff that was commonly done. >> i was relieved to finally be leaving when i consider to be my howl. i was also sad. i felt like a failure to i have a lot of goals and it just heard to see all that go down the drain. >> we know of a 62% of the reports are retaliated against,

yet there's nobody prosecuted. the wedding last year the year before. when no one is held accountable for retaliation and then the horrible message. the messages keep going. keep doing it. >> the military needs to taken serious by action. they need to show the people who retaliate against survivors will be held to account. for many people retaliation is far worse than sexual assault itself because they have faith military would support that and to have their peers and supervisors to do is give their life for treat them this way with devastating. >> last month defense secretary ashton carter dressed officers in training about the estimated 18,900 sexual assault in the military last year. he describes sexual assault is a

disgrace in any form any particular challenge in a particular disgrace to the u.s. military. today we are here to talk about soldiers on the frontlines of that challenge. the servicemen and women who bravely come forward and report that they've sexual assault and harassment. without question reporting sexual assault of the u.s. military as an act of valor. that is an act of tremendous courage in the face of danger. reporting is enacted until servicemember putting careers on the line have exposed themselves to skirt the appears on leadership and lay in a profound and personal drama. it is an act of valor for many is motivated by a deep motivation -- deep devotion to the military values and safety of brothers and sisters in arms. however research shows the act of valor is not rewarded or punished. our analysis finds military

service members who reported sexual assault hacksaw times as likely to suffer retaliation for doing so they had to see their nerve is also a servicemember can make it. in the research further apart human rights watch conducted over 250 interviews and put a 150 with survivors. in order to focus on the content for recent reform the reporter be released today is based primarily becomes a 75 survivors currently serving or who left service since fiscal year 2012. the picture of retaliation is stark. rats and blame my peers and supervisors including threats vandalism social media. the physical and verbal abuse to be intolerable in any context and the outcome to save environment is also inescapable. military retaliation is not

limited to a nine to five work and cannot be escaped with two weeks notice. service members are not coworkers the perpetrators who live together. especially for junior enlisted servicemembers the military controls every minute of their time and aspect of their lives. many servicemembers are bound by contracts to the military for fixed your terms. the retaliation be document was not limited to servicemember peers, survivors are labeled troublemakers by superiors from a targeted for disciplinary action undeserved or out of line with common practice. supervisors to poor work assignments, remove them from career track because the two miss out on training deployment. survivors on the career fast-track receive recognition for outstanding performance suddenly found they were denied adults are getting poor performance reviews. this data more like a they would not have their listener renewed or would be added to it

yesterday discharge. interview after interview, servicemembers tour bus reporting sexual assault sparked the beginning of the end of their careers. some survivors face court-martial or disciplined for minor misconduct sick underage drink your adultery but only came to the military's attention as a result of their coming forward to report actual assault. this is not how a military that wants to end sexual assault treats the soldiers coming forward to put a stop to a problem plaguing the institution. to be sure congress made numerous reforms to the military justice system to protect rights. over 200 provisions of law secretarial initiatives and independent recommendations have been undertaken within the last three years. the defense department sites defense department sites increase reported as evidence of the progress made.

while rates have improved dramatically and serve a servicemembers consistently cited fear of retaliation or the perpetrator or perpetrators france concerned about their careers as reasons for not reporting. alarm you may research indicates the fears are well grounded. the positive trend or not continue as victims see those who report their result is taken to address the problem. and in retaliation is critical to addressing the salt of u.s. military. >> in mourning. good morning. my name is brenda peterson. i'm the policy director. i would like to recognize the incredible work of human rights watch human rights watch and shining the light of this devastated issue. we been honored to work with them on this report. i'd also like to acknowledge survivors spoke here today who contributed to the report for

demonstrating so much straight and shared stories of retaliation in reprisal. this report exposes the grave reality for the majority of survivors of sexual assault in the military. retaliation is the norm and often severe. superiors either looked the other way or are engaged in retaliation as well. this report affirms so we see daily prayer pro bono network to a servicemembers who face retaliation have nowhere within the system to turn and most likely no one will be held accountable. they slid survivors of two practical solutions. suffer in silence -- [inaudible] last year as he heard according to the pentagon, 62% of the dems reported their assault experience retaliation and that number is gone and changed over the past two years. you would think these numbers are great to live and result in

effective military leaders but instead the pentagon seems intent on downplaying severity of the problem and discredited the dems. by labeling reports of retaliation as perception or perceived retaliation insinuated that comes her two sons gave to actively interpret their own environment and what is reported as retaliation is actually exaggerated response to harmless behavior such as not being invited to parties or been unfriended on facebook. this approach is shameful offensive and minimizes the extreme harassment and abuse that many survivors are facing every day. contrary, this is not about her feeling. this is about survivors facing relentless harassment in isolation from peers and superiors going unchecked. it is about being assigned menial tasks by supervisors by taking out garbage after you report your assault.

like simply receiving a downgrade performance report and ended a promising career. be charged with offenses only revealed as a result of reporting your rape are being misdiagnosed as a personality disorder as a way of getting rid of you. this is when retaliation looks like and it was destroyed. refusing to acknowledge the true nature and failing to hold bad accountable the pentagon is sanctioning the ongoing harassment and abuse of survivors who have already suffers a much further assaults. survivors frequently tell us while the actual assault was devastating to the trail of a corrupt system in retaliation by coworkers and commanders is even more germanic. the pentagon opposing reform and dismissing retaliation is taking steps to prevent result in respect survivors of sexual

assault. it's time for the military to implement transparent justice system and hold those to make the environment a hostile place for victims of rape and sexual assault to account and we hope the president will take action to support the survivors. thank you. >> good morning. my name is victoria phipps. i'm a retired army captain. my father was in the army and i also wanted to service later. i was in rotc at college and i joined full-time in 2004. after four years i was on track to reach the highest level command and i had exceptional reviews. from the moment in rotc what i learned about the responsibilities that a command position requires, earning the position was my goal. in 2000 i took my first command position in oklahoma and later moved the unit to korea. throughout my military career

receiving end. inappropriate comments were commonplace and they continued in this position as well. one of my senior ranking officers began brushing against me and touching him inappropriately. i reported this to my commander and he told me i had two choices in the situation. he told me i could remove you for cause and in your career right now or you can find a way to deal with it. the perpetrator was the officer responsible for the entire battalions trained in an issued readiness evaluation. after reporting the situation the officer began to push all of my units scheduled to valuations further and further into the future. for instance, during a field training exercise my units stayed in the field for an extra five days to complete training. this affected me directly by making me miss the training and readiness goals my commander set for me.

that metrics are used for a review. i'm not sure if they were intentional but the effect can be much worse than knowing my own evaluation was in jeopardy. the secondary retaliatory effects were because my unit missed these training and readiness goals by soldiers missed out of recognition for accomplishments. the lack of visual recognition and recognition of awarded certificates of achievement actually equated to my soldiers missing out on promotion point. the retaliation did not just affect me. it affected over 100 other people. their careers and their future earning. while in the same unit over the course of one year i was assaulted a total of three times and absolutely i do think the climate facilitated these cards. i chose not to report two of them because i knew if i reported at that point in my

career was gone. i also witnessed what happened to others of that unit who reported sexual assault. i saw several cases handled badly. each victim was blamed. information about cases was not kept confidential and victims were branded as liars. i took a chance to reported one of the three assaults have happened that year. i thought i would be a lot of change the attitude toward sexual assault victims by reporting. i thought reporting would stop the perpetrator from continuing to harass me or others. when i reported to my commander his response was the same as when i reported the senior officer earlier. deal with it and do your job. army criminal investigations division cid eventually substantiated by case on the perpetrator can rest of the con that.

that person was golfing buddies with my commander and he commander and he only received a local letter of reprimand. so when he went to the next duty station his slave was completely clean, not to mention he didn't even have to register as a sex offender. from that point on my commander made it clear he wanted me out of his unit and said we have failed. example that happened in this unit was the change of command ceremony as i was leaving two years of my unit. the entire battalions in my battalion commander gave me a day i began to plan the event and send out invitations. a day or two to brigade commander asked if i could change my data in my commander told me to just get it done. my ceremony was bare bones.

my own unit attended and a few outside jazz. despite my outstanding evaluation reviews i did not receive an award at all. which sends a negative signal to the promotion board. i knew that was the beginning of the end of my career. during the last command position which is my last two years in the army a whole new set of problems arose. six months into duty position i was assaulted for the fourth time in my career. i reported it to my commander in my commander had been on commissioned officer issue an apology. i was labeled a troublemaker from that day forward. theater during this command my first sergeant made it inappropriate remark to me at a training conference. i counseled him and effort into the battalion commander for action. i could not bear the thought of saying something like this to one of my soldiers. my first sergeant and i were counseled in writing.

i was counseled for failure to maintain better control over my first sergeant. my battalion commander broke protocol and asked her to step out of the room so i could issue my first -- so you could issue my first sergeant a reprimand. as i stepped out and close the door behind me, i heard a roaring laughter from my battalion commander, command sergeant major in may 1st sergeant. immediately complained about the handling of the incident to the inspector general referred me to the military equal opportunity office who then instructed me to address my brigade commander with these issues. i met with my brigade commander and he spent 30 minutes intimidating me, trying to get me to drop it. from this point i thought my entire chain of command was on a mission to undermine my credibility of fire me. i began to receive negative counts and statements for things like not returning a call or

e-mail immediately. i was subject to several nonstandard unannounced inspections that none of my peers received and i was given extra paperwork to complete that was not required if any of my peers. after my chain of command in the eiji both failed to resolve the retaliation i wrote to my senator. my brigade and battalion commander who were the subject of my complaints led the congressional inquiry. as a result, my chain of command began an investigation that was supposed to be elected to my battalion commander's behavior towards me and the retaliation i was receiving. during the investigation my deputy brigade commander interrogated me for over two hours asking me are there any unusual circumstances about your enlistment. soldiers and coworkers informed me they were questioned about my mood. after a shooting in a survey my battalion command sergeant major

met with my nco and said tell me everything she does wrong. after the meeting, one of my and he has told me i don't know what you did but he's gunning for you. in 2013 my annual military medical exam triggered the initiation of a medical evaluation board and i became eligible for medical retirement. the retaliation continued. a chain of command threatened to stop the process and look further into my medical records themselves. my commander read through my medical record, including some records about my previous sexual assault. and in training bb&t reference specific issues in my medical records as examples of what medical issues soldiers could have within the battalion and to ensure that we pay special attention to these soldiers. two months before the end of my mep process i was told i would

be sent to a u.s. army reserve unit as an active-duty soldier. but as i was also able to fight back. however i was penalized and denied promotion. despite how overwhelming situations where my multiple years as a commander and survivor provided a knowledgebase for me to anticipate what was coming as well as navigate the field of question, interrogations and the thought of probing questions in print that i knew i should challenge. can only imagine how difficult this has to be for the young enlisted personnel who don't know what they don't know. whistleblowing retaliation reprisal has outlasted my military career and i wonder

when i'll get to move on with my life. i'm a personal side note while the many great leadership lessons that the army has stabbed me, the ability to present and breathe the bottom breathe the bottom line up front is helpful to me in offering you my point of view. the bottom line is i have learned it comes more impactful when dollar figures accompanied the issue at hand. so when i look back in my nine years of service i consider all the money the army investigated me as a resource and an asset to the organ is nation. between the multiple clearances at different levels civilian schooling, undergraduate and graduate, special military training and schooling, rotc and associated training, temporary duty and locations of my salary, the army invested well over $1 million in me. judy the conditions i was

subjected to house medically retired from the army. i cannot currently place a dollar amount on what the department of the army will spend on paying for my retirement because that is the lifelong payment. the impact of the issue also begs the question how much will the va system has to contribute to improving the quality of life because the current system and the military cannot appropriately address whistleblower retaliation. it seems to be the very definition of fraud waste and abuse. >> thank you so much. >> to service members faced a different devastating retaliation you heard about outlined in the report basically have no resource. servicemembers unlike civilians can't quite and they can see the military.

their exclusive legal protection for retaliation in a professional context of the military whistleblower act. that act as protecting zero survivors who experienced retaliation after reporting assaults. dod surveys indicate 32% of people who reported sexual assault experienced professional retaliation. using the figure between 2004 and 2013 we expected to see about 5700 people who may have had professional retaliation that could have been the subject of complaints at the inspector general which oversees the whistleblower protection investigation. over the same time period, the department of defense inspector general has a record of 38 complains of which five were investigated and none of which resulted in any relief for the victims who reported the