compared to satisfaction and confidence that they have in the number of eyeballs that are watching a tv program because of you? how are they being satisfied that they're being accurately charged a fee for their advertising on the internet or any way that's distributed through an internet-type program? >> so the really simple measures advertisers are looking for, how many people or what exposure did my ad have? they have estimates for television. there are a number of different ways they can get those estimates for online display ads, search advertising. they get feedback and we provide it, other companies do. the number one question we're getting now from major advertisers is to understand across the screens how an ad

campaign can be effective, how to balance the money they put in. that's again done. recruiting panels, using technology to measure. same kind of way we do in television. the exposure to an ad, then there's the effectiveness. but there are many ways because you have website information, you have other technology that people can do that. so we have similar methods to television, similar answers for advertisers. big question that's happening is trying to understand how they complement each other, an ad on tv, an ad on the internet. >> if i use myself as an example, a tv program goes dark and an ad comes up. now, maybe my mind is watching it or not. but that's what's filling the space. not so with an internet screen. i may be looking at content on the screen on an ipad and

there's an adjacent ad but i'm not paying any attention to that. how do you go about measuring the effectiveness of that compared to a tv program? >> so we actually use a method that involves both understanding that a panel we've recruited has that ad up and on the screen, and then recall after the fact. and certain measures we create for recall and impact for that advertising, for major advertisers. so it's a combination of things along with demographic information we have. so we can say this ad was viewed by an estimate of men 18 to 49. and then we additionally would look at the impact of the ad and the recall. and we do that for a number of major advertisers. many of them, in fact. >> do you find that the recall for internet ads is much lower than the recall for tv ads?

>> it depends on the creative, it depends on the placement. in other words, the actual ad. the placement, what we do find is that ads that are shown on both television and the internet have much higher recall and much higher effectiveness when they're combined. that's something many advertisers are studying with interest. they complement each other. >> senator, i would add also to the point i made in my remarks about innovative business models and new offerings that various content companies which obviously use advertising as part of a way to fund the programming. are experimenting with ways of lighter ad load, for example. shorter ads. so, again, to my comment, out with the old in some respects. the new way online video is being delivered is not just the means by which the content's being delivered but the way in which it's offered up as far as

the price point for the access to the content, how the ads are delivered out, prerolls it's called where you watch an ad before. there are a number of things being done. putting aside the actual measurement which is a separate discussion, not my expertise, that's being utilized. some are finding it from what we hear extremely effective. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. i'm going to ask the final question, there being nobody left. so i'll have to roll several into it. ms. whiting, you were very interesting the way you answered senator pryor's question because you really hesitated when you talked about the effect of technology leading to rural coverage. you didn't -- you had an answer, but it was awhile in coming. i thought that was honest and i happen to agree with that. the business of when rural state senators talk about rural people

or poor people in far-off places and people say, well, they're just pandering to their constituency is really not at all the case. this is a basic american precept. mr. diller has said that a number of times, everything has to go to everybody. that's such a fundamentally american concept. it's also a concept which is so probable, can be probable, with this proliferation of platforms. and delivery areas. however, i think this committee has done a very good job in three areas of all this. and that is we started the e-rate. every classroom was done on the third day.

others didn't do that. and so it was a much longer process. but now the e-rate has worked. that's a starting point for -- connectivity is always a starting point. i think we've pushed really hard on, as senator nelson said, broadband. and through the stimulus package, which some people say i never want to see the likes of that again, and therein lies the problem because what we have done in broadband as a matter of public policy may have not -- may have reached its point of no return. then i think we've done a very good job in wireless. put a lot of money into wireless. on the other hand, we haven't done that by ourselves. obviously, others have done it. but with all of these things going on, all i can think of when i hear about rural america -- and i'm going to think about the rural part of florida, not the rural part of west virginia, just for the moment so that i appear to be more honest in my questioning. and that is that for the most

part it's been the business of the telecommunications companies, up until now. and there's always this wonderful thing because there's lots of mergers. and so there are lots of conditions. and so the conditions always include that you've got to go everywhere, cover everybody. and all of the telephone companies that have ruled over west virginia over the years, they've all promised it and none of them have done anything about it. yes, they've incrementally moved things further. but if you talk about mine disasters, if you talk about driving down any interstate in west virginia and you have to kind of memorize the places where the interstate rises high enough so you have cell service, which is absolutely humiliating and embarrassing in the modern world, that's our world. that's our world. that's rural america's world. and so i am on fire on the business of if we're going to

have this explosion of technologies, which i welcome, i totally welcome, and i welcome for several reasons. one is that i think this explosion of technology and capacity to see, learn, listen, watch, may be the salvation of the older generation because you read so much about people alone and they don't have friends and they can't communicate. well, all of a sudden they have all the friends in the entire world. they can make 25 friends every single hour if they want to. and they -- but the problem is they sort of have to have children in their household. but most of them don't. so that whole problem of how is it that they come to the marvels of this new way of watching, learning, going back to 12th century british history and finding out the marvels of how people actually built cathedrals back then, you know, the

stonemason process, how could they do it, it's all interesting stuff. it's exactly the kind of thing to keep them company, keep them motivated. and then the whole news factor. when they get to the news factor, i also have a big problem and question. because news outlets are diminishing. i think there's one a.p. person left in charleston, west virginia. which is our largest city and capital. and newspapers are getting smaller. "the post" is getting easier and faster to read, as is the "times." that is slightly less. the "times" a little bit less quickly. and television increases. and news is now got you. and local news is a little bit less than cnn and msnbc and fox, et cetera, but it's still -- it's still that nature. and then local broadcasts has some of the same.

so i worry about those things greatly, but what i worry most about is access to this. that we're talking here an exciting, marvelous, technologically proficient, slick but profoundly important and right development. i'm a true believer in net neutrality. i want everything to go out to everybody. i don't want anybody stopping anything. we haven't really dealt with caps here because at some point you can't create spectrum and you can buy it back or give it back and then the fcc can sell you some and make you -- but you know, the streaming as bill nelson pointed out eats up a lot of megabits really, really fast. so my question to you is, having neatly wrapped all my complaints into that, how -- what's going to happen in this new revolution which is going to force not just

the telecommunications companies but others who are in the game now to get it out to people who are not asking for it? they're not asking for it. i don't believe they are. i think when they knew they could have it and then overcame their fear of doing it and had access to getting it, you might start with connectivity, they can't go down to their local public library to do all this stuff, there's connection down there, connectivity, but i think it's going to be a really tough slog. but it is the classic american requirement of this new explosion of possibilities. and i have absolutely no idea who i asked that question to. so i'll just ask it to barry diller. >> thank you so much. i think just like long ago phone companies were forced that in

return for their monopoly that they had to connect to every place that existed -- >> but they didn't do it. >> well -- >> none of them. >> i -- didn't phone coverage mostly -- >> no. the interstates and went to the cities and where the business was and the prosperity was. they got all of that. so fairmont, morgantown are happy but other places, in the rural parts where i live, where our farm is, you can't get anything. >> well, i had thought phone coverage was pretty much everywhere. however, if it wasn't and it isn't, then its replacement to a large degree, which is wireless -- >> right. >> -- and broadband. it should be the policy i think of this country that every place must have the ability to receive both wireless and broadband connectivity.

and that ought to be -- that ought to be our law. we cannot compete in the world with the 16th or 18th best communications infrastructure. >> now, you're talking more broadband than you are wireless. >> no, wireless as well. but by the way, you speak about if you go too low in parts of west virginia, i promise you if you drive around los angeles or new york city or seattle you're going to find lots of dropped calls. you're going to find lots of places where there's spotty coverage. but -- and i think that, again, we haven't had enough competition. we haven't had enough national policy that is -- >> how does national policy do this? i mean, i'm meant to be in love with national policy, and i've seen these national policies, but it's always the people who have to make the money who

decide -- decline to get it out there because it's at the margins. >> we built a highway system in this country, which we did in the '50s, i believe. that got done. why is this so impossible for us to organize a system where it does get done? >> because that was an executive decision approved by the congress in a much simpler time and this is an explosion of technologies which so many people are just barely holding on by fingertips, and particularly the more rural you get. and inner city's the same thing. if it's not going to the inner city, that's the same complaint i would have. >> sure. >> so who's going to push this? >> i'm sitting here pushing it. my colleagues will push it. most of the people in this room i think would push it. i think you ask anybody they'll say yes, we want competition in communication infrastructure, we want it to be universal, we want

it to be the best in the world, and we'll support it. >> but mr. diller, do you understand what it feels like when you go to a place called upper big branch somewhere in raleigh county and they've just had a big explosion at a massive mine and 29 miners have been killed but nobody's really quite sure of that yet, so everybody's gathered around the portals, as close as they're allowed to get, and everybody is trying to dial their mother, their son, their grandmothers, et cetera, in detroit and around west virginia and they cannot do it. and up come charging up the road comes boatload after boatload of wireless poles from verizon -- land line poles from verizon because they're going to set them up. but you see what i mean? in other words, any kind of a rural mishap. now, i.t. and health care is helping a lot on this, on that

particular aspect. but the general availability and accessibility remains very much on my mind, and i worry about it. >> i sympathize. >> any concluding aristotelian comments? >> mr. chairman, i guess what i'd weigh in with is a balance is required because it is a combination of factors like anything. we certainly, most of these companies sitting at the table, are benefited from the very notion of having wide distribution of broadband on many levels, everything from the very basic for us of pushing out updates to our operating systems to the delivery of entertainment. so they're all essential. and the reason we supported the fcc position on net neutrality was because it was a balanced approach, and i think as you evaluate it, since we're down to the last, i don't know that i'll have the last word, but the last one of the closing thoughts, is

to balance those interests because they're -- the companies that actually build, implement this are in a better position than certainly i am or we are to address what all is involved but it is looking at -- it is a balancing act. and i think as we evaluated that we realized just that, that you have to take into account the innovation opportunities, the delivery of content, as i said before. i believe that as more high-speed content is delivered i'd like to believe that there will be an incentive for the investment made to deliver that broadband. and it is essential for this country, and i certainly agree with mr. diller and the rest of you that, whether we're 18th, i know we're way down the list. and that is certainly something that, whether it's delivery of education, which is fundamental, all the way to the more mundane in education entertainment, it's essential because this is where we're headed. >> mr. chairman, may i make a corroborating comment?

well, is there a possibility that you won't make a corroborating comment? but you will be very happy if i do. >> of course i will. i just want to say if it's any consolation the highest point in florida is 350 feet. so not a lot of hills and valleys. and very spotty coverage. but as mr. diller says, in any urban area how many -- it has crossed every one of our thoughts, you're in the middle of a very important cell phone conversation and you lose it and you wonder why don't they have this problem in third world countries on this planet? and i would just like to throw out a final thought, that we

need to consult with folks like this on getting what should congress do in the updating of our video and communications laws given the fact of the subject of this panel today. thank you. >> you have been a superb panel. and we have -- many ideas have been thrown out. frustrations have been thrown out. and the opportunities are endless. so it really is the most exciting period in telecommunications. and all of this, since i came here, by definition. and so i congratulate you all for being a part of it and for being warriors in the war of the roses. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> oh, my gosh, great to meet you.

born in a north korean work camp it's the only world chin had ever known. he's also the only one to ever escape from the camp. >> his first memory at the age of around 4 was going with his mom to a place where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot. and shootings, public executions in the camp were held every few weeks. and they were a way of punishing people who violated camp rules and of terrorizing the 20,000 to 40,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules from then on. >> sunday, author blaine harden on chin's journey out of north korea and learning about society and civilization at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. and may look for our q&a interview with robert caro, the

p passage of power, volume four. his multivolume biography of the 36th president, lyndon johnson. this is c-span 3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. president obama has renewed u.s. military advisers helping uganda's government combat the lower resistance army. two ugandans abducted by the lra told their stories to the senate african affairs subcommittee. they heard from defense and state officials who explained

u.s. efforts in the central african region affected by the lord's resistance army. this is two hours. >> examining u.s. policy on the lord's resissance army. our distinguished witnesses today, deputy secretary of state for african affairs, assistant administrator for africa usaid, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for african affairs amanda dougherty. thank you for being with us today. welcome. and our second panel, regional ambassador, and mr. jacob, a former lra abductee who will share with us on the second panel their personal experiences of working to help communities in uganda recover from the lra and their personal experiences of being victimized by the lra which i think will add some strength and breadth to today's

hearing. the lra committed brutal attacks that have destabilized the region resulting in displacement, kidnapping, mutilation and rape. joseph kony and his commanders abducted tens of thousands to serve as child soldiers and sex slaves forcing them to commit terrible acts. today we're privileged and humble to hear from two victims of the lra, jacob and jolie, of their enduring horrific experiences in uganda and courageous efforts to live forward and to make positive change in the world from that experience. joseph kony epitomizes the worst of mankind and evil of the day. while the lra has left uganda in 2006 it continues to burn a path of destruction through the whole region as you can see from this chart in the past four months alone the lra has committed 132 attacks in three countries, the central after rican republic an

south sudan. despite an increased u.s. presence and regional efforts, there has been and it continues to be broadened by partisan support for stopping kony demonstrated in may of 2010 with the overwhelming passage by congress of the disarmament in uganda to work with regional governments to remove him and his top lieutenants from battlefield and protect civilians. there's bipartisan support for the deployment of 100,000 advisers which yesterday president obama in his speech at the holocaust museum announced would continue in their mission to train regional militaries. bipartisan support is so strong, including the two senators with me at the moment, joined last week in releasing a video about the senate's long-standing commitment to countering the lra that i would like to make a part of these proceedings and with the consent of the other senators i had hoped at this point we would show the video for the benefit of this hearing today.

>> take on a humanitarian crisis on the other side of the world. the attention has been unparalleled, the level of are interest unprecedented, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. i'm u.s. senator and i'm the chair of the african affairs subcommittee that meets here in this room on capitol hill. in hearings, senators have for many years tackled the issues of justice, war, peace and america's role in it. and, in particular, how to tackle what's committed by the lra and their leader. it's work that a broad coalition have worked on for many years, important work that continues today. joseph kony lower resistance army, wreaked half 0 okay for more than 25 years.

>> he is thought to be in the central african republic, the south sudan, maybe the congo. he has been separated somewhat from the soldiers which is a good sign. >> for millions of americans the campaign was the first they'd heard that the lra's terrible problems. but many in washington have been trying for years to get the world to notice and to act. >> i saw a report way back in 1997 by a human rights -- it talked about the abduction of children by heavily armed ugandan rebel group called the lower resistance army. >> i was working in uganda when i found out about this guy named joseph kony for about 20 years mutilating kids. >> i remember specifically in 2004 when i, in fact, traveled to uganda for the express purpose of looking into the

terrible situation and also seeing what i could do about the lra running rampant at times through that country. >> he would go out to the villages and abduct children, turn the girls into prostitutes. and then make soldiers out of the boys. once the kids learned how to kill people, they had to go back and kill their parents. if they didn't do that they cut their lips off and their noses off. >> it is beyond comprehension this single man with a relatively small group of followers has been able to just run havoc through this part of the world. >> i've heard of a lot of tragedies in the eastern congo, sudan, darfur, but this was one of the worst in terms of brutality. in 2009 frustrated by the lack of progress being made, senator feingold introduced s-1067, the lra disarmament and ugandan

recovery act, the bill to make it the policy of the united states to work with regions to stop the lra and help central africans to remember. >> this isn't just about invading or military action by the united states but has to do with diplomatic efforts, with intelligence, and with restoring the lives and the situation of the people in the area affected especially northern uganda. >> senator feingold's littbill, recovery act was a real breakthrough. >> at a time there's so much gridlock and partisanship, this is an issue we had bipartisan support and passed relatively easily. it was signed by president obama. >> senator feingold's bill laid the groundwork last fall to send 100 u.s. military advisers to central africa to help armed forces for uganda, the democratic republic of congo, south sudan, and the central after

african republic to hunt down joseph kony and the lra. >> i met with some special advisories that are united states personnel in uganda and central african republic and sudan and uganda adding a great bit of ability to troops over there. >> we are currently working with the defense department, the state department and other agencies to try and figure out what we can do and how we can be more effective and we're going to continue to work with the state department and others in an effort to provide and focus on this issue. >> it may take time. you have to understand in an area where he is thought to be was a densely vegetative, hard to know roads and telephone poles. there are no lights at night. he separated himself from a lot of his followers. >> they're getting very, very close. >> president obama and our u.s. soldiers in the field aren't the only americans determined to help stop the lra.