that the legal reasoning of the fisa court to the extent that it can be released, with the appropriate -- and following up on my question, say we release the number of people who are incidentally monitored and you can pick a number from one to whatever, then how would that number mean anything to the public if they tonight have anything to compare it to? >> my own experience having read these reports for many, many years is that it's actually quite helpful to evaluate trends in the surveillance authority who is significant, for example, that in 2003 the number of fisa warrens given the number of title 3 warrants and that was the question of the changing

kishth, i think that would be helpful not only to the committee, but also to the public. next question is say we release the actual number of people who were targeted. does that give the other side an indication as to the extent of the operational strength of the national security agencies? >> you know, i don't see how it would. i imagine someone could make the argument and we're truly talking about aggregate numbers and you could choose, for example, which numbers to disclose. the main point, i think, and maybe there is agreement on this point. the comment numbers that they provide are simply inadequate. we just don't know from the information made available to the court and how the authority is being used and i don't think that's where we want to leave

this as we're considering the act. >> my guess is that playing the numbers game either with the actual targets of the people and the people incidentally surveilled that perhaps the decisions of the fisa court and particularly the review of the fisa court appropriately redacted would be able to give us the answer to that question rather than saying there were x number of people who were incidentally surveilled and why a number of people who are actual targets, you know? i've always been one that has favored disclosure. on the other hand, you know, i know there is a danger involved in that particularly in looking at what was disclosed during the trial of the twin towers' bombers that michael mukasey that the federal judge presided

over and there was information that was disclosed during that trial that was used by al qaeda to pull off 9/11, and i don't think that we ought to change the law so that that happens ever again. my time is up, and i would like to thank the witnesses for appearing. >> this has been very useful hearing. let me say that thursday of next week we will have a classified briefing where many of the members of this committee who have had questions can ask in the yet to be determined representative of the justice department, whatever they want. so that will be a classified briefing and i would encourage members to come to it and to re-ask the questions that they don't think they got an adequate answer to today. without an answer, the hearing is adjourned.

first, the house energy and subcommittee will look at how existing communications laws adjust the demands of new technology in the distribution of video content and then at 3:10, a house committee on how the dodd-frank act affects the process. the senate foreign relations committee hears testimony from the business leaders on the law of the sea treaty and it defines the nations of international waters.

the congress on break this week. we're featuring american history tv programs on prime time on c-span3. tonight we hear from key congressional staff charged with investigating president nixon. frannis o brie own, chief of staff of 19 74. and at 10:00 p.m. eastern bernard nussbaum, a senior member of the investigation. all this week on c-span3. this wreak on the fourth of july watch 24 hours of american history tv here on c-span3 starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern we'll take a look at the war of 1812. a little-known conflict with great britain, it airs again at 4:00 p.m. eastern. at noon and 8:00 p.m., how president lyndon johnson viewed the government to institute civil rights legislation and social reform.

they include walter mondale and bill moiers. and at 2:00 any 10:00, the rightings and observations of 19th century aristocrat alexis tocqueville from michael barron. american history tv all day this wednesday, july 4th on c-span3. >> the life of the sailor included scrubbing the deck in the morning and working on the sails, climbing aloft, whatever with the duties assigned, gun drill practice and by the end of the day you're ready for rest and you don't get sleep and it's four hours on, four hours off. >> this weekend on american history tv, the life of an enlisted man aboard "the uss constitution"bu during the war 1812. >> it was always carried by a petty officer in a bag and the

thing the sailor never wanted to see was a pty officer who was getting red for a flogging. it's a phrase you still use today, don't let the cat out of bag for a flogging. >> more from the contenders. the series on key political figures who ran for president and lost, but changed political history. sunday, 1928 democratic presidential candidate al smith. up next, a house and hearing about how they affect the new technology. we'll hear from broadcasting, satellite, cable and online representatives and we spoke about advances in technology and the impact on consumers' access to video content. this hearing is about two and a half hours.

call to order, the subcommittee communications and technology, and certainly welcome our panelists. witnesses who are here today we very much appreciate your willingness to come in and share your thoughts on the future of video. this is one of a series of hearings we've organized and the first being the future of audio and now the future of video and the future of data as well and later in july, we'll have all five fcc commissioners here now and that's up to full-functioning status and so we look forward to that hearing as well as we look at these various rules and laws that have been on the books for a long time and in an era where the marketplace can evolve and change dynamically and in a very rapid way. the fcc regulates traditional video providers based in a bygone era. when they passed the cable act, cable operators controlled 98%

of the pay tv distribution market and were affiliated with 53% of the national program networks. that law was meant to spur competition. it worked. nationwide, satellite tv providers, dish and directv now had one-third of the market and only 15% of national program networks are ingrated with the cable operator. wireless carriers are streaming video. programmers and pay tv providers are filling smartphone and tablet screens with their content and services as the fast as viewers are clamoring for them. >> thea the same time, new entities are flocking to the market. within the last ten years, youtube, itunes, hulu are streaming offer the internet. it does not apply to these players. therefore, i have some decisions to make opinion one option is to

recognize the competitive landscape and start deregulating cable ask satellite broadcast companies and to apply to the new technologies and services. i, for one, do not believe we should be expanding video regulation. internet-distributed video is if the absence of regulation. video represented more than half of global internet traffic by 2011 according to cisco. video delivered over the internet specifically to televisions doubled in 2011 and will increase six-fold by 2016 representing 11% of consumer internet video traffic. by 2016, 1.2 million minutes of video will cross the network every second, and it would take more than 6 million years to watch the amount of video that will cross global ip networks each mock. ist anying cable satellite and broadcast providers and programmers are exper iming with internet distribution.

internet-only providers and programmers are also spring up and regulation is not only unnecessary in such a vibrant environment and it can harm this nascent competition. the creative chaos in the marketplace is healthy as parties fight and the vibrant marketplace generates new jobs. the last thing we want is to shackle everyone's entrepreneur ial spirit and if we're not going to apply the old regime, we must continue to apply it to the traditional players. the rules were premessed on the lack of video competition that isn't the reality anymore, it is neither tech nol onlyinological competitively neutral. cable operators and satellite providers and broadcasters should be, loued just as much flexibility to respond to the competition from the internet players as we'd like to respond

from competition to the traditional players and this is how we'll spur innovation. i yield the balance of my time to the vase chair of the committee, mr. terry. >> a lot has changed in the video marketplace over the last 20 years. content, distribution and consumers preferences have all evolved. we're a society that wants what we want, when we want it wherever we want it and because of this, the communications sector has spent billions over the last two decades in order to meet that consumer appetite. as we engage in decisions about the current state of video marketplace and get bogged down in the granular details of disputes and issues, it is imperative that we keep one thing in mind, the consumer will always remain the most important component of the discussion. >> it's appropriate to ask questions about whether the regulations of decades past are, in fact, still appropriate

today. do they inhibit competition or spur it? do they create regulatory parity or uneach playing fields. most importantly, do we still work to the betterment of the consumer or are consumes are now caught in the middle? they can be in the mobility and technology, and with that, i would like to submit for the robert the ce alert -- >> without objection. >> with regard to technology. i thank my friend from oregon and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend from california, miss eshu. >> thank you, mr. chairman and good morning to the witnesses and thank you for being here and thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing. i think it's a very important one and certainly when you look at the line outside there is a great deal of interest.

over the past 20 years the video mark has undergone remarkable transformation. today consumers have access to more programming choices than ever before and have increasing control over where and when they watch these programs thanks to the dvr, to the internet and to mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. while we've advanced in so many ways there are key barriers can curtail the exciting innovation that defines the next generation of video. first, when congress passed the 1996 act question required the fcc to increase consumer choice and competition in the set box market. while we may never have imagined the benefits of internet-connected devices like roku and boxy, consumers continue to have limited options when it comes to finding devices

with features equivalent to the cable company-issued set-top box. second, consumers should not be held hostage when the transmission disputes break down. since 2010, 10 different multi-channel video programming distributors have experienced at least 34 blackouts in at least 76 media markets. among the most high-profile disputes which i think all of us recall was a blackout that prevented millions of households from watching the first two games of the 2010 world series, and i would like to submit and ask for upan mouse consent to submit for the record, mr. chairman the broadcast of blackouts of the 2010 and 2012. >> without objection. >> third, i'm concerned about the potential impact of data caps on the growth of the streaming video market. just two weeks ago it was widely

reported that the department of justice had begun looking into whether data caps unfairly limit online video competition. while we don't know the extent of this inquiry, it falls on the sub committee to thoroughly examine the issue and ensure future innovation is not curtailed. finally, there are joint agreements involving verizon and several of the nation's largest cable companies that are an example of the changing video landscape. last week, i once again called on the sub committee to have a hearing to review the proposed transaction, and i hope the chairman upton and walden will agree to this request. i haven't taken a position on these proposed changes or what's in the works, but i do think we would all benefit from the examination of them.

i want to welcome again all of our witnesses that are here this morning and most especially to the two that have traveled probably the farthest that are silicon valley constituent compliments and the netflix of los gatos and roku of saratoga. welcome back, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of the team. >> the chair recognizes, the full committee chairman and the chairman from michigan, mr. upton. thank you, mr. chairman. the beauty of the free market is it harnesharnesses, if you're n using technology to offer new services or cheaper prices, you're not going to last very long. unlike the laws of congress, the laws of economics are exceedingly nimble. if new technologies or new competitors arise, the marketplace begins to adjust almost immediately. legislators and regulators by contrast operate at a glacial

pace relative to the speed of technology. even the fcc's data on video competition is six years on a date, let alone the regulations. the laws of economics also encouraged diversity and companies that can't provide the same services and content at cheaper prices and strive to offer different services or content. that's what we call innovation. many regs by contrast drive everything to the lowest common denominator, if everyone is entitled to whatever content is popular at the moment, why would anyone risk, investing in something brand new. and if everyone is entitled to the fruits of your labor whether that's your distribution platform or your content you're less likely to invest as much. indeed, differentiation is often a leading driver of competition. so, for example, many attributed the exclusive availability of the football sunday ticket on directv as a prime source of

that satellite tv provider's growth. this, in turn, forces other players to invest in different content, develop better services or lower prices. regulations in that space will only decrease economic activity. if particular behavior were economic there would be no need to compel it, while such mandates might be warranted in only three broadcast networks or where cable operators are in the paid tv mark and that's not the world where we live in anymore. and the cable tv market has dropped from 9 % at the time that the congress passed the '92 cable act to 68% in 2006 and it's probably 55% today. that means almost one out of every other home gets their programming from some other source. like a satellite operator or phone company. the number of national program networks grew from 106 in 1996

to 565 in 2006 and the percentage of networks affiliated with the cable operator has shrunk from 53% when the cable act passed to 15% in '06. if we innovation and joubs, the time may come to pull back on the laws that congress and the laws of economics do more of the work. viewers across the country not to mention our economy would be better for it. i yield to -- >> we have three on our side i think would like time. mr. stearns. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a little nudge from this committee with legislation will create billions of dollars out there many the audience. i think as you pointed out the 1992 cable, mr. chairman, when it was passed everything's changed dramatically since then. i hope today as the first step towards all of us coming

together with the process to modernize the 1992 cable act. as you pointed out cisco recently revealed a study revealing that over 2/368% of the u.s. mobile data traffic will be video. the current rollout of mobile dtv by broadcasters and dish pushed to enter into the wireless market are responding to consumer demand. as many of our witnesses will testify today consumers have more access to more content, and a grert variety of devices than perhaps ever before. i learn forward to what is working and what the government can do to advance the future of video even from the. >> i recognize the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to all of our witnesses today. i think that from the opening statements you can see we can agree that the constant in the video arena is change. change in innovation. i was thinking through my nearly 20 years of working the private and public sector on this issue

and going from big box tv's to home theaters and then watching the analog to digital. now you can carry pretty much whatever you want on the ipad and plug it into a screen and there you go. going forward, i hope we are going to focus on in use. i think consumers are the best at deciding what they want in content and also in their delivery mechanisms. so i look forward to the discussion we're going to have about how we insert free market principals into the good work and innovation you do. yield back. >> recognize the ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman walden for holding this hearing to examine the future of video. i want to thank you for working with us to assemble an interesting and diverse panel of witnesses. digital technology and broad band internet access are dramatically altering how video

content is produced, deliverened and consumed promises more choices and greater value for consumers and new avenues for the creative community to distribute its work. our challenge is to assure diversity of voices. robust competition and greater access to these new platforms. the panel of witnesses before us illustrates the many ways americans can access video programming today free over the air broadcasting, pay television service from cable, satellite, even traditional telephone companies or video delivered through a broad band connection. video programming is no longer the exclusive province of the television set. consumers can now use tablets and smart phones to watch their preferred content. innovative products and services are increasingly putting viewers in control of, when where, and how they watch video.

even as we marvel at the incredible advances in technology, we must be mindful that policy choices we make today will impact the video landscape we see tomorrow. we should examine whether the legal framework created 20 years ago still works for a video market filled with choices that did not even exist two or three years ago. we should remember that old challenges can persist in the face of new opportunities. competitors need a fair shot at gaining access to content and independent creators need rules that prevent discrimination against carriage of their programming. two decades ago the actions of this committee and others in congress helped once nascent industries like cable and satellite offer new choices to consumers. today we must continue to ensure innovation in the video marketplace can continue to flourish as consumers

increasingly watch video through broad band and open internet that is accessible to all becomes even more important. we need to carefully examine whether practices like broad band data usage caps are restricting consumer choice or being employed in an anti-competitive manner. also deserving of our scrutiny is whether major providers of video and broad band services will continue to have the incentives to compete in light of joint agreements and consolidation in the marketplace. and i join our ranking member in requesting hearings to examine the proposed transactions between verizon and four of the nation's largest cable companies. including an examination of the joint marketing agreements that would allow the companies to cross market each other's services. i hope the committee will convene a hearing so that members can consider the impact of these deals not only on the video and broad band markets,

but also on wireless computation. i appreciate all the witnesses for participating in today's hearing. i look forward to your testimony. i want to yield time. >> thank you very much, mr. waxman. i just to add my greetings to my constituent from dish network. thank you for coming. i yield back. >> i join you in welcoming all of our panelists whether they came all the way from california or down the street from k street. welcome to you all. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. thank you all for being here. we're going to start with mr. robert johnson. the ceo of sky age gel u.s. llc. thank you for being here. we appreciate to reading through your testimony and look forward to your comments. just for all the panelists if you vice president used these

microphones you need to get pretty close to them and make sure the light's on. >> chairman walden, ranking member and members of the subcommittee on communications and technology, it is my pleasure to have this testimony to testify at your hearing today on the future of video and thank you for inviting me to participate. my name is rob johnson. i'm one of the founders of sky angel and its chief executive officer. sky angel was founded for the purpose of providing american families with a high quality and affordable video distribution service in their homes that would offer exclusively family friendly programming. today offers more than 80 channels that are live linear programming networks. many of which are familiar in american households such as the hallmark channel, fox news, the nfl channel, bloomberg and the weather channel to name a few. also we'll be adding a new

african-american family channel started by magic johnson. we were the first company to use iptv and a set top box. subscribers cannot access the encrypted programming without a set top box which has broad band internet inputs. sky angel is not a web based service and no external computer is needed to subscribe to or receive sky angel programming. all any american family needs for sky angel is a television set and a broad band internet service of modest capability. our set top boxes like like the ones consumers ordinarily use at home. here's one of them. a sky angel subscriber selects programming with the use of a typical remote control. a subscriber using the remote to scroll up and down the screens

of live channel choices and then clicks on the selection he or she wants to watch. from a consumer perspective, the sky angel is the same. sky angel offers consumers a competitive service at affordable rates. currently our complete package and more than 80 live video and audio programming channels cost $32.99 a month. it includes unlimited access to a large amount of movies which are family friendly. we have recently rebranded the package. we have a less expensive inspirational package of programming which is also available to the ipad. our goal is to offer a safe haven for families and children to enjoy as large a selection of possible of live video and audio programming and recorded video programming without fear of exposure objectionable