and coming and disstorgs and blame shifting. they will do whatever it takes to keep their power and are motivated by self preer is vabs and personal gain and put their own interest above the people they serve. they will vote for think thing that benefits them regardless of how the constituents feel or whether or not it's in the best interest of the country. politicians are self serving people's that feel no loyalty for the people they serve. is that how you guys feel? okay, but you know what? they're not all bad. there really are some good people up there so. then what are we looking for? here's the thing. we have to fundamentally define what is it we have and what it is we want. a statesman is what i want. a statesman is a person of integrity. high moral character and high moral character a strong desire

to serve others. recognize his or her empirical offenses and strives to overcome that to be the best he or she can be. statesman have been trained in humanity and know the moral code of right and wrong and positive attributes of honesty and patriotism and selfless standards of love thigh neighbor and country before self. statesman are people of faith that believe- a supreme being and a future state of rewards an punishments. they research carefully and vote for the best interest of the people they represent even if it means losing votes. wow. wouldn't that be cool? . . .no carrierringconnect 1200

>> do you want politicians representing you or do you want statesmen? these are definitions that are important and it worked across the board. do you want people in the media who are statesmen or politicians? do you what people teaching your children your statement or politicians? do you want people on the school board who are statesmen or politicians? we know we want statesman. do we want to be statesmen or do

we want to be politicians? if we want to be statesmen, then we have to start looking at this much differently. i had a woman who gave this wonderful -- where do we find the people that are going to represent the small businessmen? where do we find people who are born to represent families and understand what it means to have to pay for your bills and live on an income? i looked at her and said, madam, we are them. if we did not like what we see, we need to start running. oppression does not just art in washington. all these bosses to washington are great. they're getting a message out but not changing anything. you do not change things in washington. people are not elected in washington. they are elected in your own backyards. you have to make a local

difference. he but local. -- keep it local. you can take those people down -- their whole house of cards -- in your own neighborhood, county, state. precincts are not won and lost in washington. there are one precinct by precinct across this country. we need to be there. that is how we're going to change this. you cannot stop with -- start with washington. these people do not walk off the street and into the white house. usually. they start town by town, school boards -- the most oppressive government office in the united states of america is the school board. why are we not paying attention to that? why are we not running for those offices? they take 75% to 85% of our

property taxes. who is watching them? you are ok with letting the politicians run the turf? the continuously say they need more money. we need to be there. the question is, where do i find them and how. that is where the abigail adams project comes in. what is the abigail adams project? basically, it is -- i love this power. -- i love this powerpoint thing. this rocks. the abigail adams project is information on the candidates and where they stand on the issues. that is pretty powerful. if you had that when you went into the polls, would that not

have really changed things? there are a lot of people who do this. the first question i get is what makes the abigail adams project unique? league of the women voters says this. what makes us unique? the first thing is that it is local. everybody wants to focus on the national and the national candidates. there are many duplicating efforts on this. what is not happening is that you're not able to go to a place where you can see, here is what is on my ballot. simple, clear information. here are the people you are going to be voting for. we had some voter guides we passed out in the last election . we worked with another organization and use their voter guides. they had the two presidential candidates on the front, which

was really good for the presidential race, but when you open it up, it had all the senators and state representatives. how many voters know what district they levin. you have to be able to show them the information and all them to go vote their conscience. they cannot not understand what they're voting for. we cannot assume they know anything. we've learned a lot about the average american voter and the last several years they are on a 10 to 12 year age level. if you're 1 to provide information, you have to know that a 12-year-old could read it. they would have to be informed. you need to be able to give that information. we want more information. these simple voter guides we are handing out are not everything we need.

what we are going to need is, tell us more information. who is endorsing him? if the candidate has been endorsed by the sierra club, i want to know. if they have been endorsed by the nea, i sure want to know. everybody will know for themselves who the candidates are and where they stand, including a local candidate. we have no party affiliation on our voter information. that is pretty powerful. i can tell you how powerful because in north carolina, there is a town -- this was in the "washington times"a couple of months ago. 65% of the population is black. they decided to take party affiliations off of the ballot. the attorney general's office for the united states of america decided that was prejudicial,

racist, and unfair, and sent a letter to north carolina to tell them that you cannot take the letters off the ballot because then the black people will not know who the democrats are. who cares? who cares? so we have no party affiliations. that has been very powerful. when you take the letters off, the voters look at people instead. just think of the last time you went in to vote. he walked in, you saw the names , there were no letters. you are suddenly going to realize how much you have never known about the people you're voting for. you relied on a letter to give you what you hope you wanted, or to give you not what the other letter was. what did you get?

we have to start looking at the people and not the letter. we have to stop voting by letters the way preschoolers' color by numbers. we need to look at the people and not the letters beside their names. if we take those letters off, we are forced to do that. i want to give information, too. that changes everything. all the candidates are included. if there are seven candidates running, we list all of them. you vote your conscience. i am not going to be like the media and decide which candidates are viable and which are not. we need to give them all the candidates and let the people decide if they are viable or not. [applause] simplicity. i told you the average voter, 10 to 12-years old. it is a sad truth. they try to stay informed, but how can you? how easy is it to stay informed?

you have people who pay other people to teach them how not to answer questions. they pay other people to teach them how to win by doing things that you have already heard are ineffective. they dump tons of money into these radio and tv commercials to try and convince you there what you want them to be. depending on which commercial you are listening to it depends on who they are. it is a sham. the whole process is an absolute sham. it is a con. you are being conned. it is time we stopped being conned. what is unique about the abigail adams project is that it revolutionizes the electoral process. you will not need to have a treasure chest of money or party backing to be a credible candidate. you only have to be how you are

-- and the people will decide if you are credible. the only commercials that need to be running our commercials from the abigail adams project that say, do you know who is running? are you confused? would you like to know where the people stand? law onto -- log onto our website and you can figure out who the candidates are. the whole point of that treasure chest of money is to reach you and me. what if we used what we talk to you today to go reach you and me? door-to-door. i am a precinct captain for the republican party. everything that has been said is true. i am in the middle of a corruption like you would not believe. they buy and sell elections right and left.

the manipulate elections. we are in the middle of the greatest fraud seen in ohio in a long time. the party chair for the state is second cousins. he convinces him to run for another race. we no longer have a choice. this is the kind of stuff they do. back door -- back room deals all the time, both parties. work within the system. i am not saying walk away from it. work within the system. if we're pushing from within and without, eventually, it is going to pop out and liberty will be released. we qualify the answers and you know there are going to lie to us. they are trained to lie to us. they not want to answer our

questions. there are going to say what ever we are want to hear. we have volunteers -- it is a 100% volunteer effort. we qualified their answers. when they give their answers, we send it out to some of our volunteers, whoever they are for that county, and they qualified their answers. they look at voting records, in- person meetings where they are on record. we qualified their answers. we're going to do everything we possibly can to qualify the answers of every candidate. some are people like us. we are going to assume there are people like us who are fed up. probably all right. accountability. they are accountable to us and we need to make them accountable to us. they're not going to be accountable on their own. why are they going to answer the questions -- we need to call them and ask them to fill out their surveys.

do you not want me to know who you are? our state coordinator in ohio has a perfect example. she had a man who was running for congress, or state representative, i cannot remember. she had a conversation with him or she asked if he had filled out the questionnaire. he said he was still working on the answers and thinking about it. i am not really sure. i have to do more research. she said, i will tell you what. i have a question. if i came to you and you said, do i have your vote? can i count on your support? do you want me to say, i do not know, i have to think about it and research more, or do you want me to say yes? when you can fill out the questionnaire telling me who you are, then i will tell you if you have my vote. you'll get a straight yes or no

from me. i thought that was beautiful. it was the perfect example. if you want my support, tell me who you are. candidate participation -- this is the beauty of this. the abigail adams project is overseen by homemakers of america. it is a project we came up with it -- actually, god came up with it. it is a beautiful plan. the members of the central committee -- it is made up of people who have specific talents that we need for the project, media, strategy, technology. it is overseen by the seven members of the homemakers or for america executive board. every state has a coordinator. all of the corners are women. this is not because we're

sexist. we love men. when you get on the web sisite and see all these women as executive committee members and state coordinators, you're going to see a bunch of moms who want to inform voters. how are you going to mess with that? i mean, please. it is important that women are the ones overseeing this project and the presentation in front of the project. i have had people tell me, you keep saying this is all about women. it is not all about women, but you need to be smart. when you what candidate participation, you go to what the candid at once. the candid it wants the woman boat -- the candidate wants the

women votes. they get the information on who they are going to vote for from the information we give them. they are going to want to spell out -- to fill out these surveys and answer our questions. there will be some who still will not want to answer the questions. if they leave a question blank, we market as declined response. if they did not fill it out, we write candidate refused to respond to service. is that or is that not an answer? we will let them know that. we tell them and make it very clear. we are not setting you up to fail. we make it very clear this is what we're doing. homemakers for america is the organization that created the infrastructure. it starts with a central command of seven makers of the executive board. there are talented and amazing folks. it is a wonder% in grass-roots effort.

-- it is a 100 percent grassroots effort. we are trying to do this. we have this amazing patriot who is a brilliant, off the charts brilliant web programmer who has a day job and has to feed his kids. he spent as much time as it possibly can working on our website. we hoped it would be up in january but it did not quite get done. we set up a temporary site. so many people wanted to volunteer. you can go to the temporary site right now. he is the kind of the caliber of people that we have in central command -- very talented, exceptional people. anyone who vault -- anyone who wants to volunteer, i would love to have you. we have the state coordinators. every state has one. they are women. they are responsible for coordinating with central

command and organizing county court meters within their state. we're doing this by county. the voting districts change, as you probably know by now. every 10 years -- why does it keep doing that? should i not be walking somewhere? every 10 years, they can change the districts -- you can work by district. the districts change, depending on which party is in charge determining what it looks like. it could look like a banana or a fruit loop. you have no idea what it will look like because they make it to their advantage. we are not playing the politics game. we are rising above that. i am going to move now. we go by counties because counties do not change. counties are stationary. there are 3141 counties in the

nation. we need 3141 county coordinators for this project to be so completely successful. it depends on how many court neighbors we have. county coordinator determines -- down the corridors determine what else is needed. -- count the coordinators -- county coordinators determine how many team leaders are needed. the people who live in the county are going to know. we are not going to know. the ones who live and the counties are going to know how best to divide your county so it is most effective. i think it is the speaker. stay back here? what? this way? ok. all right.

use these mics. all right, i can do that. next is the ready patriot. they have the coolest job ever. they all have cool jobs. the ready patriots are the ones who are called up when needed. when we were fighting in our first revolution, we did not have a standing army. we had american families who fought for freedom and liberty. that is what we have today. we're all just doing this, figuring it out as we go. it gives the media all kinds of opportunities to criticize us. of course we're going to make mistakes along the way. we're not professional even planners. i am. these guys did a bang up job. the ready patriots are just like our founding fathers.

when the call was sounded, they came out, left their plows, left their chores, they went and fought the battle. they came back and opened their stores and plowed their field. i am not asking you to give up 24/7 of your life. i am not asking you to give up your family or job or anything else. i just want people who are willing to be at the ready, so when the battle cry is sounded, you are willing to be called. that does not mean you have to do it every time. sometimes you will, sometimes you will not. there will always be someone else who can. we all work together so that the 1% is no longer 1%. would it not rock if we could get to 25%? [applause] the last section of our organizational chart is -- ding,

ding, ding. it doesn't work. next slide, please. what is wrong now? it is not working. there we go. the whole purpose is to reach the voter. these people are there to reach the voter. that is our goal. we want to reach the voters of it will go out and vote for liberty. however, we have switched this around. it is not like a top-up organization. this is a ground organization. central command supports the state coordinators who support the team leaders who support the ready patriots. the whole entire thing is to reach the voter. the closer you are to the voter, the closer you are to freedom. how do we know this works? in 2004, i was called the night

before the presidential election by the code-share of the bush team who asked me to leave from our town to the neighboring town. i asked why he wanted me to move. i have all these maps, i have everything planned doing my civic duty. i just got word from the campaign and republican party, no one will be in the neighboring town on election day. what, no one? why not? they said that it is mostly of black community in democrats stronghold and they did not want to waste their time. i was so angry. i do not care what color you are or what party you are. these were american citizens who had a right to this information. [applause] so i moved.

we took our family over. during this election, our family felt that george w. bush was the best candidate in that race. we did not know there were three. we are smarter now. we believe that he was the best candidate. because of that, we got a really excited about this. we had signs and more really pumped up about what we were doing. we walked in with all this bush republican stuff. how were we received? not so good. we got the hand, the finger. we had a couple of death threats. i realized after half an hour in the rain that this was a complete loss. it was not working. i told my kids to put the stuff

away. everything that even hints that or republicans, put it in the car. my children asked, are we giving up? i said put out the christian coalition voter guides. it was nonpartisan information on who the candidates were. when we pull those out, everything changed. one man came into the voter guides. he saw the democrats handing out their guides. he pulled there's an look at ours and ask how come there's did not have all of this information on it. what really sparked the idea of this project was this woman who came up to me and took the voter guide. she stopped in her tracks. i knew she was reading it. she turned around and came back. she asked me the three questions i have been asked periodically. what party is this with? neither party.

who puts it out? christian coalition. where did you get the answers? candidates gave these answers themselves. she sat there and looked at it. she looked at her friend and said, did you know he stood for this? she said, no, i have no idea. she looked at me as if she was wounded. she said, i cannot vote for this man. that is the power of information. she came to the polls to vote for a party and she left voting her values, and her vote completely changed. we are totally out of time, but i want to give you the website. i've given you the most important information. i have passed out cards under tables that has a homemakers' for america website and the abigail adams project website.

a couple months ago, a woman came up to me after presentation and she slipped $2 and in my hand. she says this is the widows mind. i know you can magnify it. i am pleading with you, stop giving money to the parties. give money to the candidates you believe in. please consider supporting the abigail adams project so we can get our web site -- website done. abigailadams.org. you can log on to lawmakers from -- lawmakers for america -- homemakers for america, too. we would love for you to support this. this is the answer today. we can go the easy route and look for term-limits, third- party, endorsements, or we can

take our government back in our hands. we have focused a lot on government for the people. this is a government by the people and of the people. we have to start taking the government back in our hands where it was always meant to be. that is how we will preserve liberty, state-by-state, county- by-county, precinct-by- precinct, one vote at a time. thank you. [applause] >> here we go. i am told we are pressed for time. they want us out of here so they can set up. if you have questions we will be out in the foyer. thank you for coming. [applause]

>> c-span coverage of the national tea party convention will continue to night. it will be at 9:00 eastern with sarah palin. we will take your calls and comments afterwards. earlier today it was a very snowy afternoon in washington. president obama made his way to

the democratic national committee winter meeting. he talked about the need to change the way we work with the other party. the president's comments run about 25 minutes. here is a look. [applause] >> hello, democrats. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you, dnc. everybody, have a seat. thank you. it is good to see you. it is good to be among friends.

so committed to the future of this party and this country that they are willing to brave a blizzard. snowmageddon here in d.c. i noticed somebody had californians for obama. you guys are not used to this. [laughter] i have some special thanks to the people here. i want to the rthank eleanor holmes norton for fighting the good fight. are the vice chair from new hampshire. the secretary and treasurer, thanks for the great work you guys do. i want to then tim kane, who is not only an outstanding for

governor, but an outstanding leader of this party. he has built the best grass roots organization we have ever had. give them around of applause. [applause] if i am not mistaken, we have a couple of terrific members of congress here. he is on his way. he is still shoveling. is barbara here? we love her anyway. give them a big round of applause. [applause] i want to than the governors, legislators, mayors across this country for working to move their states and local communities forward in extraordinarily challenging times. they have done some heroic work. i want to thank the dnc members and state party leaders. i want to thank the millions

of americans who have taken up the call for change at the grass-roots level all across the states. i want to remind everybody, we knew from the beginning that this would not be easy. change never is. that is especially true in these times when we face an array of challenges as tough as any we have seen in generations. president kenny once -- president kennedy once said, things were just as bad as we had been saying they were. [laughter] something's were even worse. we took office facing a financial crisis that was something we had not seen since the great depression. an economy that we now know was

bleeding 750,000 jobs a month. a $1.30 trillion debt and two wars that were costly in every sense of the word. from the specter of terrorism to the impact of globalization, we face tremendous new challenges in this young it century. this comes on top of one of the decades where are middle-class -- one of the most difficult decades that the middle-class had ever faced. the income of the average american household declined. the cost of everything seemed to keep going up. everything we have done over the past year has been, not only to write, but to also restore some of the security of the middle class families that has been

slipping away for over a decade now. some of the stuff we took was done without the help of the other party which made a political decision to jump in the back seat, let us do the driving, and then critique whether we were taking the right turns. that is okay. that is part of what it means to govern. all of the steps we took were necessary. none of us wanted to throw a lifeline to the banks. but the outrage should not be that we did, because it had to happen in order to prevent millions more from losing their jobs, millions of businesses and homes for closed. -- homes foreclosed. the real outrage is that we had to do it in the first place to fend off the collapse of the financial system. that is the outrage. [applause]

we passed almost $300 billion in tax relief for small businesses , 95% of working americans. we put americans to work building the infrastructure of tomorrow, doing the work america needs to have done. we passed the credit-card bill of rights to protect consumers from getting ripped off a credit card companies. we put the lot behind the principle of equal pay for equal work. [applause] we extended the promise of health care to 4 million more children of working families, protected every child from being targeted by tobacco companies. [applause] we passed the service bill n amed for ted kennedy that a young and old folks new ways to get back. we appointed sonia sotomayor to

the supreme court. [applause] we begun working with congress and our military to help gay americans serve their country. [applause] overseas, we have begun a new era of the engagement. we are working to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. we seek a world free of nuclear weapons. we b andanned tor -- banned torture. we made good progress in taking the fight to al-qaeda across the globe. i went to cairo to begin anew

. we're living up to that demands of a minute -- american leadership by standing side-by- side the people. if you look at the tally of the things we said we would do, even in the midst of this extraordinarily challenging economy, we have kept our promises and commitments. have moved forward -- we have moved forward on behalf of a more prosperous and secure future for the american people. for all of our efforts, we have to acknowledge that change cannot come fast enough for many americans. the reason we visited allentown, pennsylvania, larry, ohio, tampa, florida -- talking with workers who want to know how

they are born to find a job when the zero -- how are they going to find a job when the only no one career, how are they going to pay their bills, how are they going to retire. most of all, they are wondering if anyone cares or will do anything about it, especially here in washington. i understand their frustration and you understand it as well. michelle is always a good barometer. the front page said what is obama going to do to get his poll numbers up? are the democrats all in a tizzy? she said, if you are the average family and i am a mom out there and working, my husband is working, but we are worried about losing our jobs, arour hos

been cut back, our health care premiums just went up 33% our interest rates have been jacked up 39%, our home values have gone down by hundreds of thousands of dollars. our 401k is banged up. somebody calls and says, how do you think president obama is doing right now? [laughter] what are they going to say? [applause] what are they going to say? of course people are frustrated and they have every right to be. during the course of this gathering some of the press have been running around asking what we think we should be doing on this, that, and the other. what is your strategy? when unemployment is 9.7%, when

we are still digging ourselves out of an extraordinary recession, people are going to be frustrated. they are going to be looking to the party in power to try to fix it. you have another party that says we do not want to do anything about it, of course people are going to be frustrated. folks are out there working hard every day trying to meet their responsibilities. all around them during this last long decade, what they have seen is a wave of irresponsibility from wall street to washington. they see a capital city where every day is treated like election day and every act, comment, gesture passes through a political filter. they see the outside influence of lobbyists and special interests who too often highjack the elections. they wonder if their leaders can muster the will to overcome all of that and confront the real

problems that touch the lives. here is what everybody has to remember. that is why i ran for president. that is why you worked so hard to elect a democratic congress. we knew this was tough, but we stepped up because we decided we were going to take the responsibility of changing it. it may not be easy, but change is coming. [applause] i believe so strongly, if we're going to deal with the great challenges of our time, if we're going to secure a better future just as past generations did for us, we're going to have to change the prevailing politics in our town. it is not going to be easy.

we are to care less about scoring points and more about solving problems that are holding us back. at this defining moment, this has never been more important. we can continue to be consumed by the politics of energy, but we know we need clean energy -- the nation that leads the clean energy revolution will lead the economy. we know that a failure to act will put our planet in deeper peril. china, germany, india -- but are not waiting to pursue that future. we cannot wait either. i do not intend to spend all my time taking polls to figure out whether we're going to seize that future or not. we can continue to spin our wheels with the old education debate putting teachers' unions

against reformers. meanwhile, our children are trimming their counterparts from south korea to singapore. we know the countries that out- compete us today will out- compete as tomorrow. we know the kids that are failing school today will be condemned to lifetimes of lower wages and unfulfilled dreams. america cannot afford to wait. i'm not going to take a poll to figure out if we can tackle education. we can continue to allow the same special interests who were in favor of financial interests to block reform again in this decade. but if we have learned anything from the recession, it is that wise regulation can actually enhance the market and make it more stable and make our economy work better. we cannot return to the

dereliction of duty that helped deliver this recession. we know that to do so would put at risk our jobs, families, businesses, and our future. we cannot afford to wait. we cannot look backwards. yes, we could continue to ignore the growing runaway costs of health care. the easiest thing to do right now would be to say, this is too hard. let's just regroup. let's let our wounds -- lick our wounds and try to hang on. we have all long and difficult debate on health care. perhaps it is time to walk away. -- some people say perhaps it is time to walk away. we know that premiums and out- of-pocket costs will skyrocket.

more small businesses will be unable to compete. more workers will take home less pay. there will be fewer races. more americans will lose their coverage. our deficit will inexorably to continue to grow because health care costs of the single biggest driver -- costs are the single biggest driver. in case there is confusion, let me be clear, i am not going to walk away from health insurance reform, the american people, this challenge or any other challenge. we are moving forward. [applause]

we are moving forward. sometimes -- sometimes we may be moving forward against the prevailing winds. sometimes in may be against a blizzard. but we're going to live up our responsibility to lead. i am confident that if we stay steady and focused on all the people that we meet each day who are out there struggling -- if we have them in mind and are working to deliver on their behalf, in the end, that will be good politics. it will also be good policy. it will be good for america, not

just good for democrats. in order to get any of these battles done, we have to change the way that washington works. we may not get a lot of attention for it, but we a begun to do that. we ranged in the power of the special interests. we are the first white house ever to post our visitors online. we have excluded polyp -- excluded lobbyists from policy- making jobs. i called on congress to make all your requests public before they come up for a vote so that you know how the money is spent. we're going to have to confront the gaping loophole the supreme court recently opened in our campaign finance laws that allows special interests to spend without influence to influence american elections.

we also said that we're working to change the ways of washington. we have to change the way we do things in the party. this committee is the first to ban contributions from political action committees and lobbyists. i am pleased to see their recommendations aimed at improving our nominating process. the more americans than get involved in this party, a stronger this party will be. we need to change the way we work with the other party as well. i am proud to be a democrat and a leader of this great party. i also know that we cannot solve all our problems alone. we need to extend our hands to the other side. we have been working on it. if we're going to change the ways of washington, we have to change. as a step in that direction, i went and visited with the house republican caucus last friday.

[applause] we had a good discussion about the challenges facing the american people and our ideas to solve them. it was good for the country. it was a good robust debate. i had fun. [laughter] we have to a knowledge there'll be some democrats -- some issues the democrats and republicans did not see eye to eye on. there have to be some issues we can find some common ground on. it is one thing to disagree on the principle. it is another to simply stand in the way because the politics. now is not the time for sitting on the sidelines or blocking progress or assigning blame. now is not the time to do just what is right for your party's order polls -- parties or your

polls. now is the time to do what is necessary to see us through the difficult times. we must do everything in our power to keep the american dream alive for the next generation. that is our mission, democrats. we have gone through a tough year. but we have gone through tougher. we are the party of thomas jefferson who declared that all men are created equal. we had to work long and hard to ensure that those words meant something. we're the party of land -- the party of franklin roosevelt who said, in the midst of depression, all we have to fear is fear itself. he saved freedom and democracy from being extinguished. the natural impulse was to fear. as a party helped to lead the country. we are the party of john f. kennedy who called us to pay any

price and bear any burden. we are the party of edward m. kennedy. he said that in the united states of america the promise of health care should not be a frivolous but a fundamental right. that is who we are, democrats. that is a we have to be today. [applause] after all the promises we have made, this is our best chance to deliver change that the american people need. if we do that and speak to the hopes instead of the fears, if we inspire them instead of divide them, if we respond to their challenges with the same sense of urgency they feel, we're not just going to win elections. elections will take care of themselves. we will once again be the party that turns around the economy, moves the country for, and secures the american dream for another generation.

thank you very much. god bless you. [applause] ♪ ♪

>> our coverage of the national tea party convention continues tonight at 9:00 eastern. >> what is your name? how many members of the media have you sign insofar? >> about 150 so far. >> how many people are attending the convention?

>> that is about 20%. >> are you a part of the organization? >> i came to help out any way i could. i designed the flag for the second american revolution which the boston herald is calling the symbol of the tea party movement. a couple weeks ago, it was a flag you saw at scott brown's rally in massachusetts and it was not into the rally there. we have about -- we had about 200 of them there. it is very significant. i wanted people across america to see the significance of the contribution of the tea party to getting scott elected. >> our coverage of the national tea party convention continues tonight with sarah palin's keynote address.

it is live at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span, c-span radio, and online at cspan.org. >> "indepth"welcomes paul johnson, author of over for this -- over 40 books. join us on sunday at noon eastern on "booktv." >> it is really easy to complain about the people and politicians. i try to beat entertaining, informative, and relevant. i want to offer solutions. >> he is a progressive talk radio host and author of many books. he is our guest on c-span's "q&a." >> c-span 2 offers the new classroom website to make it

more useful for teachers with timely videos. you can find the most watched video clips organized by subjects and topics, the latest in education news, and the chance to connect with other c- span classroom teachers. it is all free. sign up online. >> the connecticut governor delivers her state of the state address. she is entering her final year in office and spoke about shrinking office while reflecting on her many years as governor. from hartford, this is half an hour. [applause] >> thank you all very much. ok. thank you. thank you. thank you very much.

i had watched the proceedings from the office and i just had a chance to talk with all of you. you did a wonderful job and a wonderful tribute. thank you for the kind words. they were very moving in you did a really wonderful job. he was a terrific man and we will all miss him terribly. before i begin, i prepared remarks -- i joined here 25 years ago. can it really be that long? i had a beautiful seat right over there in the general assembly. .

if all of you will join me in saying thank you to my husband. [applause] my son michael is joining us. his wife is working. [laughter] i do believe my daughter and grandson's are watching streaming video in colorado. it is a family affair tonight. to all of you, thank you for the

wonderful memories that i have of being here. but we do have business to do. so, mr. president, mr. speaker, mr. william, members of the court, members of the general assembly and guests -- good morning. good afternoon now. we gather to mark the opening of the 2010 legislative session. we do so at a time of continued challenge and continued anxiety. none of us need to be reminded of the on parallel struggles we have in georgia over the last 22 months. our nation has been in the grip of an economic crisis unlike any witness in our generation. the stark reality of our struggle is all too real. housing prices are down. unemployment is up. the value of savings and retirement accounts are down.

mortgage foreclosures are up. the amount of debt at all levels of government is up. yes, the statistics are real. and our emotions are raw. people are uncertain about the future. they are frustrated and angered. and they have every right to be. the people of connecticut are looking to us to help them. they are looking to us to leave. they are looking to us to write our ship of state. they do not want to hear of shallow lamentations or sympathy or understanding from their elected officials. they want action and they want assistance. and they want an end to the theatrical histrionics of political press conferences and partisan pinball. they want us to act like adults. president obama spoke eloquently about this last week in his state of the union address.

he spoke of the nature and nastiness of politics at our nation's capitol. frankly, he could have been speaking of our own state capitol here at hartford. i will echo the sentiment, but i will be more blunt. we need to stop the game playing and name-calling and constant bickering that has come to consume too many at the capitol. there is no room for such pettiness on the playground. there certainly should not be in the legislature, the governor's office, or the courts either. none of us are blameless in this regard. all of us must accept our responsibilities to treat one another with respect and to listen, truly listen, to the views or proposals or politics or policies of others. our policies may differ. but we have to belong.

in the end, we may not agree with one another. we should respect one another. we need not speak glowingly of each other or each other's ideas, but we must speak cybele. let us replace acrimony with accommodation. let us commit ourselves, truly commit ourselves, to working with one another. for we have much work to do. our work begins in earnest today. thousands of trees will be killed for the dozens of bills. but our efforts, our energies should be focused on two core issues. creating jobs in balancing our state budget. [applause]

too many people have lost their jobs, and a lost job means a lost paycheck. lost security. lost dignity. and lost hope for the future. families across our state are hurting and suffering and struggling. we need to get to work to put the people of connecticut back to work. today, announcing new proposals that will allow us to spur job creation now and chart a course of economic vitality and growth for years to come. the most critical problem facing businesses today, particularly the small and medium businesses that are our main engines of growth, is credit availability. employers need loans and

financing to buy equipment and inventory. or just to meet daily cash flow demands. as we all know, the credit crunch has crippled a great many employers. financing that was readily available in years past is difficult, if not impossible, to find. this is a national problem. but we need to find a connecticut solution to it. i am calling for the creation of a new connecticut credit consortium, off $500 million partnership between the state and connecticut banks to substantially boost credit availability. i propose canceling $100 billion in old bond authorizations and instead use the funds for the consortium. our $100 million will leverage at least $400 billion -- $400

million all across our state. that is $500 million that will be immediately put to work to save jobs. here is one key provision. $25 million of the state's $100 million will be targeted strictly to small businesses for micro or small loans. small businesses are the chief job creators. that is not in dispute. neither is there need for credit. there lifeline is credit. that lifeline has been cut off. work with me to open up that lifeline, to create jobs, and to pass into law the connecticut credit consortium. [applause] i also ask you to help in passing other proposals that i am offering to reinvigorate our

economy and create jobs. the first one modifies the relatively new, but little used job creation tax credit. it was aimed at large corporations, but they are not availing themselves of it. so i am proposing we change it to benefit small businesses with 25 or fewer employees. because most small businesses are limited liability corporations, we will, under my proposal, allow for the first time ever a credit against employers personal income tax liability. the credit will be for $2,500 per year for three years for each new job created. $10 million is already in the budget for this proposal. up to 4000 new jobs could be created this year alone. [applause]

one area where we see a large number of new start-ups and small businesses is in green technology and clean renewable energy. kermit the frog had it wrong all these years, and i am afraid. it is easy to be green. [laughter] solar, fuel cells, wind turbines, that all hold the key to economic prosperity. that is why i am proposing we expand our sales tax exemption to include machines, and equipment, tools, supplies, and fuels used in renewable energies and green technology. this is in addition to the work of the electric vehicle council that is preparing the way for

green business opportunities and the arrival of the zero emissions electric vehicle. there is one more component we still need to address. it is a critically-important component. our work force. we are recognized around the nation for the high quality and talents of our work force. the best and brightest are found right here in connecticut. but we need to do more to keep them here. we want our children to be educated here, and start their work place here, and raise their families here. our companies will only succeed if the qualified, trained employees they need. that is why i am proposing a new loan forgiveness program for students to stay and work in connecticut after they graduate from college, with the degree or certificate in green technology, renewable energy, life sciences, or help information technology. [applause]

they will receive a $2,500 annual forgiveness for each of four years if they have a baccalaureate degree or $2,500 a year for two years for an associate's degree. join me in making this loan forgiveness program a reality. there is something we can do, must do, for all businesses and all of our citizens. bring certainty insanity to our state's fiscal situation. -- bring certainty and sanity to our state's fiscal situation. [applause] the protracted discussions and negotiations, along with the fever partisan debate that characterized last year's

budget cannot be repeated. it was hardly state government's finest moment. today marks a new session, a new start, and a new effort to work together to honestly confront the undeniable reality of shrinking revenues and ever- rising cost. a little more than seven months into the two-year budget and we are facing a $500 million plus deficit. a deficit due in large part to the drastic reductions of the income tax and sales tax. why? if you do not have a job, do not have income on which to pay tax, and to have no money to spend on items that carry a sales tax. we have 94,000 people in dispute -- in this state who lost their jobs since march 2008. 94,000 people. a recovery will be long and

painfully slow. and there will be a new normal when it does take effect. we in state government need a new normal as well. because we have a state government that has outgrown the ability of our citizens to pay for it. we need to recognize that not every service, not every program, not every function is absolutely essential. when he took knowledge that higher taxes are not the solution to our problem -- and we need to a acknowledge that higher taxes and not the solution to our problem. [applause] it is common sense. the taxes on our books are not bringing in the revenue we thought they would. why would we think that taxes would be the answer? they are not.

i say no. yet on behalf of the 94,000 people who have lost their jobs. no on behalf of the businesses who were struggling to keep their doors open. no on behalf of all the family struggling to make ends meet day in and day out. we do need to say yes to basic structural reforms however. people look at washington and the spending spree they have been on of late. they see weekly stories about borrowing a few hundred billion dollars for this and a few hundred billion for that, and they react with horror. they worry about the bills that will be handed to their children and grandchildren for all the borrowing. we have our own concerns here in connecticut. since we have one of the highest death rates in the country. that is why it is critical we tackle this year's deficit head- on and honestly deal with it, not barrault to cover it -- not

borrow to cover it. [applause] i am proposing that we put in place a new protection. any bond authorization has been on the books for five years or more without being allocated by the state bond commission will automatically be canceled. with billions and billions of dollars of bonds that have been authorized by the legislature over the years. some are worthwhile. many are not. but all could bankrupt us and all are counted as liabilities by credit rated -- credit rating agencies. if we do not approve a project within five years, we probably should not gone for it and pay interest on it. there are other liabilities hanging over the state said that

we can no longer afford to ignore. our unfunded state employee pension liabilities and unfunded retiree health-care costs. the pension liabilities are a staggering $9.3 billion. the price tag for retired state employees is an almost incomprehensible $24.6 billion. this mounting debt has been virtually ignored for decades. ignorance may be less, according to the old adage, but that list carries a price. to hide a price. -- too high a price. i am establishing a working group with representatives from the treasurer's and comptroller's office, actuaries and others, to promote short and long term plans for addressing are unfunded liabilities. the first report will be due july 1.

i'm also offering a proposal that contains an automatic requirement that half of any budget surplus declared by the controller in her january or may reports automatically be deposited into the state's rainy day fund. when i was sworn in july 1, 2004, our rainy day fund had a zero balance. 0. i made it a priority to restore the funds, and working with you, it was filled to its highest balance ever by 2008. nearly $1.4 billion. i am proud of that effort. and it is a good thing that we took that action because we are now in the midst of our rainy day. we are using all of the fund's assets this year and next to balance our state budget. but the rainy day fund is too tempting a target.

there's never a shortage of people who enjoy spending money, and never a dearth of people who are asking for it. each dollar of surplus and is $1 less that can go into the rainy day fund. let's resist temptation and ensure half of any surplus declared in january or may automatically deposited in the fund. no diversions, no shortsighted thinking, no excuses. [applause] we need to pass these proposals and act now because the outlook for the future is physically challenging, to say the least. early shortfall projections are in the billions. the rainy day fund will be empty.

federal stimulus grants will be gone. all our outside funds will have been swept. and yet, employees, insurance, heating, fuel, and other costs will continue to increase. quite frankly, the dire circumstances we face today will pale in comparison to the challenges we will face with the next governor and the next legislature. every action we take this year to finally get state spending under control will ease the budget pain that all will be feeling in the next few years. so let me be clear about this. i intend to do everything in my power in my remaining months in office to make the changes that are needed to break in satiable spending habits and to make state governments affordable once again. [applause]

it would not be fair to my successor or two doors to simply ignore the problems we have today -- or to yours to simply ignore the problems that we have today. we must deal with our current problems this session and develop a plan of action for the next leadership, next session. so today, i am proposing something unique and something i believe rather necessary. something that will build on the important work begun by my administration and the legislature in streamlining state government. i am calling for the establishment of a 24-member commission to examine our government. top to bottom. to achieve efficiency. eliminate redundancies and waste and reduce the size and cost of

state government. every institution, and restructure, every service, program, and delivery mechanism will be evaluated. and it will be done in a non- partisan manner by all three branches of government. six members will be appointed by me to represent the executive branch. six will be appointed by the chief justice to represent the judicial branch. and the six each will be appointed by the democrats and republican leadership in the legislature. there will be three tears. one from each branch of government. the commission will have until august 30 to conduct their work, the nature of which is clearly spelled out in my legislation. it includes mergers, eliminations, administrative overhead, the outdated functions for services, and better utilization of information technology. that is step one. step two is a separate four- person board that will be

established september 1 to again take the politics out of the equation. all branches and all sides of the political aisle will be equally represented. they will review the recommendations of the commission. it will also hold hearings and automatically accept those recommendations on last three out of the four members vote to amend or reject -- on less three of the four members vote to amend or reject any specific recommendation. those recommendations that are administrative in nature will be implemented by the governor or chief justice as a corporate. the legislature will have 45 days once the regular session starts next january to vote on the final recommendations, without amendment. and every step taken will be done in open session with all the documents, phone calls, meeting notes, and correspondence open for public inspection. the time line is tight because

we want to recommendations ready for the next governor, the next legislature. they will need to recommendations to grapple with the fiscal challenges we will face. we owe it to them. and we owe it to those who pay for our government, are taxpayers. -- our taxpayers. let this be one of the first bills to act upon so this work can begin immediately. an act quickly to fix and preserve the public financing law that some many of us champions and take special interest money out of campaigning. [applause] dozens and dozens of candidates are running under one set of

rules. it is likely they will find themselves running under another set if we lose our court " hill -- our court appeal. do not turn to the ways of the past. we have to -- we have cleaned up government and campaign. help me keep them clean. act, lead. i am not scolding were lecturing. asked you to act, lead on finance reform, job creation, balancing the state budget. those of the areas i have focused on. this is not the year for a panoply of expensive new proposals on a wide range of issues. we cannot afford them, and the public is not crying out for them. they want us to fix our economy, a fixed our state budgets, jumpstart job creation, and stay out of their

pockets as they start earning paychecks again. and they want us to do this while engaging, not fighting, one another. it is not too much for them to ask. they put their trust in us. their public trust by electing us to office. i am honored but that trust, and i am proud to be the 87th governor of this great state. i am proud of all that has been accomplished since i became governor. ethics and campaign finance reform, civil unions, the charter program for the uninsured, a new hospital at our veterans tom, new charter and magnus schools, hundreds of new and refurbished real stations, new buses, thousands of acres of farmland and open spaces preserve, dozens of dairy farmers kept in business, at college campuses that of been transformed. the list goes on. it will be added to before i

leave office next january. [applause] there is no time for reflection however. much work remains ahead and much history is yet to be written. 2010 marks the 375th year of our great state. we are planning a number of activities to celebrate all the people and events that made connecticut's such a special place. 375 years of incredible history with remarkable people and achievements. we began the next chapter, the next 375 years of our history today. i foresee a bright future for our state, but we must first meet the many challenges of today. we will continue to lead the nation in commerce, science,

education, culture, and so much more. we will rebuild our economy. we will create jobs. we will put our state back on firm financial footing if we work hard and confront our problems with courage and common sense. our foundations are strong. our commitment resolute. the state of our state is challenged, but hopeful. extraordinary times call upon us to do our best, to accept the challenges and triumph over them. and triumph we shall. if we work together with respect and civility. before i conclude, i would ask that we keep in mind some of our state's newest heroes. the more than 600 members of the connecticut national guard were heading to afghanistan this week for their deployment to the dangers country. [applause]

they are part of the largest deployment of connecticut soldiers ever to serve overseas. i ask that you keep them and your family -- their families in your hearts and your prayers. i think you for the honor of serving as your governor and i ask you to join me as i say god bless the great state of connecticut. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> today on "america and the courts" former high court justice sandra day o'connor talks about challenges in the legal profession in arguments before the supreme court. that is today is 7:00 eastern. and tonight, c-span coverage of the national tea party convention continues with remarks from former vice presidential candidate sarah palin. she is the keynote speaker for the tea party which has gathered in nashville. afterwards, we will open up our phone lines for your calls and comments. now, a hearing on the proposed merger between nbc universal and comcast, a deal reportedly worth $30 billion. the heads of the two corporations are testifying. this is two hours and 45

minutes. [unintelligible] >> sometimes these can be completely eliminated through the imposition of conditions, and other times, they cannot. we will inquire this morning about whether synergies will arise from the merger that will confer benefits on consumers, whether there is the potential for consumer harm through lessened access to programming that is available today on nbc- universal, and if there is the potential for consumer harm, whether the merger should be conditioned so as to guard against it. comcast is the nation's largest multi-channel video distributor, the largest residential broadband provider, and third largest home telephone service provider, as well as the owner

of a number of cable channels and regional sports networks. as measured by annual revenue, in d.c.-universal is the nation's fourth largest -- nbc universal is the nation's fourth largest network. day on television broadcast stations in many of our largest markets, as well as an interest in the online video programming provider hulu.com. as these facts revealed, the merger will substantially transform the media and entertainment marketplace and it requires careful scrutiny. that scrutiny boils down, i think, to three basic questions. first, assuming the combination is approved, what benefits will consumers see a year after the merger that they do not enjoy today? secondly, what if anything our consumers receiving today that

they will not continue to receive a year after the merger is consummated? and finally, are there conditions that regulators should consider imposing on approval of the merger to ensure that it serves consumers. and if so, what are those conditions? consumers? and if so, what are those conditions? i want to thank our panel of distinguished witnesses for their appearance here this morning. and for their testimony enlightening our deliberations. i also want to remind the members of our subcommittee that several of our witnesses are scheduled to testify this afternoon in the other body. and we want to make sure that we do not detain them from their appointed rounds. so i would ask that members adhere very closely to our time limitations on opening statements, and also during the question period. and i hope that this brief opening statement has set something of an example.

i'm pleased at this time to recognize the ranking republican member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from florida, mr. stewart. >> good morning, thank you, mr. cham. i want to yield to my, the ranking member of the vem veterans committee who has to leave, in bowyer, for a quick statement. >> i'm going to have to waive my opening statement. when i asked for this hearing, i think it's extremely important for all views to be aired. i want to thank you for that. i'm going to take off for the secretary's testimony and i plan to return. >> very good. look forward to it. >> mr. chairman, obviously this is a very important hearing. the merger between comcast and nbc universal is indeed a major transaction that could possibly fundamentally alter the media and entertainment landscape in the united states. it deserves close examination by this subcommittee, our jurisdiction, as well as the justice department and the fcc. i'm glad that the ceos of both

comcast and nbc universal are here this morning. i look forward to their testimony and the testimony to the rest of the panel. comcast, as all of us know, is the nation's largest video programming distributor. and nbc is the nation's fourth-largest media and entertainment company. nevertheless, there is in my opinion, little to suggest that a comcast/nbcu combination would seriously threaten competition in the media entertainment industries. we all know this is a highly competitive segment of the economy. and ultimately, consumers stand to benefit. since nbcu and comcast do not compete in most segments of the market, this deal will not bring about consolidation, so to speak. comcast has interest in only five wholly-owned and six partially-owned national cable

networks. together these networks only represent about 3% of national cable network advertising and affiliate revenue. nbc's network represent approximately 9% of national cable networks advertising and affiliate revenue. giving the combined entity a total of 12%. which place, which would place it behind disney, abc, time warner and viacom. that's the same position nbc occupies today before the deal, and approximately six out of every seven networks comcast carries will remain unaffiliated with comcast or nbc. now the idea that comcast/nbcu combination will harm competition is something we're looking at today. i don't think it's founded under the data that i've looked at. in fact, such vertical integration will lead to greater innovation and drive more competition in this

already-competitive market. moreover, under the prevailing economic view, a firm that does not have market power in either the video distribution or programming markets is no more capable of exerting power, market power simply because it is vertically integrated. as mentioned before, the combined comcast/nbcu will control content representing only 12% of the national cable programming market. where the new venture to unreasonably with hold any of this programming, the combined entity would likely just lose programming revenue as distributors and viewers turned to other alternatives. indeed, in many cases viewers might be able to find the identical content from another distributor. and perhaps even for free, over the air or over the internet. and while there is debate whether the program access rules are even needed, if not harmful in light of the level of

competition, section 628 would also limit the combined entities' conduct. furthermore, my colleagues in order to demonstrate the public's interest, benefits that will come from this deal, comcast and nbcu have made a number of voluntary commitments in their filings. among the commitments they have pledged to continue offering nbc and telemundo network programming free over the air. to make more local news, public affairs, children's ethnic and other public-interest programings available over the air, on cable channels, on demand and online. and to continue the position of the nbc news omni budsman to insure journalistic independence from each of the owners. they should be commended for these voluntary commitments. and lastly, mr. chairman, i would like to offer a word of caution for those who may want to add perhaps unrelated conditions to this merger. for example, proponents of internet regulation may seek network neutrality.

mandates on the comcast/nbcu deal. i think this would be inappropriate. not to get ahead of ourselves, but it appears that comcast is in court and near victory on net neutrality in the sense that the u.s. court ever appeals for the district of columbia heard the case, heard our oral arguments last month. and the court in fact seemed skeptical that the fcc even had legal authority to impose these mandates. one of the judges asked the fcc counsel quote whether he wanted to lose on process or jurisdiction, end quote. unless a condition is narrowly tailored to a transaction, specific harm to competition, it does not belong in this negotiation. since this deal will not tearily increase concentration in either the distribution or programming markets, demonstrating such harm will be difficult, especially in light of the robust competition in the video sector. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

if comcast and nbcu are right that this deal creates a stronger entity than can be, that can better serve viewers, i think it will succeed. if they're wrong, it will fail, just as the aol/time warner merger failed ultimately. as competitive as this market is, regulatory intervention is not only unnecessary, but it will hurt competition and consumers. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, very much, mr. stearns. the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. when the proposed combination of comcast and nbc was announced last year, i said that this transaction had the potential to shape and reshape the media marketplace and raise fundamental questions regarding diversity, competition and the future of the production and distribution of video content. i urge the fcc and the department of justice to assess rigorously whether this

transaction is in the public interest. well two months have passed since this transaction was announced, and after additional review, i'm now even more certain that this new joint venture, if approved, could trigger dramatic changes in the way consumers access video programming, in the way independent programmers distribute their works, and also in the way all video distributors compete for customers. given the significance of the proposed joint venture, the committee should examine its implications carefully and dispassionately. we should ask hard questions, but we should also keep an open mind. there could be benefits that flow from this transaction and i look forward to hearing mr. roberts and mr. zucker expand on the positive aspects of this deal. for example, will comcast be a better long-term steward of nbc news than the current owner?

will comcast be more committed to the development of quality original programming? will comcast invest necessary resources to promote localism and diversity and support free over-the-air broadcasting? one important issue is whether comcast, as the nation's largest residential broadband provider, and a potential owner of nbc's valuable content, will help protect the intellectual property. the theft of content online is a serious issue for the creative community. it is unlawful and it is a serious drain on our economy. this problem deserves more attention and better efforts by broadband providers. we also need to know what comcast will do to insure that independent writers, directors and producers won't be harmed. there are many other essential questions. the move to online video and the tv everywhere model could shape

the future of how all customers access the programming. perhaps sooner rather than later, almost everything we do and see on our television will be just another application riding over a broadband connection. we should ask how comcast, the nation's largest video programming distributor, will deal with its customers and its competitors, as this transition progresses. i believe that the best way to protect consumers is through competition. but will competition be sustainable with the largest video and broadband provider controlling huge quantity content? there may be plenty of content outside comcast/nbc, but will consumers have the same ability and opportunities to access the content, both on and off comcast's distribution platforms as they will content from

comcast? the future of free over-the-air broadcast television is also tested by this transaction. many are concerned that this transaction could result in the best of nbc's programming being transitioned to pay tv service. might the olympics or the super bowl one day be available only to payi ining customers? will the comcast/nbc joint venture affect the local affiliates or the affiliate model? we must consider how this transaction will impact the coverage of local news and events, as well as major televised events of interest to all americans. there are other issues to examine as well, including comcast's treatment of peg channels, how this transaction will affect the diversity of voices in the marketplace, and how independent programmers will be impaired. we need to weigh all of these topics, as this process moves forward. and the subcommittee considers related matters. ultimately, this transaction

must be scrutinized with regard to its impact on consumers. the choices they will have in the market, and the bills they will pay. this is the highest consideration required by the public -- i think the panel for their precipitation -- dissipation. >> the gentleman from nebraska at is recognized for two minutes. >> i would like to wave and reserved. -- waive and reserved. >> de jomon from missouri is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, chairman. i would like to thank the chairman for the record for holding this hearing. of a slightly longer statement. when you're going through time of repositioning and shakeups,

and certainly this new joint venture between comcast and nbc-universal would seem to be evidence of what is happening generally in the economy, i understand and i support the necessity of businesses constantly needing to add value with their market position, constantly figuring out how they reposition themselves to provide the best service and do the best thing for the business they are in. at the same time, as this hearing progresses this morning, i am very interested in gaining a better understanding of how comcast, and comcast/nbc well create competitive forces in the television -- will create competitive forces in the television marketplace. television marketplace. the joint venture between comcast and nbc may be as far-reaching as it is intricate. and i look forward to hearing

about the various issues like competitive imbalance and market power that something on this level can bring with it. the chairman'schairman's points points of interest to all of us. the full committee chairman's points that he just expressed. so i thank you again, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing this morning. and i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, mr. blunt. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. there are significant questions about how consumer choice, competition, innovation and investment in the media marketplace would be affected by this planned joint venture. there will be discussion this morning and further scrutiny in the months to come of important ramifications of this proposed transaction, including the exercise of market power, higher barriers to entry, the consequences of vertical integration associated with this proposed transaction, as there should be. essentially, though, for our constituents, for our consumers

across america, the issue really boils down to the seven cs. will the combination of communications closi curtail competition and cost consumers? that is the question that must be answered as this process moves forward. while comcast and nbc universal have determined that this transaction advances their business interests, it is essential that the public interest also be served. as the author of the internet freedom preservation act to ensure network neutrality, along with chairman waxman and congresswoman ana eshiu, i want to ensure that the operation does not enable the creation of discriminatory fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet to the detriment of consumers. i am also concerned about how this proposed joint venture would impact the emerging online

video marketplace now and in the future. as consumers increasingly utilize their broadband connections to access online video content, control of both the content itself and the continue window through which it is delivered raises important issues with respect to competition, joyce, diversity, and innovation. today's hearing is an important opportunity to raise and hopefully answer these questions. i thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing. >> thank you, mr. markey. the gentleman from illinois, mr. schempkiss, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank witnesses. i know it's difficult to get here, especially during the proceedings and all the machinations that are going on in the merger, but we appreciate it. there are many different issues that we'll be dealing with today and i want to make it pretty clear, i do not want the department of justice enacting

legislative policy. that's our job. and i would be careful for members to another way giving up our responsibilities on telecom policy by enacting processes and procedures and using this and the department of justice to do that. so that's kind of where i stand. a profitable nbc universal is good for all of our constituents and i hope that this venture between comcast and nbc will facilitate the creation of more popular programming choices for all americans. one of the great exports our country is our media. american films and television shows are one of the ways we reach cultures throughout the world. and i also, not sure that's always a good reach of culture, and i do question some of the things our consumers like to watch, and what we do sell abroad, and i think it does sometimes not put the best focus on us as a culture and the greatness of our country, but having said that, i do believe that the market rules and the

market does have a place for that and that does -- is a great export. i appreciate y'all being here. i know it's tough and challenging times and i look forward to working with y'all in the future. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. shimkus. the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for scheduling this hearing at the onset of the merger review process so that we can gauge the potential effects of this transaction and weigh in with our concerns before the agencies begin their analyses. the comcast/nbc universal merger will effect millions of people. many of them, obviously, in my own district. comcast has 24 million cable subscribers and 16 million broadband subscribers nationwide. nbc universal produces and distributes broad swaths of entertainment programming. like any merger, this transaction could produce

beneficial synergies. comcast's fcc filing spells out a sincere commitment to the public interest, but having a philosophical commitment to protect consumers is far different than having a legal obligation to do so. telecommunications' megamergers as well as those in other industry sectors have the potential to create mow nop listic titans. the department of justice will ensure this merger doesn't violate our anti-trust laws. but the fcc has a special burden. it must also ensure that this merger protects the public interest. the comcast/nbc universal merger is not just about the purchase and sale of private businesses. it involves the transfer of public property, broadcast licenses to operate on america's spectrum. just as importantly, if left unchecked, this merger as the potential to place a choke hold on the transfer of information

on the internet to consumers today and well into the future. if anything, this proposed merger, i think, demonstrates why we need net neutrality across the board. thank, mr. chairman, for holing this important hearing for us to weigh in before the other agencies do and i look forward to hearing the diverse viewpoints of the witnesses here today. i, especially, would like to welcome the representatives from comcast, whose father established the company some 47 years ago, i think it's 47 years ago. it's really an amazing american story, that in four plus decades that a company that was born with a great idea is what it is today. and so i congratulate you and i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms.

eshoo. the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you having this hearing. and thank you for your testimony today. i think it's an incredibly important issue. and as the proposed merger, i hope, is fully reviewed and done diligently by the fcc and department of justice, the one concern that i have, mr. chairman, are there's no time lines for either approval or rejection. and so it is my hope, given the amount of expense and i think what is at stake, that they will not normally be diligent, but they'll be quick in their decision as they move forward in the merger. and i'm sure they can accomplish both. i just hope they know what's at stake for a long time line. i think that's probably not helpful to anybody, either, whatever their outcome is. the other issue that i hope we get discussed at some length is the retransmission consent agreements. the law and regulations governing them were created nearly 20 years ago. and this committee should take a

look to see if there's any changes that need to be made. there's so much, again, at stake with this when you talk about market power and content and who controls what in the spectrum, lots at stake for the american public. so i hope that we'll have that opportunity to discuss it. and to my friends at nbc, i have an opening for a constituent humorist specialist. if conan would call my office, we could probably arrange to help y'all out in any way we can possibly do that. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingel, chairman emeritus of the full committee, is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. and i commend you for having this hearing. i believe it's important that we should go into these matters with a great deal of care and i'm hopeful we'll get the answers for which we have need. i also would suggest if we may not have quite enough time this morning to hear from all of our

witnesses to get the answers that this committee needs. i would also observe that it may be necessary for us to hear from the regulatory agencies, which i believe we can do, in a way that would not constitute a problem or potential violations to the pillsbury rule. i do extend a warm welcome to our witnesses today, especially my old friends, brian and ralph roberts, as well as colleen abdoulah, whose company provides cable service for my district. i also want to thank comcast for its cooperation in the recent resolution of the peg issue in dearborn, michigan, and i want you to know my appreciation in that matter. the competitive incentives behind the proposed venture between comcast and nbc universal are quite unambiguous. in a world of fragments viewing audiences created by proliferation of video service

providers, comcast and nbc universal's proposed partnership does make quite a lot of sense. consolidated control of content and distribution will help comcast to become a more competitive player in the multi-channel video marketplace. at the same time, by virtue of the magnitude of the transaction, the comcast nbc-u proposed joint venture raises legitimate concerns about the new interests vis-a-vis existing competitors and consumers, control of content, and its distribution of the general media consolidation. we will be interested in how this will impact on govern, the industry, and also on the consuming public. moreover, as i've heard a lot about internet video and how it may well be the future of television, i look forward to hearing from the witnesses about online video, how they see it developing, and whether this

deal would impact it and how. to summarize, while i understand the motivation behind the joint venture proposal pending the committee's consideration, i have concerns about its effect on the public interest. in particular, im going to be asking witnesses to respond to questions about commitments from comcast and nbc universal to ensure the following in the future. editorial neutrality on network news. this is something with which we have some small problems with in this country. local access to free over over-the-air broadcast television, a matter of great concern to me for many years. fair access for content distributors and consumers to programming provided by an online video services and collective bargaining rights of employees. this is by no means a complete list of concerns. but i think it is a good place

to start. i would add, also, my desire to hear from the federal regulators about this matter. i believe we need to have their input in order to have a proper understanding of the circumstances. while i understand they cannot comment on the pending merger, their input on facts and the general principles would be most helpful in helping us and the public to understand the situation before us. in closing, i look forward to a frank discussion with our witnesses today. mr. chairman, i c -- i commend you for holding this commission. >> thank you. ed >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome back to committee. they are sitting side by side in the audience. i hope they are on the same side. i am glad to have my two good

friends back. i am glad to have our witnesses at the table. as far as i am concerned, it is good to see nbc and comcast sitting side by side. that does not break my heart. i think it is in corporate -- important inappropriate we hold this hearing, mr. chairman. this merger should be examined by the subcommittee. it should be reviewed by the people of the united states. having said that, i hope today's hearing is levelheaded and really focused on the issues and details of the merger and not on some what if discussion about what might happen if this and that were to occur. as we all know, back in december, comcast and general electric announced this merger or this -- i guess you would say, sale.

combining the broadcasting, cable programming, movie, and online content services of nbc- universal with be a certain online content of comcast. as i understand it, comcast will purchase 51% of nbc universal. general electric will retain 49%. since the merger or their sale -- the sale has been announced, we have heard the usual predictions that this is the end of the media world as we know it. . . of the media world as we know it. put me down as skeptical on that. i don't think that's going to happen. i hope good things happen for the viewers and the folks that provide the content to the media. but let's let the market make those decisions. we should allow companies to take risks. we should allow companies to

seek out niche markets. we should allow companies to use their natural competitive their natural competitive advantages to ser up material for the marketplace of various interests. it's a testament to our system that even in these uncertain economic times there are people, some of them are at this table, that are willing to take such market risks. there are some analysts that have expressed doubts about the economic case for the comcast/nbc deal, precisely because day don't see that a competitive advantage will materialize from this combination. o instead of condemning such an effort, we should stand back and watch it and hopefully be willing to applaud, if, in fact, good things happen for the markets at both nbc and comcast serve at the current time. there don't appear to be in major overlaps in the markets.

there do appear to be some synergies from the two companies coming together. there's certainly no anti-trust implications in the classic sense, because it's my understanding that the justice department is not going to review it for antitrust under the classic anti-trust review. to the extent that concerns exist, comcast has said that it will make a number of voluntary commitments to help assuage these anxieties. they plan to honor and extend the current program access rules. they will continue to offer nbc and telemundo network programs free over the air rather than turn them into cable networks. and they also plan to add new independently owned channels to their cable lineup. furthermore, more local news, more public affairs, children's, ethnic, and other public interest programming is planned to be made available over the air on cable channels through

on-demand service and on online. so, again, mr. chairman, thank you for holding the hearing. thank all of our witnesses. look forward to an interesting exchange today. >> thank you very much, mr. b d bard barden. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon, is recognized for two minutes. he is no longer with us. the gentleman from washington state, mr. ensley, recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. we're here to talk about control of america's most precious asset, and that, of course, is tina fey. and that's one of the reasons we are so interested in this issue. i do want to suggest something, though, as we look through these issues, the potential upsides for consumers and the potential concerns for consumers, and i think there are both those potentials. i would suggest that we need to look at it a little bit through

the lens of democracy, not just commercial activity. and i would just throw in a little jefferson, who said, where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe. and i think in today's electronic world, the modern corollary is that where content is freely available and every man and woman able to watch, all is safe. and i think there is a democracy issue here that ought to be considered and we'll look forward to everyone giving us their views in that regard. in that regard, i think there are three fundamental questions i hope the witnesses will address. one, in the new world, where we are developing internet-based systems, such as hulu and itu s itunes, networks like comedy central, where people are going online where we do not have programming rules, how do we intend to ensure access to americans in that sort of jeffersonian ideal? we know that the cable industry

is realizing the market dynamic in this, as evidenced by the recent announcement of tv everywhere and i would hope the witnesses will tell us, how can we assure that access to important content in that new system? second, although this merger is only between two companies, i would ask the witnesses to tell us if they think we ought to look at our transmission access rules in general on how they're working or not working. are there ways that we can make them more usable to both parties to try to determine how to make it work for both parties in a way that is not so costly and gives consumers more credibility or more confidence in the system. and third is cost, which is an obvious one. rates have gone up, i'm told, three times the rate of inflation. consumers will have obvious concerns about that. we hope, obviously, y'all will address that. but we look forward to this hearing from all parties and

thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. inslee. the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you and ranking members stearns and the distinguished panel for being here today. i think this is an important hearing as well. as i see it, the proposed transaction between comcast and nbc is an example of vertical integration within the media marketplace. the proposal is a marriage of upstream and downstream companies that do not compete against one another. i'm sure we'll hear opinions that attempt to label this transaction as horizontal integration. while i respect the right of everyone to have their own opinion, we are not entitled to our own set of facts. in that vein, i remain unconvinced of how the combination of two entities, where one concentrates on the distribution of content and the other concentrates on the development of content can be determined to be anything other than a case of vertical integration. i'll admit, there are certain aspects of the transaction that are of particular interest to

me. for instance, i would like to hear how independent programmers are going to be impacted by this deal. i'm sure others have certain questions as well and they are entitled. however, if we use this hearing as an opportunity to cast blame and air grievances about every problem we perceive in the communications or media marketplace, we will have wasted everyone's time. additionally, and perhaps more importantly, this transaction should not be used as a vehicle to advance a specific policy agenda that is unrelated to the matter at hand and cannot be implemented on the industry as a whole. it is my hope that these types of regulatory shenanigans have no place at the new fcc. at the moment, i have no reason to associate that type of behavior with this chairman or commission. with that, i yield back my time and i thank you again mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. bono mack. the gentle lady from california, ms. matsui is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, witnesses, were being here

today. like other mergers or joint ventures, there will be a real impact on consumers and the marketplace. and this one is no different. comcast is a dominant cable provider in my hometown of sacramento, providing service to over 200,000 households. this joint venture will only enlarge the footprint in sacramento. over the last few days, i've received numerous e-mails from my constituents wanting to know what this deal would mean for them. they want to know if it means higher cable rates, they want to know if they'll be able to continue to receive independent programming they are used to, without any unwarranted interference or preference. they want to know what it would mean for the distribution of online video. and they want to ensure it continues to be open to all and is preserved so that they can view their favorite programs when they choose. they want to know the ramifications of this joint venture, what it may cause within the industry. will there be a domino effect, whereby comcast competitors are likely to combine or merge with others in order to compete in

the marketplace, creating a media and entertainment environment where only a few will be heard? additionally, the people of sacramento rely on local affiliate stations for local news and information. would this merger put local nbc affiliates not currently owned by nbc itself at a competitive disadvantage from a programming standpoint? i recognize that comcast has made a series of proactive commitments on some of these subjects. i look forward to further exploration of these and other concerns today and in the weeks and months ahead. ultimately, i believe that this proposed merger should not leave consumers without less choice, lower quality, less diversity, and higher programming costs. as the fcc and department of justice review the proposed merger, it is my hope that they consider every aspect, particularly its impact on consumers, competition, and innovation. i thank you, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing today. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> thank you very much, ms. matsui. the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. blackburn, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome all of our guests today and i certainly am looking forward to a discussion with you as we move through the day. i've read through your statements, and i will tell you, it is absolutely puzzling and amusing to me that such intelligent people, when given the same set of statistics and the same information and the same data can arrive at such vastly different opinions. and such conclusions, as to how this union would affect telecommunications moving forward. so i think we're going to have a rather robust discussion today, and i am truly looking forward to it.

i will tell you at first glance that my reaction is that if this deal results in no additional market power in content and no additional market power in distribution, then why are there such concerns about anti-trust violations? and that's the point i want to discuss with all of you. and if this deal does not increase any market share, then i cannot accept the suggestions that we need to put conditions on it. so let's discuss, then, as we move forward, we want to make certain that we are doing things that are good for consumers. and being from tennessee and having the number of content, independent content producers that we have there, we're very concerned about what this could do to access and to content. and for those of you that hole an opposing view on the anti-trust violations, i want to hear from you as to how you have read the same set of material

and data and arrived at other outcomes from that. so looking forward to the discussion. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. blackburn. the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i agree with ms. blackburn that we are going to have a lively debate. i hope that the panel will spend some time addressing one issue that chairman waxman raised. and that's the issue of content protection and how this transaction may affect how we deal with protecting the copy rights of content innovators. we know the statistics, each year, our nation's content is losing hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to online piracy. and up until now, however, the largest distributors of that n content have largely been separate entities. and this new merger will change that dynamic fundamentally.

this represents the nation's largest broadband combiner with the fourth largest entertainment company. but often content providers and distributors aren't on the same page with respect to a strategy for combatting online piracy. and often this lack of cooperation has simply to do with the desperate economic goals of all the parties that are involved. however, the ramifications of this issue are too great to ignore. and i think the current event surrounding us today, namely the fcc's open internet rule making and today's examination of this new business relationship provides us with an opportunity to explore what steps need to be taken to ensure that we continue to deal with the theft of content that's hurting some of our nation's most innovative job creators. i look forward to this hearing today and i look forward to hearing a discussion about how the combination of these two new entities may change comcast's approach to dealing with the unlawful content flowing across its network. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance. >> thank you, mr. murphy. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized for two

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome all of our witnesses, but particularly to a good friend who's sitting behind ryan, and that is his dad, ralph, who i see here in the audience. it's good to see you and i appreciate all that you've done. today, we're examining the proposed merger of comcast and nbc. and i am encouraged by the many voluntary commitments being made by comcast as a part of this merger. i hope and expect a quick review. all parties involved would be best served if this is a prompt process. i believe that the merger is in the public interest and will bring greater competition and distribution markets. one of the most interesting points about the deal is that comcast and nbc have very little overlap. the combined entity will be a more averse company, and better positioned during these very difficult economic times, and that would not necessarily be the case if another entity

purchased nbc from ge. i would like to stress the merger should not be used as an opportunity to push unrelated policy agendas or expand unnecessary regulations that don't extend to the broader market. i would strongly oppose any efforts to impose network neutrality conditions as part of the deal. doing so would be highly inappropriate. i yield back the balance of my time. deal. doing so would be highly inappropriate. i yield back the plans of my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. upton. the gentlelady from florida, ms. caster, for two minutes. >> good morning, and thank you, chairman bucher for holding the hearing. >> i'll yield my time so i have more time for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to say the biggest concerns about the merger were well rr ticklated by the chairman of the full committee and others. so given that, the questions of

the venture come down to a couple of things. will a merger enhance or will it impede competition? will it enhance or will it impede access? will it enhance or will it impede diversity of programming? and finally, how will it impact the costs on the consumer. hopefully we can g into answer these questions this morning and i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you, mr. mcnerney. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. malonson is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll waive my opening statement. >> thank you. the gentleman from ohio, mr. space, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing today. i believe this is the first kind of our subcommittee in this congress. and we'll be discussing some critical issues that may influence the future of video programming and distribution for some time to come. i represent a very rural

district in southeastern ohio. it's part of five broadcasting markets and many of my constituents, in fact, much more than the national average, rely upon free over the air broadcasting for emergency information, for news, for weather, for sports. and with the national broadband plan set to come out next month and the debate about spectrum on everyone's minds, there's certainly many challenges facing the free over-the-air broadcast model. but a strong, vibrant broadcast television industry is important to my constituents, so i'm very interested to hear what our witnesses have to say today regarding the future of free over-the-air television. i'm also interested in learning more about how the joint venture will impact the continued expansion in the deployment of broadband, which is an issue of high priority for me personally and my constituents as well. so i would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their testimony. and thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. space. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this very important hearing. thank the witnesses for their testimony today. mr. chairman, this historic coming together of two unique media powerhouses represents the potential for expanded entertainment opportunities and an increase in choice for our television viewers. the proposed joint venture between these two companies creates a new nbc-u, a leading communications and entertainment company. this is a transaction that should receive a fair but intensely thorough review by the justice department and the fcc. i am hopeful that both doj and the fcc will see that the vertical integration of comcast and nbc universal will ultimately prove to be in the public interest, whereby competition and innovation will be fostered. it is vitally important for nbc to maintain their editorial independence, with respect to how they report the news, as

well as other content that will be viewed by millions of americans. i am confident that nbc will continue to operate with the same neutrality that we see today. it is in the best interest of comcast and nbc to report the news with objectivity, because as we all know, if people do not like what they are watching, they can simply change the channel. as was the case with the xm sirius merger, i remain committed to ensuring that minority programming has a home and a voice. i'm committed to see the diversity of programming across a spectrum of audiences and viewpoints and across all media platforms. comcast already has a strong record in program diversity. i thank you for that. having entered into a venture with radio one to create tv one and the continued recognition of the value of diverse programming is always welcome. i also believe that comcast's approach of leveraging diverse content across multiple media platforms to increase the programming's reach and its prospect for success have proven

effective. finally, i would like to commend these two companies for their proactive outreach to members of this body. thank you for the visit that you had with my office recently. with that, my time is expired and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. butterfield. the gentleman from arizona, mr. sh shadegg, is recognized for two muns. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. i would also like to thank the witnesses for spending time with us this morning. as a supporter of the free market and competition, i also support this joint venture. i support the right of two companies, big or small, to enter into a contract and to negotiate a deal that has the potential to inspire innovation and benefit consumers. although the authority to approve this joint venture lies within the hands of the fcc and the department of justice, by having this hearing, we are opening up the debate of this merger to the public. i applaud this form of transparency. in addition, i believe our discussion and the investigation by the fcc and doj should be thorough and complete. however, it is critical that opponents to this joint venture

do not deliberately slow the process down, as that will prove to be costly and unfair to the parties involved. it would be a disservice to all consumers if lengthy investigations and unfair treatment deterred businesses from entering into negotiations. the purpose of anti-monopoly laws is to make sure one company does not dominate a market with unfair practices. when this joint venture is complete, nbc-u will be 100% an american-owned company. we should not discourage this. although, there are some concern that this merger will eliminate competition, i think otherwise. i believe it will inspire competition. this is the innovation that our country needs and it will create the jobs our country needs. i would like to thank nbc and comcast for their many voluntary public interest commitments in the course of this process. these commitments show that not only are they not attempting to take advantage of their competitors, but instead respect many of the long-standing agreements that are in place. these commitments along with the fact that comcast will not have

a larger market share by joining forces with nbc -- a larger market share by joining forces with nbc is evidence that this joint venture will not hinder competition, but will benefit consumers. i look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today and playing an active role in the debate vond ugh this merger. i thank you, mr. chairman can, for holding this meeting. >> thank you very much, mr. shadegg. the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for convening today's hearing to consider this matter that is before us. comcast and ge, these matters have argued in recent filings with the fcc, and presumably with the department of justice that their union is a classic model of vertical integration. they contend the proposed combination will also advance key congressional policy goals of diversity, localism,

innovation, and competition. to underscore their claims, comcast and nbc have offered up a number of voluntary commitments. they say these commitments will expand consumer choice, ensure over-the-air broadcasting, enhance programming opportunities, ensure competition on multiple content delivery platforms and maintain nbc's journalistic independence as a provider of news. unfortunately, mr. chairman, what they have not said or they have not committed to and what is not making news is how this deal will promote meaningful opportunities for minorities to become fcc licensed and owners of programming assets. how will minority viewers, existing minority licenses, and

programs be affected by this combination? how will minority suppliers and advertisers be integrated into the joint ventures procurement and purchasing channels. and what will these two fortune 500 -- fortune 100 companies do to ensure greater diversity in hiring, training, and retaining minority employees at both management and non-management levels of the proposed joint venture. these there types of integration and diversity to which i hope comcast and ge would pay more attention to and make further commitments. although the potential rewards for the public are significant, the collective risks to minorities in collusion and diversity as this transaction is currently structured are just as important. as we continue to discuss the merits and effects of this proposed combination in the

coming months, you can be assured that these will be my key areas of focus. i look forward to the hearing and perspectives of our witnesses and i want to welcome each and every one of the witnesses and i thank you for participating this morning. mr. chairman, with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. rush. the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, is recognized for two minutes. >> i'll waive for extra time for questions. >> the gentleman from vermont, mr. welsh, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. being from vermont, a rural state, at the end of the line, our customers who are primarily going to be concerned ability their bill and about their access and about what programs they get. and the question i will be very eager to get commentary on, particularly from comcast is what will be the relationships

that the larger provider has with the smaller carriers. there seems to be a bit of an internal conflict, because on the one hand, a larger carrier, and this is not precipitated just by this merger. there are other questions there, but it raises the issue. there's a bit of a conflict where the larger carrier is dependent on the local carriers to provide that content to the customers, on the one hand, it's in the interest of the larger carrier, whether it's comcast or anyone else to get the best price possible. it's in the interest of the consumer to pay the lowest price possible. and the local carrier, and we have these in vermont, is caught in between. and my concern is that there be mechanisms that provide for fair negotiation and interaction between the smaller carrier and the larger carrier as well. because at the end of the day, it's the consumer who gets whacked on this. and it's a very, very serious issue, obviously, for the

customer, but also for the media companies that are involved. and that needs more attention than it's been getting. it's not specifically related to the merger, but it's a moment of opportunity for us to examine this. and it's very important to individual vermonters and individual americans who really do need the services that are being provided by all of you. so thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. welsh, and thanks to all members for their statements. we have a series of recorded votes spending on the floor of the house. five of them in total. which will take us somewhere between one-half hour and 45 minutes, we would estimate, to complete. and so pending the completion of these votes, the subcommittee stands in recess. i would ask our witnesses to remain close at hand, and as soon as we can return, we shall do so and proceed with your opening statements. #'

the subcommittee will reconvene. our apologies for the lengthy delay. it is a matter over which we have little control. i am pleased now to welcome our panel of witnesses and i'll say a brief word of introduction about each. mr. brian roberts is the chairman and chief executive officer of the comcast corporation. mr. jeff zucker is the chief executive officer of nbc universal. ms. abdoulah is the president of cable and telephone. mr. michael tiorile is the chairman of the nbc tv's affiliate board, the president and chief operating officer of the dispatched printing company. dr. mark cooper is the director

of research at the consumer federation of america. mr. adam tha dwrchlt er is the president of the progress and freedom foundation. we welcome each of you. thank you for your testimony. without objection, your prepared written statement will be made a part of our record. we would welcome your oral summary and ask that you keep your oral summary to approximately five minutes. mr. roberts, we will be pleased to begin with you. you need to turn your microphone on and pull it as close as you can so we can hear you well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is that okay? it's a privilege to come here today to talk about comcast planned joint venture with ge regarding nbc universal. as has been mentioned, my father, ralph is sitting just behind me started the company almost a half century ago. ralph built the company from a single small cable system in

tube l tupelo, mississippi, to where we are today. with this combination, we are taking the next step in our improbable journey. this is indeed an important moment in our history. let me briefly summarize the transaction. under our agreement, comcast will become majority owner of nbc universal. we will create a new venture that combines nbc used broadcast tv, cable programming, movie studio and theme park businesses with comcast limited video programming channels. comcast will hold 51% of the venture and will manage it while 49% will remain with ge. the transaction puts two great american communications companies under one roof. it will help to preserve traditional broadcast television, a business that faces serious challenges. it will also help to accelerate a truly amazing digital future for consumers. together, comcast and nbc universal it help

deliver the multiexperience that americans want. well be a more creative and innovative company that will meet customer demands. our success will stimulate our competitors to be more innovative too. this should be good for consumers, innovation and competition. to leave no doubt about the benefits of the new nbcu, we will have more public commitments to how we will bring viewers more local programming, children's program, more diverse programming on more flat forms. we have made commitments to reassure our competitors that we will compete fairly in the market pla marketplace. let me offer two examples. the program access rules have never applied to retransition consent negotiations. we volunteers to have them apply to our retransmission negotiations for nbc stations.

second, we want independent programers with quality content to know that we are determined to help them reach and audience. so we have committed to add at least two new independently owned cable channels to our systems every year beginning in 2011. the combination of nbc and comcast will have no significant overlap between the assets of the companies. it's primarily vertical, which generally poses fewer antitrust concerns. that also means no massive layoffs, no closures of facilities, nothing to produce hundreds of millions of dollars of, quote, synergies. this same lack of overlap is why washington can, because we will grow these great american businesses over the long term and make them more successful, not cut them. congress has recognized the benefits of vertical integration

before and adopted rules in 1992 to address potential risks. at that time, there was almost no competition to cable and more than half of the channels were owned by cable companies. congress created program access and program carriage rules to ensure that a company which owns both, cable content and distribution, cannot treat competitors unfairly. those rules have worked in the past and will continue to work. in the last week, some have suggested that our prior legal challenge to certain portionses of the program access rules is inconsistent with our commitments and connection with this transaction. while we have argued and believe that today's marketplace is sufficiently competitive to do away with the program access rules, we didn't pursue this transaction with the intention of not following those rules. we don't intend to behave any differently. we are willing to discuss with the fcc making the program access rules binding on us even

if they were to be overturned by the courts. in the past decade, comcast has come to washington twice to seek merger approvals. when we acquired cable systems from at&t and indelphia. each time, we explained how consumers would benefit. in each case, i believe we have delivered. we spent billions of dollars upgrading cable systems to make them state-of-the-art, created video on demand which our customers have used 14 billion times. from a standing start four years ago, we now give millions of americans their first real phone choice. once again, we have described how consumers will benefit. i want to assure you that we will deliver. mr. chairman, we are asking for the opportunity to make one of the great icons of american broadcasting and communications part of the comcast family. we promise to be reliable stewards of the national

treasures of nbc and nbc news. it is a breathtaking and humbling moment in our history. we hope we have your support. thank you. >> thank you, very much, mr. roberts. mr. zucker. mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. as the president and ceo of nbc universal, i am proud to lead an iconic media company shaped by two great american brands, nbc and universal. i am grateful for the opportunity to tell you how the proposed venture between comcast and ge will help nbc universal thrive and also benefit our local communities, our employees, and the american consumers who enjoy our content. in today's intensely competitive, unpredictable and dynamic media markets, this deal is critical to realizing these benefits. the marketplace that i live in is a media free for all. a media donny brook, whether you

look at the overall media marketplace, the cable charnlgs broadcast networks or the internet. there will be more change in our space in the next five years than there has been in the last 50. this deal will not change the fundamental competitive dynamic or the extraordinary rate of technological change but it will help nbc universal compete in the new media world. why is this transaction good for nbc universal, for the u.s. economy, and for the consumers we serve? my answer can be captured in two words, investment and innovation, both of which i believe are essential if we are to remain a vigorous competitor in the 21st century media market and a growing source of high-wage jobs in an economy starved for employment. first, investment. the creative programming that lies at the heart of our business is neither easy nor

inexpensive. it will require investment this year of nearly $4.5 billion. every year, we invest another $1 billion in news gathering and news production. an investment of half a billion dollars annually makes tel a mundo the leading in spanish programming. comcast's desire to expand our business and invest in programming will benefit nbc universal, the american consumer and the u.s. economy. also, with regards to investment, comcast's written commit to over-the-air broadcasting has been widely unappreciated. in addition, comcast has expressed a willingness to play a constructive role in the business negotiations between broadcast stations and mvpds. those two positions could play a pivotal role in finding a sustainable new business model for the struggling broadcast

business. second, innovation. we believe comcast history of delivery, innovation and technological vision will help us better serve the 21st century consumer. we must find a sustainable business model to meet consumer demands for access to programming any time, anywhere. we need to be more nimble in taking advantage of more dinlg at that time distribution capabilities, on demand, on line, mobile and beyond. this venture with comcast positions nbc u to being a leading innovator to deliver contact where they want it, when they want it and how they want it. in this extraordinary competitive industry, sustained investment and innovation will be the keys to remaining a vigorous competitors. this is not your father's media market. less than 40 years ago, three companies enjoyed 90% of alltel vision viewing. oh, how simple it was. today, the world could not be more different. each of the five largest 3450me

companies in america now only account for between 5% and 10% of all viewing. a multitude of smaller competitors account for half of all viewing. television is also a shrinking portion of the media market. people choose not only between broadcast and cable television but the internet, xbox, iphone and playstation. this transaction will not change the tidal wave of competition inundating today's media market. the big winner is the consumer. more investment leads to more and better content and more innovation leads to more access, any time, in he where. let me clothes by saying how grateful i am for ge's excellent

stewardship of nbc universal. they have invested more than $22 million since 2000 and built it into the diversified broadcast, film, cable programming and media company that we are today. with this deal, ge will have billions of dollars to invest in new technologies and jobs in it's core businesses. i could not be more excited about the future of this company. this deal will give us the resources and tools to innovate and adapt in an unpredictable media world and meet the needs of 21st century consumers. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'll look forward to answering any questions that this subcommittee may have. >> thank you very much, mr. zucker. ms. abdoulah. >> hi. i'm very proud to be here. i'm very proud to represent wow and the american cable association. we are a broadband competitor in five markets in the midwest. 1 million of the households that

we pass directly compete with comcast in michigan and illinois. i know customers appreciate having competitive choice. they do not choose wow because we are the low-cost provider. they choose us because we differentiate ourselves based on the service experience that we provide. customers have recognized this. we have received ten jd power awards for customer service. just recently, they awarded us the first place provider of internet, phone and cable in the consumer reports. i don't tell you about this recognition to brag but to illustrate that when we have direct influence and control over operations, we can be very customer s customer centrick and focus on what the customer needs and wants. as a buyer of content, we face a different set of challenges. we buy most of our content from a handful of large content

providers who have significant market power and leverage. the prospect of having comcast nbcu as the largest vertical integrate tore of content at my direct competitor does concern me. it concerns me because the combined company will have powerful abilities and incentives to possibly hurt a competitor like us and increase our costs. i have these concerns because of current behave yoe haf y behavi. video content is key. so content negotiations are critical for us. the behave yors we experience today during those negotiations are things like price value. not all content is created equal. content providers who have large market power come to the table with their network offerings

packaged in a take it all or take it or leave it kind of fashion. meaning that low value networks, not highly viewed or wanted by customers are associated with or packaged with the high value networks that we need to buy in order to compete. the issues are several. we end up using channel space customers don't want and aren't viewing. channel space we could give to independent networks. it consumes@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ the concept of tv everywhere basically involves taxing cable networks and allowing them to be viewed by broadband customers.

i think that customer from comcast likes that. we want to comcast and the other networks and we asked them to access that programming for our broadband customers. today, we have been denied that access. a cable example, we were negotiating with networks. comcast has a significant investment in. during the negotiation, the network refused to include the rights to advanced programming were developing. the bottom line is this -- we are not here to whine or ask for special advantages because we are the small guy. i believe in competition, as my peers have said. it creates creativity and innovation and a clear focus on the customer. competition as my peers hear have said. it breeds creativity, innovation and a clear focus on the

customer. i think our jd power and consumer report ratings val daid date that. we ask for a thorough and thoughtful consideration of specific conditions that may be imposed so that we can continue to preserve and promote the competitive choice that we provide and that congress sought in the '92 and '96 acts. the types of conditions we would ask for are the following, the terms and conditions for access for content, whether it is cable, online or otherwise, should be the same terms and conditions that are available to comcast. then, business is business. if there is a time when discriminatory behave yor occurs and market power and leverage is exerted inappropriately, i really ask for a remedy structure that is meaningful and accessible for companies like wow. the current retransmission consent and program access complaint procedures do not help us. an outside arbitration process does not help us.

the reasons are, they are time-consuming, very costly. they don't ensure continued carriage while you are in dispute. especially, they place the burden of proof on the complainant who doesn't have the access to the data, since there is absolutely no pricing transparency. to protect the competition and consumers from this combination, regulators must impose different and better remedies for us. we look forward to participating in that process. thanks for having me. >> thank you very much, ms. abdoulah. mr. fiorile. >> chairman boucher and members of the subcommittee, my name is michael. fiorile. i speak to you today as nbc chairman of the affiliate board representing some 200 independently owned local television stations. for more than 60 years, the affiliates and nbc have worked together as partners. the result has been free and universally available local and

national news, weather sports, emergency information and some of the highest quality programming. the question today is whether or not the benefits of this partnership produces for local viewers in your districts, will thrive if and when comcast owns nbc? the nbc affiliates board has been very pleased to hear comcast's response to this key question. steve burke, the chief operating officer at comcast, has assured us on more than one occasion, that the company's intent is to grow our partnership, providing free and over the air television service through the affiliates. in fact, also, comcast's desire to maintain nbc 10's owned and operated television stations in some of our country's large eflt cities is very important to us and we support that. ownership of these stations will provide comcast with a direct stake in serving local television viewers, just as the affiliates have. this is a very positive start but at this point, it is, in fact, just a start. the fact that never before has a

major cable operator controlled one of the four major broadcast networks is here. the stakes for free local television service and for viewers are too high to leave this to statements alone. in the weeks ahead, the affiliates board and comcast have work to do. together, we hope to design and agree upon clear, specific, and enforceable conditions defining what it means in practice for comcast to deliver on its promise to jun hold the network affiliate partnership for free local television service that has served viewers so well for so long. we have comcast's word on these principles and now we look forward to getting to specifics such as those that have been proposed in the application. first, there must be protections in place to prevent the erosion of the nbc network through migration of popular nbc news, sports and entertainment content and talent to cable channels or

other pay services. for example, consider the prospect, if you will, if nfl football games currently broadcast for free by nbc affiliates migrating to a comcast sports channel or consider "nbc nightly news" moving to a pay channel. that would be an immediate and a significant loss to affiliates and to all of our viewers. the public and the affiliates also need assurances that comcast will continue to invest in new and compelling sports, news, and entertainment programming for the nbc network. secondly, comcast must not interfere with the nbc affiliate's right to serve our local communities as the first point of ability of network programming. this long-standing principle serves the network, the affiliates and consumers by maintaining the broadcast medium with it's unique reach and acce accessability to viewers as a strong platform provided free to all americans. thirdly, this transaction raises

questions about retransmission consent. as you know, thanks to this committee, and others in congress, retransmission consent is a market-based mechanism that clearly works. it supports stations investment in local and national programming. the comcast/nbc transaction could threaten this essential economic foundation of nbc affiliates localized services. it puts the station supplier of network programming and the single largest distributor under one roof. simply put, comcast should not use its control of the nbc market to undermine affiliate signals on comcast systems. one way to address this concern is to keep network affiliation negotiations with the nbc network and to keep retransmission consent negotiations with comcast cable separate in the future as they are today.

we are also considering other ways to preserve retransmission consent because of it's vital role in the underpinning of local services that we provide to communities. so you've heard briefly about three principal areas of concern to the affiliates. given your oversight role, we would hope and would encourage you to encourage the fcc to adopt the necessary conditions to protect consumers continued access to free quality local television. like the commitments comcast has volunteered in it's it's applications, they need to be part of the fcc order and need to be binding. they are off to a promising start in flushing out the principles which both of us consider important. we believe this can strengthen the affiliates and nbc in serving for many years to come.

we know that comcast shares these goals. i thank you for the opportunity to be here today. >> thank you, mr. fiorile. dr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the community to offer a public interest analysis of a merger unique in the history of the video market and will go a long way towards determining whether or not the future of video viewing in america is more competitive and consumer friendly than the past. there is another side to the story. comcast straddles the dominant video distribution platform of the 20th century as the nation's large ef largest cable service provider. in its cable franchise service territories the market share of comcast in these two vital distribution platforms exceeds 50%. allowing it to acquire one of the nation's premiere video content producers will radically alter the structure of the video marketplace. triggering a bevy of anti-competitive effects that will result in higher prices and

fewer choices for consumers. allowing comcast to acquire nbc will increase the likelihood that the ugly business model of the cable cartel will be strengthened and extended to the internet. there are huge horizontal problems with this merger. broadcasters and cable companies have a natural competitive rivalry we witness every day. they argue about the price, channel location, and carriage of content. the rivalry is so intense that each side has attempted to enter the rival's market in an effort to diminish their market power. they are known as disruptive entrants in each other's markets. this merger would eliminate that primary line of conflict between two of the most important of these potential entrants. these two companies compete for audiences and advertisers in a dozen of the nation's most

important local markets, serving about 1/5 of the nation's population. there are more people in the markets where comcast and nbc compete head to head through nbc o&os than there are in markets where nbc o&os own stations and comcast is not present. there is more population that they compete for directly than they do not. these two companies compete in the video programming market where comcast regional sports and news production compete with nbc' news and sports production. three quarters of the regional sports networks that comcast has rolled out are located in the markets where they compete directly with nbc for eyeballs and advertiser dollars. if that ain't competition, there is no such thing as competition. that's horizontal competition. these two companies compete in

cyberspace where nbc has funded an alternative distribution platform, hulu, as well as numerous web sites for its media properties. comcast has launched its own video portal and has big plans for -- to expand that competition. that is head-to-head competition in cyberspace. that is horizontal competition. by combining its distribution market power, that 50% market share, that 24% national share of cable viewers, with a huge portfolio of content, the merger would dramatically increase the incentive and ability of comcast to raise prices, discriminating carriage, foreclose and block competitive entry, and force larger programming bundles on to other systems. those strategies raise prices and reduce choices, as you've heard from ms. abdullah. the merger has so many

anti-competitive and anti-consumer effects that it just can't be fixed. they can't be unraveled. the claim that there is enough other competition to prevent these anti-competitive effects is based on the denial of the existence of a well-recognized $80 billion multichannel video market. that is a marketplace that we recognize and we can evaluate. the likely response in that market to the creation of a giant that has both massive content and massive distribution is to go the other members of the market to bulk up in the same way. we will lose more choices in that market. the claim that fcc oversight under current law or comcast promises to obey the law for a change will protect the public is absurd. the fcc rules have failed to undermine, eliminate, prevent the stranglehold of the cable operators to date, and there's

no reason to believe that they will be better able to tame the video giant that will result from this merger. comcast public interest promises do not even acknowledge the existence of these horizontal competition problems, not to mention offer serious remedies. the temporary band-aids that have been offered cannot cure the long-term structural injuries that would result from this merger. for decades congress has labored to bring consumers price competition in the video market by opening the door to different business models and different technologies. but in every instance, key policy mistakes were made that allowed the cable industry to preserve and extend its market power. this is the first big policy test for the internet as the alternative video platform that can compete with cable. if policymakers allow this merger to go forward, the prospects for a more competition-friendly, consumer-friendly multichannel

video market will be dealt a setback. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, dr. cooper. mr. thayer? >> although we are still early in this process, there has been a great deal of pandering and dire predictions about the pending merger of comcast and nbc universal. i hope to put this in historical context and explain why the deal will not have the detrimental impact some critics fear and explain why it may be one potential model to sustain traditional media going forward. a first, let's remember we have been here before. a paranoid prediction of media apocalypse have accompanied previous deals. in these cases and most others, the size claims tend to be greatly overstated. the only harm that one could reasonably claim came from the mergers was to the merging firms themselves and shareholders

because many mergers simply failed to create a court of synergy and benefit originally hoped for and consequently die of natural causes overtime. other firms have found ways to make deals work. they have provided services that were previously unimaginable or too expensive to offer alone. . er alone. regardless, the point here is that we'll never know what warks unless we permit marketplace experimentation with new and innovative business models. second, the fear that comcast nbc u will act as a gatekeeper over video content is overblown especially in light of the preemptive concessions that they've made in program access and carriage. it's important to realize that the merger will only marginally the merger will only marginally affect cable i marketplace. currently the percentage of cable channels owned by distributors is in the single digits and even after this merger, it will only be in the teens. stated differently, the vast majority of cable channels will be independent of comcast nbc-u

control. it's hard to believe they would restrict content to distribution-owned networks since they would be losing eyeballs, advertisers, and revenues that accompany the content and carriage of other platforms. likewise it would make little stones block newer, competing channels on their own platform since they would incur the wrath of programmers and the viewing public alike. and those channels will likely find a home elsewhere which could sneftize subscribers to switch video service providers. there's always another place for consumers to turn to find what they want. comcast faces increasingly robust competition in the video programming marketplace from satellite and teleco providers as well as from a variety of internet-based video providers. nbc universal programming while impressive is a mere trickle in the ocean of content that consumers can choose from. meanwhile, consumers are increasingly cutting the cable cord altogether and instead getting the video they want from a bewildering array of nonline services, next flicks hulu, the sony xbox stores and youtube,

vimeo, and other offer a mix of professional and amateur content. in some, there's never been so much competition for our eyes and ears and audience and advertising dollars have become increasingly fragmented as a result. finally, we need to realize that the ongoing digital revolution is opening many business models especially advertising over-the-air broadcasting. and alliances like comcast-nbc u. may be one blueprint for how operators can compete going forward. with the fcc and ftc currently investigating whether journalism and trouble and what it might take to save the news, many media economists and industry analysts seem to agree that at least some degree of consolidation or collaboration might be necessary. consider last week's news that nbc universal saw quarterly profits plunge a whopping 30% in the fourth quarter of 2009. this is indicative of the general downturn the entire media sector has been experiencing as of late. why not then allow comcast to try to help nbc u. out and try to get back on track instead of

forcing them to make it on their own in such a radically uncertain future? it goes without saying that comcast might be better positioned for to protect nbc universal's copy righted content from piracy at least over their own pipes. those concerned about the future of broadcasting and local news should remember that news and local news and broadcast news in particular isn't cheap. unless we want to embark on massive government subsidization to bail out providers, congress and regulatory officials must be willing to grant media operators the flexibility to restructure business affairs so they can continue to provide important public needs while also turning a profit. that can't happen unless we allow media markets to evolve and let operators experiment with new business models and ownership structures. although there are no guarantees, deals like comcast-nbc universal may be a model that helps create and monetize their media con tent going forward. again, regulatory flexibility is crucial so we can figure out what works and what doesn't. thank you again for inviting me here today. >> thank you very much, mr.

theier. we express our appreciation to all of the witnesses for their thoughtful and well presented comments this morning. i'm going to recognize myself for an opening round of questions. increasingly the viewing of television programs over the internet has become a useful and action tractive alternative to viewing those programs over cable television. concerns have been raised including some this morning about the fact that the comcast-nbc combination would place comcast in a position to inhibit the online viewing of television programs for a very large amount of television content. that concern is heightened by the tv everywhere model that comcast and time-warner cable have now launched through which the online tv programs are made available only to the

subscribers to the cable television service itself. with regard to tv everywhere, smaller cable companies including mrs. abdullah's, as she just indicated, have in instances been denied access to the content that is being made available on tv everywhere, and there are questions about whether programs that are offered over the air today and made available through the nbc.com web site for online viewing might in the future migrate into tv everywhere. a very real concern a number of people have expressed. the concern about the comcast position enabling it to potentially inhibit the availability of tv fare over the internet is also heightened by the fact that for at least some period of time last year users of boxy which is a software

application that enables people to see online television programs on their television sets, not just on their computers but actually on their tv sets giving them a very seamless experience similar to what they would get from cable tv. but those boxy users were apparently blocked from being able to view the hulu-delivered programs on their tv sets. and presumably that blocking came from hulu, and i would note that nbc news universal is part owner and one of the founders of hulu. so mr. roberts and mr. zucker, my question to you is this -- what response do you have to those concerns, and what assurance can you give to us that when this combination takes place there will not be an inhibition put in place that would limit the amount of online video content that viewers can

see? mr. roberts, would you like to start? >> thank you, mr. chairman, appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of those issues. first of all, as has been mentioned previously, we have helped create the broadband experience that consumers enjoy today, some of the work out of cable labs going back a decade was one of the first to create high-speed broadband. it's the fastest growing part of comcast is our broadband business. in fact, we are in the process of completing nearly a billion dollar upgrade to create wide band. and if you say what do you do with wide band, right now i don't have a great answer except that at 50 mega bits or 100 mega bits a second, i trust that there are great entrepreneurs out there to come up with the answers, and we want to be a company on the leading edge. so we think this is absolutely one of the most exciting areas. and i've said consistently for

several years that we believe video over the internet is one of those applications that requires more speed and justifies the investments that we're making in wide band and broadband. so we think it is a friend, not a foe. and that position is demonstrated by the surge of usage and the amount of bits that consumers continue to consume each month. and it's growing at a very fast rate. so in this transaction, if you look at the facts, there are 30 billion views of video internet last month. nbc was less than 1% of that. hulu, of which nbc is one of four partners, i think, is around 4%. comcast is less than a half a percent of any of our video-owned content assets being viewed on the internet. >> well, mr. roberts, in my -- my time is running out rapidly here. let me pinpoint a couple of key concerns. ms. abdullah has said that she

has been denied access to the content available on tv everywhere. what's your response to that? >> i'm not aware exactly what she's referring to, but -- >> do you agree that she ought to have access on reasonable terms? >> yes. and she i believe can by going to the biggest proponent of tv everywhere has been -- >> let me accept the yes. >> okay, fair enough. >> the second key question that i have is this -- what about boxy? mr. zucker, you probably are in a better position to answer that. did hulu block the boxy users from access to the hulu programs? >> this was a decision made by the hulu management to what boxy was doing was illegally taking the content that was on hulu without any business deal, and, you know, all -- all that -- we have several distributors, actually many distributors of the hulu content that we have legal distribution deals with. so we don't preclude distribution deals. what we preclude are those who illegally take that content.

>> well, would you have negotiations with boxy -- >> we have always said that we're open to negotiations. >> all right. one further question and my time has expired. can the two of you offer to us assurance that the programs that are delivered over the air by nbc today and are then available on the nbc.com web site for online viewing will not migrate into the tv everywhere format so that they then would be available only to people who have a cable subscription? can you give us that assurance? >> yes. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your answers to those questions. the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. cooper, you've testified before our committee before many times. and i thank you for coming. miss abdullah, we sort of all on your side. you're the small person in this big room here. so we're sympathetic to you.

as i understand it, you don't oppose a merger, you just want conditions in place. would that be an ample way to say your opinion? >> that's a fair statement. yes. >> okay, dr. cooper, though, you're specifically against this merger. is that they're? just yes or no? >> i'm against the merger. i don't think you can unravel the anti-competitiveness. >> okay. and you've been here before, and i know you've testified against other mergers, so i'm going to ask you succinctly if you can tell us that -- you say control over production, distribution of information, that's critical implication for society and democracy. we all agree with that. no one would disagree with that. the problem is that the proenzed deal before us doesn't speak to all of production and all of distribution. so when you make that statement, you know, comcast, nbc is not all of production, not all of distribution. i mean, you and i both agree there's diversity of news and entertainment from all kinds of

different things. i don't have to go into and enumerate them. but how could comcast in your opinion very succinctly now control production distribution to go back to your statement overall? i mean, just in one or two sentences. >> i'm not worried about overall, i'm worried about in a specific local market where they have market power. so in 12 of this nation's markets, comcast and nbc compete head to head for eyeballs, for advertisers, they in many of those markets, they produce programming, news programming, and sports programming. marquee programming. >> okay, in those 12 markets what will happen as this merger comes? tell me specifically what -- worst case scenario. >> worst case scenario, one of those entities abandons the market and ceases to try to win

eyeballs. today they both vigorously try to win eyeballs. tomorrow i've lost a competitor. >> which one of those markets of those 12 you think is most likely in your opinion? >> they're all good candidates. >> just give me -- >> they're all important markets. >> come on, just one of those 12 that we can highlight as we're scared -- >> well, the premiere one is of course philadelphia. >> okay. philadelphia, that's where they are. so philadelphia. so is that -- that's a market -- and this is going to happen in two years, five years, one year, two days, when? >> well, these are long-term structure changes -- >> which would be over five to ten years? >> in those markets we have a record of comcast making it difficult for competitors to enter. you can -- you've heard from those people -- >> yeah, okay. >> they have used their -- withheld their sports programming. >> okay. i got -- >> slowed down, driven -- >> all right, dr. cooper, you made your point. miss abdullah, what do you think? do you agree with him? do you think that's true that in these 12 markets we're going to

lose comcast, will dominate and we'll lose competition? he's buttressing your argument in a way so he's on your side. >> i think we're speaking of different things. he's speaking of the 15 markets and the o&os -- >> and you're speagig@@@@@ @ @ i'm sure the advertisers will be pleased to hear mark so concerned about their welfare. they're actually doing all right. they have a lot ofonds. i have data i presented in my testimony that showed how many different avenues advertisers can go to and take their dollars to. in terms of viewers, i mean,

they're shifting their eyeballs and ears all around these days. so it's hard for me to believe that this is going to be some sort of a nightmare, chicken little scenario where the sky is going to fall in these markets. >> all right, miss abdoulah, you're the person here. given that comcast would not be gaining any new cable properties to compete with your company, what advantage would this company gain from withholding content from you or your customers? >> what -- what advantage will -- >> yeah, why would they do it? >> i can't offer the same content. i don't have access to the content, where does my customer go? to my competitor, to comcast. >> uh-huh. mr. roberts, you might want to comment on either her comment or dr. cooper's. >> well, i go back to the principle here. first of all, content's going to be made available to our competitors, is available today. in the last two years, colocast has lost nationally over a million and a half customers while phone and satellite and

the wideopenwests of the country have added over seven million. in fact the second and third largest distributors of multichannel video in the country are two satellite companies. so there is a very competitive market. one of the reasons we want to get more invested in content is we see the value of that content growing. and i think the premise of the way you phrased the question, i agree with, which is we will be well served to make that content available to all the growing players in the marketplace. so i think this will ultimately lead to more innovation, more content creation, we see it as a growing business. i'm sure somewhere we'll talk about the intellectual property and how to protect it. we are very much focused on that same issue. and i think we recognize that this is a very competitive video distribution marketplace and this is a -- an opportunity to participate in the growing part and as the internet grows, as the chairman asked, we want to

see the content available and growing for the consumer because that's where the consumer wants to be. >> may i respond to that -- clarify -- >> sure, very quickly. >> pardon me? >> very quickly, please. time is running. >> it's not just about withholding content, it's also about putting restrictions and conditions on how we offer that content. those are two things that we need to consider here because that happens, as well. >> thank you very much, mr. stearns. the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. roberts, nbc has been a long-time proponent of vigorous protection for the intellectual property rights of content creators and owners. mr. zucker and i have had an opportunity to discuss the need for more robust action by broadband providers in protecting content available on line, online content theft is a serious problem. it's a drain on our economy. and one that i'm committed to

addressing. if your transaction is approved and you find that you own nbc's valuable content catalog, can you tell us what actions you're considering to reduce content theft on line? and secondly, will you ask other broadband providers that seek access to nbc content to adopt measures to reduce content theft? >> i think we absolutely recognize the vital nature of protecting the licensed, legitimate, you know, nontheft model that has what -- has propelled nbc universal to where it is today and every other owner of content. in the distribution business, we also rely on license content to be the successful part of our business. so i think we now have doubly the incentive, double the incentive to figure this issue out better than it's figured out today. specifically, i think there have been technological advancements

in the last couple of years. they're going to make it more likely that we can cooperate and to your very specific question, would we encourage the rest of the other broadband providers and distributors to try to find solutions here, the answer is yes. we will now be an active member of ncta, mpaa, and other, you know, industry trade groups that are focused on these questions. i think it's vital that we have cooperative solution, we obviously on one hand have privacy concerns and copyright protection concerns. on the other hand, we want -- by having such a 33,000 employees at nbc universal that i've got to worry about and 100,000 employees at comcast cable, it's in my interest and i think the consumers' interest to continue the license motdle and find solutions that are acceptable. >> i appreciate that. on this issue about fair

competition, the communication act prohibits cable companies from requiring a financial interest in any program service as a condition for carriage or forcing a programmer to grant an exclusive to the cable provider as a condition of carriage. the idea behind this pro-hick is to protect independent programmers from being forced to accept unfair terms as the price for being distributed and seen by viewers. do you agree that this kind of prohibition makes sense? >> i do. and we have abided by that prohibition since 1992. >> there was a statement by -- by steve burke during our program carriage dispute between comcast and the nfl, and mr. burke was comcast's chief operating officer, stated that comcast treats its own programming services as siblings as opposed to strangers.

do you agree with mr. burke's statement? does comcast treat its own programming services differently than those outside of the comcast family? >> i'm not familiar with the context of that remark, so if i may, mr. burke is -- >> but his statement aside, do you treat your programming services differently than those outside of the comcast family? >> i think that what he may have been referring to is as employees of the company and just how as chief operating officer he's concerned with with both parts of the company and the welfare of the assets and the people. but specifically to -- we have six out of every seven channels that comcast carries, we do not have any financial interest in. the competitiveness of directv, wow, dish network, verizon fios, at&t uverse compels us to have a

product as fairly exciting, presented to the consumer as possible -- >> and you're going to treat your content and other content not produced by your organization -- >> we have to get the best content, otherwise people are going to not want our product. and i think that's what is driving us from a competitive standpoint is to how to have the best offerings possible. >> let me ask mr. zucker, as a programmer interested in bringing nbc's programming to as many people as possible, are you expecting comcast to look out for its own, and if so, would you expect such a preference to be good for nbc? >> the fact is that we would like our content to be as widely seen as possible. so our relationship with every distributor is the same, that we would like them though they don't always carry all of our networks and all of our content. and we have those conversations all the time with all distributors. >> mr. chairman, i know my time has expired. i want to point out that companies like people energiy have an interest in taking

special care of family members. but in looking at this transaction, i think the fcc needs to analyze carefully what such potential favoritism might mean from competition from independent programmers and ultimately consumer choice. >> thank you very much, mr. waxman. the gentleman from indiana, mr. boyer, is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you very much. i've worked hard to do my due diligence to examine this from all sides. so mr. roberts, what i'm going to ask of you, if you can grab your pen, i have six questions that i'm going to ask. and you don't have to give very long answers because you and i have had very good discussions with regard to the word "trust." you can't beat up broadcasters for your entire career of comcast and all of a sudden you become one without answering some -- giving assurances or commitments. so let's go ahead and go down the line. with regard to your testimony on program access rules, you have now given the assurance that

you'll abide by them even -- regardless of what the court may do. does that commitment apply even after the rules sunset, that's my first question. the second question is that as i speak with the affiliates, it seems to me that you could fairly easily even get around the rule even though if there's a commitment. for example, a local nbc affiliate could significantly raise the price for all comcast video competitors in that market for retransmission of a station's signal. but for comcast, this would be basically an accounting charge from one corporate affiliate to another. what can you do to assure that comcast will not use its control of the nbc u. to raise rates for all its competitors to pay for this valuable must-have programming? that's my second question. please also recognizing that if in fact that local market becomes -- you upset the market rates, that does have an impact upon smaller cable operators,

likewise. that's my second. my third is with regard to the issue on price. it does appear that you have the potential to gain a significant amount of leverage with your video distribution competitors for the price of access to these channels. now you might offer them access to programming, but at what price that effectively forecloses them from access or raise the provider's cost structure so they can't compete? will you commit at least with respect to the nbc u. programming that you now control, that will control, to maintain for some period of years the programming prices in the current deals? after all, these were negotiated arm's length before thor have cal integration, and so they should reflect the market rates. secondly on this question -- on my third question. will you agree to so-called most-favored-nation status for similarly situated purchases that are now integrated programming? that is, will you commit all

similarly situated cometors of yours will automatically get the best price that you will make available to them? my fourth question with regard to the nbc u. vast array of films in the film library. what commitments will you make about competitor access to valuable programming which is essential for video-on-demand services? next issue is on advertising. i understand comcast does not currently allow its video competitors to advertise their services on comcast cable -- on your cable channels. do you intend to extend this policy to all nbc u. networks and programs after the deal? and if you do -- let's see what your commitment's going to be on that. because you understand what this could do. the last is with regard to -- i'm not aware of any commitments that comcast has made regarding the availability of comcast and

nbc u. programming for distribution on line. the ability of consumers to enjoy their favorite programming on line or to take it with them on various devices is the frontier that you and i spoke about. will comcast make a commitment that it will not deny its video distribution rivals access to the nbc u. broadcast or cable programming for online distribution? assuming that the competitor's willing to pay a fair market rate, will comcast commit not to give its online properties preferential treatment? for example, by making a really hot show available to a competitor for online distribution after comcast customers have already enjoyed it first? i await your reply. >> okay. going to do my very best. i hope you'll bear with me that there were a lot of questions there, and i appreciate you've covered a lot of ground. i think what we said in my opening statement which you may

have caught some of or maybe not all of is that we are prepared to discuss with the fcc either the sunsetting or the -- any litigation that exists on the program asset rules and program carriage rules, having them remain in place after this transaction is completed. so i think we will continue to abide and have lived with and that's not a motivation for this deal is to see a massive change in that oversight that the fcc has on our conduct and behavior. again, want to stress the point to underscore that it is not the motivation for this deal to suddenly take a cnbc off of directv or in some way try to change that relationship because, frankly, those are the second and third largest distributors, their fastest growing distributors are the telecos, and the fact is that that's part of the growth in mr.

zucker's business. >> that's number one. number two? >> okay. affiliates' rates for retransmissions and smaller msos. i'm not totally sure i understood all the implications of that question. then they get better rates. you might change what happens in the local market. there is shifting, and what type of assurances. also, some of the affiliate's are this corporate accounting. i hope you encourage the head of the nbc affiliate's board, statements that we're off to a start in terms of trying to address some of the fundamental issues in a troubled business because of audience share decline and technological change. broadcast television is going through a lot of change.

we have heard about retransmission consent. about 80% of cable companies and 20% a content company. we see a large concern about cable rates, and what is the right model and the right answer. we don't have an answer for the changes that are going to the industry, but the question is, are we prepared to try to play a constructive role in the future of broadcast television? try to play a constructive role in the future of broadcast television and recognize its vital importance when making a huge bet by buying nbc. at the same time, there's been -- there are the opportunities to revisit what's the right answer there, and i hope by being in both sides we can truly play a role in helping make that happen. >> but my time is running out. and -- if you can hit these

commitments really quick. >> price for -- >> go to three. >> okay. >> just -- >> program prices in the current deals. i can assure you that all the existing contracts that nbc has which i have not had access to see, we don't intend to abrogate any agreements or attempt to do so. >> four? >> films, competitors' access. we again -- i don't know, i've just met the universal folks. but again, it is not the motivation. i'm sure we're going to try to figure out how to make the best movies. you have many partners when you make a film. all the actors and writers and talent and the creative folks, and you're going to try to maximize the revenues as a fiduciary of that film. and if other folks want access to it, we're certainly in favor of that. >> mr. buyer and mr. roberts, let me suggest that mr. roberts, you submit the balance of those answers in writing. we're going to be submitting some additional questions to you in writing anyway, and we have such a number of members still to ask questions and limited time. i think we'll move on.

thank you very much, mr. buyer. the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingle, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentleman and ladies, i'm going to request that a lot of these questions be answered yes or no. this doesn't indicate a lack respect but indicates a very important need to conserve time under the very limited process as we proceed. to mr. roberts, will comcast commit not to tie together retransmission consent payments with payments for network programming provider under an affiliation agreement? yes or no? >> can you repeat the question? i'm sorry. >> will comcast commit not to tie together retransmission consent payments with payments for network programming provider under an affiliation agreement? yes or no? >> we will not do what you said

i believe. i'm sorry. it's -- a couple of things in there -- >> i'll ask the record be kept open. you can give us a more finished answer. >> thank you. >> to that at the appropriate time. >> appreciate that. >> i hope you don't regard that i'm trying to take advantage of you. again, mr. roberts, will comcast commit not to force network affiliates to accept unfavorable affiliation agreement provisions to obtain market-based retransmission consent payments? yes or no? >> we will not force them to take unfair deals. >> and again, i -- i'll ask the record be kept open so that you can amplify on that. again, mr. roberts, does comcast's public interest filing with fcc include proper assurances that comcast will not migrate critical network programming away from free over-the-air broadcasting to

comcast's cable properties? again, yes or no. >> we will not -- that is not the motivation. i believe our filing does address that. yes. >> and i want it clear, these questions are asked with all respect and affection. mr. roberts, again, upon approval of comcast's joint venture with nbc universal, will comcast commit to respecting collective bargaining agreements for its employees and the process by which they are reached? yes or no? >> yes. >> again, mr. roberts, further, will comcast put up roadblocks to first or initial contract negotiations with the unions? yes or no? >> no. >> mr. roberts, finally, how will comcast view arbitration of first contract negotiations? should they break down between comcast and employees seeking to form a union? will comcast support or oppose such actions?

>> in terms of mediation or some third party? >> i'm talking about arbitration. you can use the word mediation interchangeably with it. >> if there's a contract breakdown? >> yes. >> if there's creative ways to find solutions, we don't want to have a breakdown. so if that's a helpful way, that's something we'll consider, sure. >> now these questions to ms. abdoulah and mr. cooper, in 25 words or less, how do you see the proposed joint venture between comcast and nbc universal as effecting the online video market? starting with mr. cooper. >> frankly, we see it as an effort to extend the market division agreement that has existed between cable operators and physical space into cyberspace. that is the explicit intention of tv everywhere. the statement that they will not

use nbc properties to reinforce that does not answer our concern. >> thank you. >> because nbc will stop developing alternative -- >> i'm going to request ms. abdoulah give us her comments. >> i'm concerned, sir, for two reasons. one, we have had a recent experience where we have not been granted the rights for online product. that's number one. and number two, i'm concerned that the current video model where it's a take it or leave it, here's the high price that you're going to pay, gets extended to the online broadband customer base, as well. >> mr. roberts, you have a comment? 25 word or less? >> i think that the internet is a nascent market. i think that tv everywhere just to be clear is meant to say if you're subscribing the way it was presented to us from hbo and time-warner, if you can get the -- if you're a customer of, say, hbo on television and you now want to watch it on the p.c.

this enables that to happen. and i don't believe there's any impediments to ms. abdoulah being able to have the same access from time-warner. those are the principles that were publicly stated and that we thought made a lot of sense. >> thank you. now doctor -- this goes again to mr. roberts. dr. cooper asserts that a lack of competitive pressure has failed to produce appreciable downward pressure on cable rates since 1983. in addition, comcast will arguably be incentivized by virtue of vertical integration to charge competitors more for must-have content, thereby raising cable rates for consumers. what does -- commitments does comcast intend to make to prevent such abuses? >> well, i think that as a said, we're still 80% a cable company, so our eye is very much still in that perspective. mr. dingell, number two, i don't

think the deal change anything in that regard. nbc has great content and charges the best price that it can get from its customers, and i'm not sure that -- that our sneft is -- our sniff is any different given the two companies coming together. i think that the quality of the content and the technology that's changed in the last several years is part of the answer, but i think it's a broader industry question, not necessarily specific to this deal. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i know my time is up. but i think mercy requires that ms. abdoulah be able to comment. do you have a comment? >> i have a comment on the previous comment that we've not been denied access comcast -- it's not about time-warner only. comcast provides networks on their tv everywhere platform. we asked comcast specifically for the rights, and they -- we got sort of excuses like it's not ready for launch, even though it's been launched to 14

million of their households. we were told there's technical issues, we're technically capable of authenticating it. so there are issues of content being withheld today. >> thank you. mr. cooper, very quickly. >> comcast's sob story about losing cable subscribers is a dog that doesn't hunt. in the past few years, they have shifted to triple play, increased the total number of subscribers they have across their items, increased the price of cable, increased the margin on their cable customers. that is inconsistent with the market that is forcing them to lower prices. they are counting the wrong thing. the thing they're not really interested in anymore. >> thank you. my time's up. thank you. >> thank you very much, chairman dingell. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mark ey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i think we have to just continue this conversation. it's obviously at the center of

what this merger represents. so as you know, i've introduced network neutrality legislation, and clearly the concern here is that when a company that has the wire going into the home merges with a company that has all of nbc's universal's content that there could be a temptation to discriminate against others. and again, going out in the future, we are concerned about the proverbial kid in the garage. you know, that's got that great idea. we've got a concern about the kid that thinks up the idea of avatar.com tv, could be a big concept now, huh? and it's not owned by comcast or nbc. we have to make sure that it doesn't get discriminated against because it's not an nbc idea. it's not a comcast idea.

so how can we enshrine these principles of nondiscrimination against those great, new ideas from having access to the pipes that go into people's homes that are controlled by comcast, mr. roberts? and that goes to the question of networking neutrality and what kind of guarantees we can get that those other ideas are going to be protected? >> well, as you know, mr. markey, there's a procedure taking place at the fcc right now on this very question of net neutrality, and as you know, as you've said, you've got potential legislation in this committee and in the congress. so i would first want to point out that i think whatever you do, if you're really trying to make that protection or achieve that goal, there's going to have to apply across the board. and whether that's to all providers, what levels of the internet, what about wireless,

the world is changing and converging, and evolving very, very quickly. so i again believe that this particular transaction doesn't really have the potential in my opinion to change that kid in the garage or that avatar tv.com or whatever the example one wants to pick because let's say google today is over 50% of all the video views of the 30 billion views that took place last month would not -- >> will you commit, will you commit to not creating a different standard for access by jaftor tv? the comcast platform -- will you accept the principles of nondiscrimination? >> we have accepted and voluntarily -- we may have a disagreement on whether there should be a law and what that does specifically, how it's interpreted down the road and what that does to investment. here we're investing in wideband without you in applications.

we're count -- without any applications. we're counting on that kid in the garage. what about video gaming over the internet, are you going to support it or not? it's a huge part of what drives broadband are all these now applications. so yeah, i believe that it is not in our business interest. >> do you believe that there should be any conditions which are attached to this merger at all? >> we've made -- yeah. we've said that we've identified a new -- i don't know, at least ten commitments that get involved with independents of nbc news to program access applying to retransmission consent. what i testified this morning, earlier was that if for some reason the rules are -- program access are struck down by the courts, we would continue -- would have a conversation, have a commitment with the fcc to have them continued because that's not a plan we plan to change.

we've talked about children's programming, free over the air broadcasting -- >> my greatest concern going forward this incredibly chaotic a generator of creativity and new jobs. that is what we have to be in the twenty first century as a nation. it is very important that there be no disincentives to that young creative person, the tens of thousands that can create that new product and get it into the homes of the american people. that there was a barrier, and bloc that they could not get in. the comcast programming, other powerful content providers, the small creative person that really has to make a breakthrough that it won't be able to do it. that hurts our economic

competitiveness. broadband is a proxy for twenty first century american competitiveness, the 3% -- all of that creativity gets unleashed. and that is the conversation i that is have to something we have to brand globally. so that's the conversation i think we have to have going forward, and this agreement that you have really should be a model to ensure that that becomes who we think of ourselves as a nation. so we thank all of you for being here today, and i thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence in giving me extra time. >> thank you very much, mr. markey. the gentleman from washington state, mr. insley, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. roberts. i'm told that in may, 2007, comcast obtained the broadcast rights for the portland trailblazers, and at the time the public was told that they would be available through

competitors. instead, the blazer broadcasting rights was used to run ads extorting satellite subscribers to switch to comcast because it offered blazer telecasts in the satellite providers did not. it's now been 2 1/2 years, and still there's no deal to allow conveyance of those rights. this leads me to suggest we ought to think about spifing up our rules on how to deal with those -- those access rights. and there's an arbitration procedure now that some have suggested is not adequate to the task of today and has not worked. i wanted to ask you and miss abdoulah if we should consider bringing those access procedures up to speed, for instance, by requiring continuation of coverage during the arbitration process. or having limits on the period of time it takes to reach a resolution.

and/or changing the burden of proof and giving parties discovery of, in fact, the contractural relationships with others. mr. roberts, miss abdoulah, could you address that consideration. >> let me go first. first of all, in the -- my understanding of portland is we would love to have satellite carry that channel. we don't have an ability to begin an arbitration process to ask them to carry it. they're not bound by those rules. it's the other way around. and so i don't believe they have availed themselves because i'm not sure that they have wanted to do that. i don't know what their motivation would be. so any change that you might have to the program access rules in general i'm not sure would affect that particular situation. but just for the record, we have tried on numerous occasions to get that content carried by satellite and would welcome any way we can get that worked out.

as to the program access rules in general, i just want to start -- they were written in '92. they were at a time when i think probably over 50% of all the programming channels were owned by cable companies and cable at that time did not have satellite competition or teleco competition or wideopenwest-type competition, it does not exist. today i think about -- according to the fcc, about 15 period of the channels are owned by vertically integrated companies. so there's a big change in the market over the last 18 years or so. but i think any revisiting should again go across the whole industry, and we'd welcome that. i'm not sure it's specific to this deal, but it's probably something that fcc from time to time or congress from time to time should look at. that's part of the question of whether the rules are stills in given where the market is,

what's happening with other forms of distribution. but i -- i think that we have no problem with the fcc has said it wants to review how it timely resolves some of these matters, and the new chairman i think has sort of said the institution needs to look at how it processes things differently than past fccs, and we welcome that kind of institutional review and want to be a constructive part of that process. >> thank you, miss abdoulah? >> i can't obviously comment on why dish has not -- or satellite has not been able to get a deal for the sports. i can assume it's because of the price. and the reason i assume that is because we recently went through anegotiation in chicago for comcast regional sports network. when we came to the table to negotiate, we had a high single-digit increase. they had a high double-digit

increase. we were getting nowhere in conversation, and went to arbitration thinking that was a remedy for us. quickly found out it was not. it was going to cost about $1 million just to get the ball rolling. it could go on for months, up to 18 or more months. during that time period there was no requirement that the service continue during the dispute. and the burden of proof was going to be placed on us to show that we're not getting a fair and equitable rate. we can't do that because there's no price transparency. there's no market rationalization for the prices that we pay. so yes, do i think it needs to be absolutely reviewed and reformed and restructured so that there are time limits? the cost is not egregious and out of the reach of smaller operators, that the burden of proof goes on the programmer, the content provider who is setting the price for them to

prove that it's decent and it's fair and it's market based, and the timing. that there's a set timing for the arbitration process. otherwise we have no remedy. we have no place to go if we hit loggerheads and we can't come to an agreement. and we absolutely need that to be fair and competitive. >> thank you very much, mr. insley, and ms. abdoulah. we are facing a bit of a time problem now. we are scheduled between 1:00 and 1:15 to have another series of four votes, and then this subcommittee will have to vacate this room because at 2:00 there will be a hearing involving secretary sebelius on these premesis. so i'm going to ask members if they will voluntarily keep their questions to about three minutes. and that way we can get as far through the list of members still to ask questions as possible. the gentlelady from tennessee,

ms. blackburn, is recognized for such time as she may consume. hopefully no more than three minutes. >> well, i'll tell you what i'll do, mr. chairman. why don't i lay my questions out, and then allow you all to respond to me in writing. and that will save some time and allow others to get their questions in. and on the record, mr. roberts and mr. zucker, i'm going to start with you. because whether we talk about mergers ordeals or unions, things of that nature, we -- whether it's large or small, we talk about how it's going to affect the consumer. and i mentioned this in my opening statement, what i would like to hear from you, from each of you, is a statement as to why this is a good deal for my constituents. whether they're a consumer or a member of the content production community. and that articulation would be wonderful. and it would be helpful to me. mr. thieer, to you, you had in

your testimony that it would make no sense for the new firm to block new or competing channels, and that comcast faces robust competition in the video programming marketplace from satellite and telecom providers as well as from internet-based video providers. so given the robust competition and the video programming marketplace, do you believe that government should impose network neutrality standards on this union? and what would some of the consequences for consumers in vin ovation be if that intervention place? mr. zucker, you've been associated with nbc for at least a decade and ceo of nbcu for two years. do you think the prognosis for free-standing companies -- what is the environment?

what do cow think is going to be the prognosis there? and i am now out of time. it looks like. if i can get one more -- i had a question, and this would be for all of you. looking at what the -- what impact this deal would have on efforts by broadcast to develop additional revenue streams. as i have talked to broadcasters and companies, they are talking about looking at other streams. i would like to hear there you all, kind of where you're planning to move with this. what do we anticipate being the next -- the next move for you? and -- >> is that sufficient, do you think? >> yes, sir. thank you all. i yield back. >> we will ask those to whom

those questions were asked to respond in writing? we would appreciate your quick responses to though questions. gentlelady is recognizing for five minutes, hopefully less. >> there are about 200 locally owned affiliated networks, one in my district, kcra. many of my constituents, it's a highly rated station. many rely on that channel for local news. i want to ensure that kcra is not put to a competitive disadvantage. in your item you talk at a strong set of separation requirements for the subsidies

of comcast. can you elaborate? what will you do to ensure that independently owned event tris not put at a disadvantage? >> thank you. the concern i articulate is that we currently negotiate for renewal of our affiliation agreement. we negotiate with a cable carrier for retransmission. the potential exists to reach a stand still over retransmission consent and have that same company withhold and affiliation renewal from the network. we would hope for a separation between the two. and in familiar, a remedy that that cable carrier could find if we were at stand still in

negotiations. is the network could be brought in around the local affiliates, circumventing the process. >> do you agree, mr. zucker, with the assertion that structural division may be necessary? >> i don't think sit. we have been able to, in the course of these conversations with the affiliates, work this out. there's never been an issue. i don't foresee a need for it. >> not at all? okay, as i mentioned in my statement. there are concerns that the joint venture may cause a domino effect. some feel it will cause competitive pressures. mr. cooper, in your opinion, if

this joint venture goes through, how would the landscape change in the long run? >> the great fear is that you create a merger wave. where all of the other entities look at the advantage that comcast has gained. one expressed by mr. fiorile, saying i need as much of an advantage as i can. the cable operator elsewhere will say, i have to have the same deal. you'll create a situation in which everyone is seeking to gain maximum lempl through that sort of integration. >> i have other questions. i'll beyond a reasonable doubt back my time. >> thank you very much. i would suggest you submit them in writing. miss caster, you have seven minutes or less.

>> under the fcc public interest is it convenient -- does it promote convenience and necessity? what about customers who don't have comcast? for example, and the tampa bay area, the largest in the state of florida, they have the flag ship the nbc affiliate, probably the most successful and highest- rated in the entire area. what does this mean for those customers? comcast cable is a very minor share of the market. burke -- verizon has another share. how does this promote public interest for the customers they're -- there?

and maybe will be able to achieve a larger market share in the future? >> may i take that question? i did believe the station in tampa, an affiliate we're incredibly proud -- proud to be associated with. . . associated with. i think what's terrific about this venture is that comcast is committed to free, over the air television. before this skroint venture was proposed, i was concerned about the future of broadcasting. it's been under duress with the economic woes we have suffered. i think comcast's willing tons commit, to step up and say commit, to step up and say they'll hope to be able to a constructionive role in retrans conversations, all of

those give me hope. i think that's good for the viewers of wfla and your constituents in tampa. >> you heard the answers. what is your reaction to the separation condition? >> i guess i would look for a -- more on the previous question. i would look for a stronger condition and more separation. and some clarity. on nonintegration of both the network affiliation negotiations and retransmission consent. the capacity for comcast to bring benefits to the over-the-air nbc family, i think that's a possibility. >> if point of fact, comcast will be in a stronger position to demand bigger bundles at higher prices from your local cable operator, who is not

comcast. that will have a negative effect on consumers because they have stronger bargaining position as a larger integrated entity. >> the program access rules we've been talking about have not applied to nbcu. they will apply going forward. we'll now be subject to those rules. i think there is a greater benefit as a result of that. and less protection for us. >> and why the rules need to be reviewed? >> thank you very much. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you. i do normally -- i realize we're operating on time restraints. mr. robertson, and mr. zucker, have your companies done all

that they reasonably can to fost foster minority ownership? and recruiting and retention of minority employees? to the ex-tent that you can, will you divulge to us what was the last large transaction that you, personally, or your executive team struck with a my authority term. what was the dollars and duration? >> i think it's -- one of my goals personally is to see our company to continue the improve if diversity, how we purchase, how our employees are made up and reflect the customers we serve. i would never give us a perfect score card. we're constantly trying to improve on it.

it's a major priority for the company. in terms of media-owned assets. the last deal i can think of was the new york times company a decade ago, sold their cable systems, maybe a little long e than that to a minority owned group that we participated in called garden state cable. and eventually, mr. lewellyn and his group sold shares after more than half a decade. we built the cable system in philadelphia. we wanted to have local ownership by minority and women businesses and so we had a separate public company that our comcast philadelphia was owned with and shares were more available to philadelphia residents who were women and minorities. eventually, that got bought up.

everyone made a lot of money, ten times their money or more. so as we have, from time to time, had to dispose of certain assets, we have looked for ways to find creative opportunities with minority entrepreneurs. we do the same for purchasing of vehicles and other hard goods. there's a great opportunity to support businesses with smaller ownership than just the large owners. >> mr. rush can we move on? thank you very much. the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch is recognized for hopefully one or two questions. >> thank you very much. my understanding is you want to be treated the same on net neutrality. if there were conditions

imposed, you would want them imposed on everyone else. is that more or less right? >> i'm not sure there should be. there's proof that the internet is not growing fast enough. if there are new rules to be put forth, they should apply for all. >> if in the course of this, would go you be supportive of net neutrality? >> i think it depends on the rule. we're participating with the fcc. >> i want to ask you about the availability offen in affiliated content. on tv everywhere. are you going to be asking, you, comcast, going to be asked independent programmers to sign exclusivity deals? >> not absolutely not. >> you won't?

that's good. i go back to the concern about the bundling of services and whether there are mechanisms to work out payment disputes. i realize arbitration is available for a smaller program, like the wow network had a dispute about pay. is that right? >> there's a dispute resolution mechanism with the fcc. >> does that work as a practical matter? what is involved in you have a dispute with a larger distributor. we don't have to single out comcast. how does arbitration work? >> you would file a complaint and then there's the depositions and all the data gathering and you asked if it -- is it effective? no. it is a long process. the worst part about sit two things. you do not get guaranteed that

the programmer will keep that service on while you're in dispute. that's huge. because customers lose the signal. then it's a problem for the paying consumers. that's a big issue. secondarily, i would have to be the one that would prove that the pricing's not right. i don't have exposure to market pricing or data. >> is there a suction you would have to provide fairness? in this case, to comcast and wow that they would resolve the dispute in a reasonable way? >> if you listen to the lists of promises that people have tried to extract, conditions, there's 15 or 16. they can't be enforced effectively to preserve competition in the marketplace. the last decade has proven that the fcc is incapable of enforcing the conditions.

on this merger, the answer is, it should not go forward and congress needs to revisit all of these other problems as a general proposition. >> how about? >> if it's okay with you, so other members can ask one question? >> yes, yield back. >> from the virgin islands, miss christiansen. >> thank you. some of my questions have been partially addressed. the unions, especially the cwa has concerned based on what they say have been a difficult history. this is to mr. roberts particularly, but mr. zucker might answer as well. but on the possibility of what might happen to jobs at a time when this country is focused on

explanneding job. what do you plan or foresee the impact of this merger being on jobs? >> thank you for that question, because it's something i'm very proud of. comcast today has over 100,000 employees. when we started the company, it was 12 in tupelo in 1963. we have a one-way track record of creating jobs in this country. now, with nbc universal having another 33,000 employees, i'm most excited about this deal, the hardest things to convince investors, there's not going to be massive job cuts. we don't known a news channel, a movie studio. a broadcast network. there's not the overlap you typically see. where the first benefit is first firing people. the great ideas of this country,

google, what apple's doing, are adding, not by subtracting. this deal is a risk. we've been talking about the uncertainty of the future. it's not clear. that it's a sure thing. what's happening to broadcast, in the internet. there's an investment and passion that has to come. i think it starts with having a great relationship with your employees. if they're in a union, respecting that. if heir not, it's their right to choose one. hopefully, either way we create a fabulous work environment and great products that consumers will want. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle? >> even though comcast is from that other city in pennsylvania, they have been solid citizens in pittsburgh since their entry into the market in 200the. i would like to enter into the

record a letter from our may your and a counscilman in suppot of the merger. in pittsburgh, we're unionized. comcast has worked with the unions in pittsburgh. i want to say that for the record. mr. roberts, there's been many news articles about how some in the copyright businesses have been pressuring isps to disconnect their users if they have alleged illegally downloaded material. i checked with your staff and i'm told that comcast does not currently disconnect users. i appreciate that policy. there's though avenues for the use toers have a due process. we've seen instants where people have been accused of doing something illegal and they hadn't. i want to make sure that

congress will not be passing an explicit man date for three strikes. will comcast continue to commit not the cut off customers without due process? >> well, first of all, thank you for the introduction. what i said earlier, and if i might and we maybe can submit comments as the chairman has allowed for specifically that rule and that test. we think that by having made a multibillions of dollars of investment here in content, and still being 80% a distributor. we can play a constructive role in figuring out what is the right technological answer that protects the consumer and the copyright. so that what is going over is legal, protect