here. the fact of we have not been here for so long was an opportunity. we have a lot of big content players here. we want to show them all the terrific things that are happening in the business. >> let's be specific. what does that convergence mean for showtime? >> we love the changes in technology. if you cannot stop them, you better love them. we have a model that people kind of pooh-poohed a few years back. everybody talked about the premium services and single note-revenue streams. when advertising market suffered -- they're coming back strongly now -- that was not an issue for us. the subscription model continues to work extremely well for us. we also think that, as you look at other screens, the subscription model travels very well. you suddenly hear other entities

talking about subscription models. we have been in the business for a long time. all of a sudden, syndication has become a buzzword. cable companies are going to authenticate the fact that you are a subscriber, which allows you to watch the content to get to that cable system on your ipod or your laptop or whatever device. we kind of giggle at that. previously, we have been syndicated. if you ordered showtime back in 1978, there was a filter remove from the cable drop which would allow the showtime to pass through the ocax -- coax into your home. we think our judgment of what is happening is far easier than it would be for others.

>> what is your model? >> you may pay your cable operator and get your credit everywhere. as all of the technologies come along, what is our rate structure, what are we going to do with all of this program and we have acquired in addition to what we produce. as a new distributor, what is your ability to see our product and protected from that? what is the business model? obviously, it is most important. we do not want our programming going places that we cannot benefit from in terms of the money we invest, particularly in the original programming. >> with all of the fragmentation of is going on for the individual consumer of content, what is your connection with that person? is it the showtime brand or is

of the individual properties? >> i think it is both. the brand is important. people may watch "csi," "ncis," "60 minutes," the nfl. you're not as a surly watching the brand of cbs. for showtime, you have to purchase it every month. "o watch "dexter, "californication." redoubt in watching showtime, it seems as though you have made a conscious -- >> in watching showtime, it seems as though you have made a conscious decision to increase the original content and cut back on movies. can you talk about that strategy? >> we have not made a decision

to cut back on movies. we have as many as we used to. we kind of made the decision that the prices we were paying for movies were too high relative to how they were being consumed today. there was a time in the business where premium tv -- showtime and hbo -- was really the only time you saw an unedited, uncut movie after it was in the theater. today, we have so many different things going on in terms of movies, whether it is video on demand, home video. somebody -- the sony will say, we're going to distribute this movie in the home video window right to the back of your big- screen. our approach was that these theatrical movies were not doing the job they used to do in terms of viewership and in terms of branding the network. it was critical to have things that we owned and that people

identify with showtime. we worry when somebody sees a movie -- they do not know where they have seen it. there is no reason to expect them to know that. they have been many places. we do expect them to know where "dexter" or "weeds" or "the tudors" or "nurse jackie" -- we do expect them to know where they saw those. we have our own niche and it seems to be working for us. people know that these are showtime shows -- distinctively showtime shows. >> we came from the opening panel session. there were a couple of key points. a comment was made that the industry is getting more successful. there is -- for content in every media platform. -- long-form content in every media platform. what is your experience?

>> we're still early in that game. we will see. you get an hd television and you can watch anything for the first month or so. after that, you're not going to watch a show that you do not want to watch just because it is in hd. that same effect takes place as we move through the different distribution cycles with devices. right now, we have sold 1 million -- they have sold 1 million ipads in the last month. i think anybody who has one is watching anything they can on it because it is new. three months from now, those people will only be watching the shows that they want to watch on the ipad. we take it cautiously. we have learned a lot. we're actually backward- innovating for the first time. we bought a show called "web therapy" from lisa kudrow who

has been doing these three to five-minute thenvignettes. we have bought them to see if we can make a half hour. she's hysterical and brilliant. if it works, we will probably ask her to do this as a half- hour. that would be interesting. this is not somebody taking a half-hour show from showtime and same house is going to work on a mobile device or ipad or laptop. this is a saying this is content that we happen to have seen in a different technological environment -- a different user environment -- and we think it is good enough that it could be linear programming on showtime. there'll be a convergence of these things. my kids are 25 and 22. they do not know the difference

between a broadcast network and a cable network. they know content pyridine know what they like to watch on fox or cbs or abc -- in the content. they know what they like to watch on fox or cbs or abc. did not say that is a broadcast network and this is a cable network -- they do not say that this is a broadcast network and this is a cable network. it really depends on the how. how did the content make its way from the producer to the mobile device? in reality, it is easy to get on the mobile device, why should you care? it is what access to the content in an economically- viable fashion. it should be accessible. things are moving very quickly. who knows how fast you will see us out on of these devices? >> it sounds like content is still king.

i have always thought so. i have shows that i love to see. i want subscribers to have the simplest access possible. we saw that explosively when we introduced showtime on demand. we were one of the first ones out there with them on demand service a decade or so back. within no time, we saw huge numbers of those who had access who were using it. they watched more of our original programming. their average length of tuen-o -- tune-in was longer. lo and behold, it did not take them long to say that was how they wanted to watch the programming. when we give them that option, they knew everything that they were watching was on showtime. why? we put in their hands the opportunity to menu and choose to watch the program at a

specific time. if they want to watch "weeds," they scroll down and pick that episode and watch it. there is much less disaster region -- miss attribution -- misattribution. >> are you concerned about anything going on in washington right now? >> we're always concerned about something. you cannot pick and choose the things you would like to happen in a regulatory world, as you know. our approach is always to be the most telling product out there, so that what ever happens -- whatever happens in the regulatory environment, people will find a way to access us and it will speak up about how they want to see it. hopefully they will be heard. >> i have a question about

american competitiveness. we have a president who keeps speaking about people needing to have jobs in the new digital marketplace. are american university's graduate in the kinds of employees that you need to grow your business -- universities graduating the kinds of employees that you need to grow your business? >> there is not -- there is a tremendous number of people getting involved in the internet and entrepreneurially creating interesting services. i am a moderate a panel on thursday with one of the founders of twitter. these things are happening. i think they will continue to happen. we have an economic system that provides consumers, capital, technology, and it is a great idea. it is much more competitive around the world.

it will always be fairly competitive. >> thank you for being on "the communicators." >> thank you. nice to see you. >> chris cookson, president of sony picture technologies and chief officer of their 3d technology center. 3d is the big buzz right now. where is this going? >> hopefully it is going to a place where people enjoy a lot of 3d material. one thing that we talk about a lot is the way we get up in the morning every day and see the world. most of us do that in 3d. it is an augmentation or extra tool of storytelling. it is interesting to see how filmmakers and other creators use it to enhance the stories they build. people will get more into the stories when they have just -- the change to -- chance to see

it. >> is it moving toward ubiquity? >> there are things you can think of today that you would like to see in 3d. those are the things that will first come to the screen. i think basketball, football, things like that. there are movies that have been done in 3d, so they readily translate. it is a different way in telling stories with 3d. it is a storytelling tool. we will find a lot of things we may not have thought of as being ready for 3d, and a lot of them will be quite interesting in the 3d. it is an venture -- and adventure. >> how much of but problem are the glasses -- of a problem are the glasses you are required to see it? >> when i do not wear my glasses, i do not say 3d.

-- see 3d. it is a hard question to figure. we're all interested in a day when it might not be necessary, but as they evolve, it is a minor impediments. most people get used to quickly. >> for the non-technology person like myself, 3d was around when i was a kid. we are talking about this again. why did the development not take off earlier? >> there were a lot of things that were impediments in those early times. in 1953, there were a number of movies made in 3d. the projection systems to get them to the screen were kind of too much. you had to have two project is moving in sync or you had to have the red-blue glasses, which

nobody ever liked. it became more trouble than it was worth. 3d was more a reaction to television eroding theater. they have gone to other things. they were able to do that with less complexity. the thing that enables it now is the electronic projection system. they're absolutely stable. the things that interfered so much in the past have gone away. now they are putting it to use and it works. >> being a layperson and looking at the stage and development, it is sort of acicular -- cyclical challenge. you do not have the distribution mechanism that the theaters -- mechanism, the theater's able to show this. >> what you're seeing is -- tsony made an announcement that,

in partnership with the discovery channel and imax, we are putting on a channel to bring 3d material to the s creen. espn is doing a large number of events in sports in 3d. i think people will find that compelling. if you have the chance to see three beginning -- 3d gaming, you realize there is a whole different dimension. on games when you are doing driving and those sorts of things, people's scores go through the roof because they can get into the game more and see the depth, making better decisions. >> then the demand will drive -- >> there will be the early adopters who will be anxious to try these names, but a lot of people will see these things and

see that it is a good experience and want it again. there will be able to justify in their minds that they have personal content, games, sports, movies -- maybe it is worthwhile. >> what about sport production? you are an award winning sports producer. how do you see the additional applications in sports production? >> in sports, one key thing we have been learning is that you tell a story differently in 3-d than 2d. the double coverage is centered on long lenses and high up, but that does not work in 3d. you want to be closer to the action and more involved. the way we got from an angle to angola -- cut from ankle to changes the way we

tell the story and show the relationships. the camera does not cut as much. you follow it more because you can see so much more in one shot that you do not need three shots to tell you the same information. people are anxious to learn how to do this. in basketball, if you have seen any of the 3d basketball, watching regular 2d basketball is like being in the bleachers or the skybox. but 3d basketball is like being jack nicholson at a lakers game with everything right in front of you. >> people are buying a hd television sets and we are already moving on to the next generation. what about consumer investment in technology at home? also, been wet -- began with --

bandwidth. >> the first thing about the tv sets that to 3d is that they are versions of the high-end sets that we have. if you look at the markets that run -- sets that run, they have been adapted to give you left and right eye. it is not a huge technological change. people have more than one tv set. you might migrate what was your best that you're better next year -- your best set last year to your bedroom next year. >> the bandwidth? >> one of the issues for cable is that there is a trend for

investment and infrastructure. one thing that will allow all the 3d is transmitting a picture through the existing infrastructure in a way that does not require immediate change. the bandwidth requirement of 3d will be the same at the beginning. it will be another channel. eventually, i think you will see a migration to the technology where the 3d and 2d are packaged together, much like blu-ray disks will be when they come to the market. will people find it worthwhile? >> let me ask you about the blu- ray technology. what about the competition between formats there? >> it is always better if you

can just try to make a one to makend not h -- make one thing work and not hash out which is best. at the end, the things that went on within the competition, it makes the stronger format and makes it better for consumers. it is a mixed blessing. you got to a better place, but it took to longer than you wished. >> it is interesting to read about the structure of sony united where the division's pledged to work together -- divisions pledge to work together. is this something that needs to be said? people should not be working against one another. >> you go to human nature.

somebody is responsible for something. they wanted to come out the way they think it should come out. the spirit of teamwork is something people have to dedicate themselves to. it does not necessarily come naturally to all people or all organizations. i was asked to be the bridge between entertainment and technology companies to make sure both sides connected what they had to bring to the table. i think it has been a great experience. there has been a lot of cooperation. >> if you look at the next couple of years, what are you most excited about? >> i would like to get 3d launched. the things we are talking about here, the real advent of real broadband in the u.s. we're behind much of the world in the way of what we have in high-speed data networks.

when you go to korea or japan, they have much greater data and wbandwidth. we do not realize the possibilities yet. it will be interesting when we get to 3.0 to see the new opportunities that come to market. we just want to make sure the movie or tv show is available. sooner or later, you have to break down and watch. >> why are we behind when we have so much capital in this country? >> it is kind of like what the u.s. used to be. at&t is a regulated anomaly. they get to spend as much money as they want. there is different motivation within the current structure.

you need to justify every expenditure. we're fragmented in the u.s. we get to the same place ultimately, but it is different priorities in the market in the u.s. than in other places where it was seen as a national imperative. >> it is an interesting era to watch these different directions people are going as we are on the press the best of these big changes. thank you for your time. >> if you are interested in viewing these or other interviews from the cable show, go to our website at c-span.org. >> sunday on "newsmakers," the commandant of the coast guard admiral robert papp talks about the budget of the coast guard. that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern and

10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> former pennsylvania senator rick santorum spoke at a fund- raising breakfast for the candidate for state treasurer. he answered questions from the audience. this is about 40 minutes. >> our next speaker gave a very compelling message and brought thousands to their feet. when i was asked to provide introductions, i did what anyone would do and i googled our special guest. i do know what is true on the internet. here is what we should know about our special guest. he is the chairman of america's foundation, a political action committee that is dedicated to helping candidates who share his conservative principles. he served in the united states government since 1990, first as a state representative, then as a center of the great state of pennsylvania doss senator of the great state of pennsylvania.

it is crystal clear that this man has been fighting for individual freedoms and fiscal sanity. he has battled against government entitlement and worked to reform our social security administration. i wish she had been more successful. that being said, it is clear that you are continuing to help candidates who share your principles. he is first and foremost a family man. he put family first. he and his wife have seven children. he is the author of a best- selling book titled "it takes the family." family is one of the reasons that he is one of our great leaders. friends, help me welcome, senator rick santorum. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. i am glad the ignored a lot of that stuff in your search. it is great to be here this morning. in the last three days -- every day i have done any event in

iowa since monday morning. i have done any event for one of the -- and even for one of the challengers. the first one -- this is the one for iowa -- for david jamison. these are folks who are running for office that most people do not know much about what they do or who they are. they are seen as the functionaries of government. these candidates are bright, dynamic, energetic, and have great messages. i have seen those candidates' campaign many times. i have never seen candidates who have such a laser-beam focus. listening to dave this morning

encourages me so much. you've of candidates who are on a mission and what to do this job. it is not just running for this so they can run for something else. you know that happens a lot. these folks want to do the job. he has a very clear agenda as to what he would do differently and why he is the better candidate to do this job at this very critical time in our history. the same could be said for matt schulz. secretary of state deals with elections. is clear message is you need an id to go on an airplane, to do everything you want to do. but you do not need one to vote? we care about the integrity of our system. brenna is out there talking about we have an attorney general who, when a law of the state -- "controversial one" --

the lawyer for you decided he did not want to defend the case which has to do with your constitutional rights. there want to force you as a -- they are going to force you, as a private citizen, to buy a certain insurance product. the obama-health care bill says that. your attorney general says they will not protect your rights or the right of the state. now you hear david talking about that irresponsibility of someone who did not do his basic job -- a fiduciary responsibility to the people of iowa. it is $800 million -- with interest $1.2 million. robbing peter to pay