television, they are talking about women's rights. they do not believe in god. the liberals have been there for 150 years. whatever we see civilization, the modernization of the world, egypt is the outcome of those people. it is not like somebody came out, came back from golf with some money and said, those people are the ones who are ruining egypt. it is not the case. that both of them reject most of the revolutionaries are saying we are looking for what is left worse than the other.

>> one last question. >> for many reasons, number one is that 54% of the egyptian borders stay away. -- egyptian voter stay away. if you look at the distribution, aside from the top three, that have lost. if they continue to stay home and not to go and vote in the runoff election, it is going to be a disaster, because as you said, it is deeper than that. you are promoting shafiq for whatever reason, you forgot one thing.

the muslim brotherhood did not manage to deliver in the voters. they could influence the final outcome. i am egyptian originally. the two major read -- major issues that people talk about in egypt are security and economics. if you threaten security, it is going to be a reminder of the history of mubarak. it is hard to tell at this time who is going to be winning and who is going to be losing. but i'd believe it will not be decided until everyone knows and votes. >> unfortunately, we have to wrap up now because we are out of time.

if you want to respond -- >> is just a very quick response. i understand it is not an easy job. able to work in think tanks are academia or whatever, we try to project. i agree that things can backfire. i agree that loss of forces work with shafiq. the ideological voting in the first round, in the second round can be a problem. i think the coalition is strong enough, but higgins focus more

easily than mursi. >> they give very much. have run out of time. -- thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up, the head of disney

abc television talks about how internet video content is competing with broadcast cable networks. over the satellite companies the we are, which allows viewers to skip over commercials. we will hear from the dish network founder in about an hour. >> i believe in every book are right, go there. that is the first law i have. find out what it is like to work there when vince lombardi is coaching there. go live in little rock arkansas. i have never been to vietnam before. how can i write about it as if i am going to the battlefield? >> he wrote about two major turning points in the vietnam war. one in vietnam, the other here in the u.s.. watch his 2003 interview on line

at the c-span video library. of the past four years he has been traveling in researching his newest book. he will recount his latest world journey and take your phone calls, sunday june 17, live on book tv. >> the head of disney abc television talks about the future of television and mobile technology. earlier this month, she sat down with alan murray of the wall street journal to discuss the implications of streaming video content of the internet. this one hour event is hosted by the wall street journal. >> thank you. advanced digital strategy cells like something we all need. thanks for coming, especially right on the heels of your -- how did it go? >> first of all, good morning, america.

i am sorry we are missing the second hour because we are here. it went very well. we are looking at a strong marketplace. we are coming out of a strong quarter. a lot of new product launches are coming in the next year. and the abc front, i am very proud and very encouraged across the board. primetime news. >> you had a good line. >> jimmy kimmel had a line that got him in trouble. he said that cbs is big with the 18-49 trips to the bathroom demographic. >> that is not true. >> the numbers i look at says that cbs is actually doing pretty well with the younger demographic these days. i give him great credit for a lot of the shows that they put

on. the abc strategy is very different. the audience is very different. if you look at what we did last year in prime-time, we have the number one drama. we have the no. 1 new drama. we have the number one strip did and number one comedy on the beat with ago modern family." that is a strong base to build with. >> any news shows you are particularly excited about? >> all of them. we are at that wonderful moment or everything is possible and everything looks great. i want to stay there for a couple more minutes. not only the new shows, that some of the scheduling was very smart. revenge was the most buzz about drama of the year produced by abc stereos. it is a very smart move.

>> viewerships for prime time is going down. we saw it drop in the past year. >> no. looks at how you define broadcast your ship. we look at a very broadly. one thing she talked about was looking at it across all screens. we have been working with nielsen to make sure we have truly accurate measurements. we have moved from one way of measuring television. we have some advertisers who are working in c7. we have to add abc.com numbers to that in our mobile apps. >> you are not concerned about the fact that traditional broadcast your ship is down? >> no, we see television

holistic lead. we have a number of contents engines just in our division alone. we also have espn. lee had the movie studio. if you look at the disney channel portfolio and abc and the great work of abc, we are producing a tremendous amount of unscripted material that is seen on a variety of screens. i see a very bright future. >> one of the reasons why i was eager to be you here, you have been aggressive on pushing to other screens and other platforms on to digital. it is a bit of a jump into the dark. you are not making a lot of money on its. you are not making a lot of

money. >> you have to remember in the early days of any technology, do you remember when television came out? everyone said, of who will want it that everyone loved their radios -- who will want it? everyone loved their radios. then television happened. it did not kill radio or movies. everyone figured out who they were. changes always been part of our industry. it is moving to color tv, hd, plasma. look at all the ways we're looking on the set at home. and it is a ball or die. what digital gave us -- evolve o whatr digital gave us de. -- and it is evolve or die. what digital gave us was the video ipod. i remember that i am so addicted to buy iphone that it seems a natural progression.

>> is that a good business? >> yes. it connects us to our viewers. >> you do not make the kind of profits? >> they're very different business models. one is 30 years old and one is a few years old. they are apples and oranges. >> once people start consuming video that they're pulling down over digitally, you go from a limited group of competitors to an unlimited group. you have the jay-z channel, the wall street journal channel. there is infinite competition. doesn't that affect the value? >> no.

ofve always had a lot competition. we have always competed with leisure time activities and video games. we have competed with not just other television shows and channels. i love competition. it is the healthiest thing for our industry. what you really have to pay attention to and what will set us apart are the brands that we have at the walt disney company. it is disney. it is abc. it is a marvel. we have a tremendous amount of strength. those brands are meaningful. they can withstand, as long as we keep irrelevant. my very simple definition of a brand is a relationship you have with your consumer.

it has to be as important and as current as their relationship you have with your family and your friends. >> another piece of this cut in the notion of a channel is very likely to change. that is ok? >> it has already changed. we do a tremendous amount of research in the company. the research is not do you like this show are that show. to the research is more along the lines of what is going on in your life? what kind of entertainment are you experiencing? how? we have learned that we know disney is a brand. we understand that. a couple of years ago we 3 abc in the mix. we discovered there were two television brands that popped

for people, abc shows were higher. people knew what an abc show was. paul started to touch on that. he started to speak to the abc brand. >> how much is disney? >> it is interesting. disney and abc share a true quality. they are defined by quality. they are defined by the stories that they tell. they tell extremely good stories. highly developed characters. when you look at abc news, i

see many of the same similarities. i see great journalists. i see tremendous anchors who deliver this information in a way that is relevant and important to the american people. i think that is the distinguishing characteristic. that is what will continue to set us apart. >> we talked about declining broadcast your ship. -- viewership. people a spinney an average of five hours a day watching video. -- people are spending an average of five hours a day watch a video. is that a good thing? >> it is if they are watching our videos. >> there's nothing they do as much as that then sleep. >> the most tweeted thing last year was television, more than any other subject. it is not completely passive

appeared that is something to think about. that is what the new technology gives us. what ever you are doing, you are interacting with your community about our television content. i think that is something we were missing when we were just a flat screen at home. >> much more interactive. can you give us some examples of interactivity that you are working in to your television? >> one thing we have been doing with "dancing with the stars" is voting. it seems like a simple idea. you can text or vote at abc.com. communities of people, there are these very simple first steps that were relatively easy to take have actually spurred a

larger community involvement in our shows. >> but there also disagreeing with the judges. >> they are. going you tell us who's to win? >> no. i wish i knew. >> talk about the comcast deal. that was an extraordinary agreement. tell us why you did that. >> i believe the comcast deal expanded the scope of our industry. it expanded our opportunities. did the most important piece of it was that both comcast and the what disney company -- walt disney company realize how fast we needed to be to our viewers. that was into the comcast deal in many different ways.

espn had gone first with time warner with "watch espn." >> as long as to authenticate the you are a subscriber. >> that is something they did with comcast as well. it was the first time that abc/disney did that. we will be launching our disney channel as "disney watch" next month. it is very exciting. it created such excitement inside of disney. we traded a beta -- created a beta. you will see a light streaming disney channel. you will have on demand content. i have a bill baker to signing that contract.

when you signed that contract, i realize the great stuff we were doing with the great brands of disney channel. it was really bringing it that much closer. we did research. we videotaped the the research so we would have a chance to see the way kids and parents were talking about it. we have a moment where a mom was sitting next to her daughter and the researchers said "tell me about what you are doing." she said "i am watching my show and i can see myself curled up on the couch with my ipad." when would you hear the would curl up on the couch with your

ipad? people need to be able to take us with them. >> you are indifferent to what screen they what you are and that's what i am. our audience is going to watch -- watch you on? >> i am. our guardians is going to watch us. it is going to be one of the big screen experiences. i believe that no one will want to miss it. you will be able to see it on your ipad or phone. >> a lot of that is on demand. but you have statistics on how much of your viewing is on demand versus live? >> low double digits on demand. it is continuing to grow. it'll be interesting to look at

the difference between kids using on demand and adults using on demand. >> kids seem to be using it more. >> are remember doing focus groups a couple of years ago and watching the moderator as the kids' questions about what they were doing is asking the kids questions about what they were doing. the kids are doing a lot of movement with their hands. we realized what does this mean? when i am a carpel, my mom cancer iphone back to me. -- carpool, my mom hands her iphone back to me. we're living in a world of kids that is very different when i started at disney channel. we're living in a world of touch screen.

>> there is a video of a one- year-old baby playing with a magazine and going like this. the captain says "this magazine doesn't work." [applause] nickelodeon said the kids' interest in video on demand was actually hurting them. they are seeing people migrate to netflix. are you seeing that at all? are the disney channel's prepared for a big move to video-on-demand? >> we have seen our ratings go up. nickelodeon -- the disney channel beatnik bolivian with a 6-14 year olds -- beat nickelodeon with 6-14 year olds. netflix is a great opportunity

for us. with their abc series, they do go on at the end of the season. we do have a couple of exceptions. we have to that start 15 days after they have gone on our cable channel. >> what scares you? what causes you to say we better be prepared? >> it is what we do not know yet. one of the things that i preach constantly at work and debt, is paying attention to what is going on. -- and home, is paying attention to what is going on. we create what happens next. it is being ahead of the audience.

when the ipad come out, we went to the presentation. we saw it. in our staff meeting, we asked the question, if you could do anything with that device, what would you do? everyone thought about it and came back. the first thing that came up -- we would do an app for abc news and we would do abc.com. we would create that app. the goal was to be ready for launch today. we were ready. he never really know how many bugs you have until you are out there. our digital team decided to monitor people testing out our app on twitter. we established our first customer service departments. as people were racing to the

apple store and buying the ipad and seeing what was available, abc.com came up only started to monitor the twitter feeds and the bugs. i just heard from abc. they heard that i had a problem and they're going to fix it. at 4:00 they will release a new version. it was an interesting process for us. it is also important to note that the abc.com app is the sixth most downloaded ipad free app of all time. >> we went through a sort of the same experience. we had an app at the launch. it was adopted and popular.

the relationship with apple is far from perfect. >> really? >> yes. but i do not want to turn this interview around. we would get to that later. how do you figure relationship has been? >> i think it is strong in productive. we're providing important products. the beginning of that was supplying our shows to itunes and taking that great leap into the unknown. we did not know that it would work. we had a very strong feeling that it was a good thing to do. we believe in this device. we saw how they were going to manage the i tunes stores. we had a criteria developed of the type of people we would want to work with. who companies had to be. they had to have integrity. they had to be high quality and connected to their consumers. apple did all of that.

>> where does this kodak how much viewership will be on -- go? how much of your ship will be on apple devices? >> when it is being driven by the mill in yale's, i believe if you need to know something you should ask a nine year old. they are proficient. when they hit that stage of their lives, when they're in the 18-24 range, i think a lot of video viewing will be on digital devices. i do not think all of it will be television. television has become so much better and so much bigger. it is really a movie experience and a lot of homes. i do believe they will play a role. i think what will become

critically important for us is that we have absolutely the best measurement of all of these devices. we can monetize our content. >> let's talk about your global business, particularly disney. disney has become a global brand. >> we have 103 disney channels and 167 countries. >> can you name them all? >> i can. that have been in a short space of time. it seeks to the power of the brand. i was in russia in march. we launched a disney channel there in january. it is free to air. it is a model that we do use for disney channel in russia, turkey, and spain. it is different from the cable business in the u.s.. >> the advertising market support that? >> and they do. i asked our country manager if she would take me into a classroom. i wanted to meet our new disney

channel viewers. we had only been on the air for less than 90 days. i started out, i was curious about who they were and what stories were important to them. i want to know what their favor lullaby was. we got a round two stories on television. 25% of the kid's name one of ours as their favorite television show. i thought less than 90 days in the marketplace in bay where resonating. it is a very important fact for us. there is a lot of local production. it depends on when the disney channel launched. we do have a lot of original production.

it makes you feel that this is your disney channel. it is not an export. >> how much of your revenues come from outside the united states? >> we do not split it up. it is really healthy. >> univision is attracting domestic hispanic audiences with english language content. >> exactly. >> can you give us more textured? you have a lot of reinforcements. >> said this is a very exciting and venture. -- this is a really exciting venture. this is a service that is built for the fastest growing in yen is democratic in the united states. we are building its with

univision. it is an absolutely amazing media partner. we will go mobile with the election. you will see the launch next year. >> what does univision bring? >> they bring a deep and embedded knowledge of the audience. they bring tremendous information to our company and to the news division. i believe they will be great partners in the creation of relevant importance. >> you started this by mentioning the morning america. the today show has dominated that top place for a long time. how important is that to your business? >> it is really important.

this is bigger than eight labor of love. it is a terrific show. it belongs in the number one spot. i've long believed that good morning america and opens the day for the television network. i think they have earned that spot. >> can you talk a little bit about the economics of the show? it is important symbolically and economically. >> it is. there are very help the budget for morning television. we certainly have enjoyed the

beneficiaries of the budget. there is money to be made in the morning. >> are your demographics in the morning different than "the today show?" >> our network overall is probably more female than nbc. i would say the demographics are probably comparable in the morning. >> news. you mentioned the importance of news. abc does not have a table news channel like cnn. does it matter that can you really have a strong presence in it news without real time? >> you can. the suspense out for a couple of years. as i watched our digital world

involved in people turned to their ipads and iphones, i believe it was a step that we missed. we did not miss a step. meaning that because of the devices that we now have access to, because of the construct, i look at what we have some of our partnership with yahoo! it tremendous growth. i feel that we are very well positions without having a 24/our network. >> no. need to go back? >> no. i am very happy about our future. >> jerry baker mentioned you as

one of 10 women likely to become ceo at disney or someplace else. is that -- i should also point out that you're the first person was been on this stage in a business position u.s. of been a ceo. we're delighted to have you. is that something you want? where do you see your career going? >> i never aspired to a title ever. i have really charted in my career based on what i was curious about it. i started at nickelodeon because i was curious about the idea that you could have 24/hours of kids' programming. what would that mean? i went to fox to launch fx because i never launched a cable network from scratch without an infrastructure.

i went to disney because you are insanely curious about how they do it. i thought there must be a book somewhere. someone will tell you how they do it. this is how they build those parks. i had a great curiosity about the what is the company. that is what guided me. that will guide by next step. -- my next step. i look at what we have done over the last 16 years that i have them with the company. in the past five years especially have just been the most exciting in the most appealing years of my career. >> parts of the reason we did that story, if you look at the ranks of fortune 500 ceos right now there are 18 that are women. it is an amazingly small number.

as somebody who has fought your way up the ranks, why do you think that is? >> i do not know. i do think there should be more women. i know many talented women in our industry. we can point to so many women that we know who have achieved great things. >> have you felt it has been more difficult for use as a 1 index >> i think the mice -- as a woman? >> i think myself as a person. i believe that i am judged every single day on what i bring to the table. i'm just amazed successes. i'm just on my failures. i can judge how i grow this division. i do not think about it along gender lines. it is about performance.

there are lots of women in delivering great performances. >> this is always a very yeasty audience. did you have lots of questions. -- they will have lots of questions. >> you have talked about the transition that is happening digitally. can you talk about how the measurement is keeping up? we're going to see a little tiny company price with a bigger market cap. it is all about people looking at things like things. children live on these devices. is the traditional way in which your audience is measured keeping up to allow you to sell under advertising? >> you make a great point. i think measurement is the key to a healthy future.

we are working very closely with nielsen in have been working with them on a number of projects to make sure that we capture not only the eyeballs and knowing how many viewers, but who they are and do it in a way that respects privacy. it is key. they are working on it. >> part of it is knowing where the eyeballs are. can you command the same kind of advertising dollars? >> i do believe if you can say to an appetizer this is who i have come i am delivering -- to an advertiser comments this is

to i am delivering comment these consumers that you want for this brand launch comedy will get them. -- delivering these consumers that you want for this brand launch, and you will get them. i'm anxious to have our technologists get in there and see what it actually means. >> question right here. other questions? right here. >> if you consider the fact that the duress or using these new technologies are younger, do you imagine that sometime within the next 10 or 20 years it is

possible that you not ever have to schedule anything in a traditional way and that it will all be on demand? abc will issue a list and instead of having the upfront fee delivering the new schedule, it will be a list of shows and how you can get to them? >> that is an interesting question. it could be 20 years from now. people using these devices are not necessarily younger and younger. i thought that too. when the ipod came out, i said this must be a big 12-80 market for you and he said it was for anyone that likes music.

regardless if you are a kid or a boomer. it is a long way off. as i looked at this and we were formating a presentation, i was thinking about how we were laying it out and what it meant. i realized as i saw it go out on the big screen for the 20th time that what we were telegraphing to people was actually very important. we were telegraphing when we stack america's funniest home videos and the we go in to "once upon a time" we're sending the messages about how the battle of the shows are. it tells you who the audience is. we're also telegraphing that this is abc. you have expectations about abc. i think the network's schedule will remain useful for people. everything that we have is on

demand right now. >> i am sorry. >> it is not a number of devices. >> there's also a social experience. when my kids were in their early teens, i knew the one time of the week that i could get my whole family into one place was during "american idol." i always stress, because i knew they would be there. in some ways, the interactivity may enforce that. they want to talk to their friends what they're watching their shows. how powerful is that kind of social experience? >> it is more powerful now. as people are experiencing television, there was one season of the bachelor that we were addicted to.

>> which one? >> alley. we loved that one. it was so interesting because i would watch the east coast feed at home and she is at college on the east coast. if we were not on the phone, we were texting about it. we know people are tweeting because we see it. we know this conversation is going on which makes that show so much bigger than it was before this technology existed. >> that is interesting. >> over here. >> we are working on it. my question is more about the marketing of the shows.

as all of the technology changes how viewers get to the program, how do you think differently about marketing? can you talk a little bit about that? >> we still start with the essence of the show. we make sure we are all able to identify what the show is about them what its importance is in the schedule. and who is the audience? then we start to plot and plan how we launched. some of it is when we launch. it turns into cutter fest where everyone has the most dramatic and funny show on television. part of it is being strategic about when we launch. then there is also how we launched. is this a show where social media is very important?

we make this determination. then we work through the marketing plan and determine what are the best venues for reaching the intended audience. it is a strategic exercise. no two shows are alike. we have a few new shows on a schedule this fall which is helpful. the year that we launched desperate and lost, it was the fall of 2004. we looked at our budget and said not a lot of money here. we have to be strategic. we pay to three properties to launch. -- picked three properties to launch. >> you painted a picture of an unpredictable environment. how do you manage a business that's how you plan a business

and that environment -- manage a business? have you plan a business in that environment? >> if you go back to the history of walt disney and his work in animation and how important it is to invest in research and development, that is what our development is. the second thing is working with people who are excited about the future as you are and to are as willing to pay attention to the consumer. that is a very critical piece. every time a piece of technology has come out whether it is the iphone or the ipad, i made sure everyone on my team had one as close today one as possible. we bring all of these devices into our staff meetings and talk about what they can do for the what disney company. what can they do for abc news,

abc entertainment, abc family. how is your audience using the index of find out. -- them? find out. these pieces are critical to building a business model and understanding that we are creating in revaluating the business models that we are using. we're not relying on the past. we believe that it will make a successful in the future. we have to stay one step ahead, thinking about how we are measured. thinking about the use the devices and how they are useful to advertisers and what our role will be.

>> i want to ask you a question. my prejudice is that devices and social media are tools for people to interact. they're not concepts. i am a believer that contact is still king. contact has shifted over the last two years between reality shows, scripted shows, it does gone back and forth. where you see the shift happening in the next five years? >> it is a great question. i do not disagree with you. i think social media is a very important tool. on the other side, it is dependent on the mood of the nation. one of the things that paul has spoken about last year and this year is being responsive. during a recession, after a crash, we looked back at the movies that were popular in the 1930's. we looked at the shows that were popular in the 1970's.

that informed the couple of choices for us last year. "revenge" was a very satisfying show for. also "once upon a time" had fantasy with reality and drama in it. paul is launching a drama called "666 park avenue." the building will become one of the characters. >> is there a real 666 park avenue? >> i do not think so. in the new yorker is welcome to correct me. scary things worked very well. >> what better place than new

york? >> there you go. we love new york. >> i want to go back to the questions that alan was asking around competition, a proliferation of entertainment opportunities, and implications. taking it away from disney and abc specifically, there is an alternative to the narrative that said when television came up everyone thought it was the death of everything else. we have seen in the recent years a different dynamic. the record industry has lost most of its economic value. it is moving into newspapers and magazines and starting to move into radio. as you look at slow gdp growth relative to fixed ad budgets, if you leave the walt disney

company a loan for a second and look at the video and television industry, it is hard not to imagine that someone in the value chain loses. there is not an infinite amount of money either on the outsider on the consumer side. cmos are fundamentally shifting their advertising and marketing mix. who loses? >> the people who lose are the people who do not understand their consumers and not paying attention to them, people who do not have a strong brand. if they do have a strong brand, they are not continuing to build it.

i think we have seen throughout the history of business. they had this product. they got stock. >> those are individual companies. there are other elements of that do not generate it. are there pieces of the chain that are structurally at risk the dax as opposed to companies -- at risk as opposed to companies individually? >> none that i can name and when the state television stations. -- i would not say television stations. the tv stations connection with their audience is incredibly deep and very important and plays into the success of the network. seven of these are number one. this speaks volumes to the

effort that is made. i do not have an answer. >> cable is a huge and profitable business. everything best buy sells now is internet enabled. does that come with a delivery pipeline? >> i believe the strong cable brands have always been platform agnostic. i think the brands really will really well with the technologies that are out there. >> other questions? >> how do you see your relationship with me the agencies that i represent a media agency -- agencies? i represent a media agency. how can we work better together?

>> the big idea for us is that we should be together at the forefront of reed inventing advertising. i think we should be thinking in very big and bold and about what advertising will look like 10 years from now. what should look like on a mobile phone? what will it look like on a device that has not been created? we all need to move beyond. we have done great things together. we have done integrations. we have done interested to work. i think there is a whole new chapter to be written. i think it needs to be written together. >> is there a campaign you can point to? >> i started to see some

glimmers of it in the work that we did on the oscars this year. this is working with the motion picture academy and making sure we can get the word out. we started to get a little experimental of how we brought back. this is not a major advertiser. we are having conversation right now with agencies and clients and trying to figure out the way for words. that is different than the way we're doing it right now. >> i am really curious about the univision and 87 collaboration. they have incredible histories. the you think about abc news for traditional news has been more oriented toward domestic issues.

you what univision and it really did make immigration into a big topic. probably a category by itself. when you are thinking about a new service that is targeting english-speaking latinos, what is the news filtered? what will we see differently than what we have seen so far? >> i do not know that i would call it a filter or i would characterize abc news as a domestic organization. i traveled the world with diane sawyer. there's not an important story that we have not discovered but that we have actually physically been there. i think that we bring that great journalism. i think we bring that world and to the univision partnership. your point and immigration is a good one. it speaks to the strength of univision.

univision knows its audience better than anything else. that is why we want to partner with univision. we want to reach this fast growing demographic. we want to reach them with abc news, up with this information and lifestyle programming. that is what we are relying on. that is more of a criteria. it will determine what we both bring to this. >> other questions? way there in the back. >> i wanted to follow up. what do you think the likelihood that they go ahead with its?

what is the industry's response? what do you do? this is an important part of your model. >> i do not know what dishes going to do with it. we have to hear from them. we're sending our technology people out to fully understand what this technology is about. we have read very little. we have seen a lot of reaction. our advertisers are extremely important to us. many networks have spent a lot working with our advertisers, we spent a lot of time talking about our opportunities. i believe it is a tbd. we need to hear more. are they going to charge for its? how is a packaged?

where is a billing tax what is that this is going forward? how does this fit in? >> we can take a couple more questions. >> i am curious about how this lets you live steam broadcast tv. >> i read about that. we do not have any comment on that at the moment. >> have you seen that technology? >> i've only read about it. >> the cable business is very robust.

there are really 50 ones that matter today. the we were all developing our cable networks. how does a company like disney responds? what do they do when they take advantage of the 80 million homes that they have? >> i think it will boil down to how important they are to consumers. do they have must have programming? are people going to go to them five times a day because they

have to see it? it always comes back to quality and relevance. is this something that is really important to your life? i do not think that every channel survives. i think we saw 30 years ago with cable there were so many start- ups. we remember rctv. we remember the merged into lifetime. we remember friendly mean to do start-ups that petered out are for merged into something else. -- or merged into something else. >> right over here. >> i am your basic nightmare in that i refuse to own a television set today. am i clear and understanding that all of your program is moving to online so i can watch it on my computer?

>> we have been online since the fall of 2006. that is when we launched abc.com. we launched a beta with 10 of our advertisers in the spring of 2006 and determine that we were onto something. it looked good. that has continued to evolve. the site has changed a lot of the last six years. now it is offered on mobile phones. it is an app you can download to your ipad as well. >> i am going to give our final word to our sponsors. before i do that, a couple of quick reminders. piquancy video clips on wsj.com -- you get a video clips of this on wsj.com. >> i just wanted to thank anne for joining us today.

alan for running a spectacular dialogue. our co-sponsors for orchestrating this. we will be here in a few weeks with another great discussion and we will be ending this year with les moonves. we will play the appropriate clips from this. [laughter] thank you all for coming. thank you for participating. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow, ashton carter will talk about pentagon budget

priorities and the possible effect of automatic budget cuts in january. they agreed to this as part of clashes debt ceiling agreement. it is 10:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span. later, a discussion on the 2008 financial crisis. we will hear about this. live coverage from the cato institute. >> the founder and chairman of the dish network dish network says it will build a network to compete with verizon and at&t. he talked about the future of broadband at the university of colorado law school in boulder in april. this is just over an hour. >> i will distort by introducing charlie ergen. [applause] -- i will just start by introducing charlie ergen.

reportedly your dad took you outside on an autumn day to see sputnik in the sky. talk about growing up there and what's the effect that had on your future. >> first of all, thank you very much for having me. it is my pleasure to be here. certainly growing up in a relatively small town of only 30,000, it was unique in american history. it was one of the three places that really focused on atomic energy and nuclear bombs, and ashley started processing uranium for the first atomic bomb. probably the biggest thing i got out of it was a metal lot of really smart people. all the kids -- i met a lot of

really smart people. are realized early on there was a big world out there. these people are really smart, and i got the bad end of the gene pool. a lot of the kids i was going to school with or really, really smart. i had 26 national merit finalist in my class. certainly was not one of them. but i recognize there are people that are really, really smart, so i had a good sense of that. as i got older and as i got into business. >> you had an unconventional business background, and among other interesting points it involved playing blackjack professionally in las vegas. there have been lots of people who have talked about how playing blackjack relates to their business skills. i think bill gates said its

poker skills were part of his business acumen. is there something there in terms of gargling skills and success in business? >> i think it is pretty good foundation. -- in terms of gambling skills and success in business. >> i would take a little bit further than that. bert -- first call, the stories about me or exaggerated. my partner was a much better blackjack player than i was. he looked shaky, so he got kicked out more than i did. there were a couple of years when i retired and i was looking for business to start. i spent two years and played a lot of poker and blackjack. each of those was a different discipline. in the sense that black jackets

very scientific. there is always the right answer and a wrong answer. you can in -- picard or increase your bet. -- you can pick a card or increase your bed. i lost four times in a row, when the fifth time. it is a very disciplined game. poker is a game where you don't have to have the best hand to win. that is the reason poker is reading other people and reading human emotions, which certainly comes to play in business. backgammon, while luck is a big part of it, over time, you have to think many moves ahead. most people when they play backgammon, they move the dice that the role, but if you get

really good at it, you think about what are the odds on the next two or three roles you are going to have and the next two or three roles that your opponent might have. you have to take a long-term view. you put yourself in a position that you could lose initially, but with the thought that that particular move oil will win in the long run. the years i did a lot of that was a good foundation as i got into business. i was pretty well prepared for many of the fun times that we had going forward. >> which was your best game? >> i really was not very good it any of them. i was probably better at blackjack. >> you transition from that to ecosphere in 1980. your partner and now life that you start the business with, you are selling satellites of the back of a truck in colorado.

where did the inspiration come from? >> the inspiration came because the scientific community i had grown up in, my dad did take me to watch sputnik when it first came across the lipsky. it would come around every 60 minutes or whatever it was. you would see it for a couple of minutes and then it would be gone. when i was retired, i also was investing in the stock market with limited funds that i had. i was looking for a satellite communications system because it was so much more economical to do that in those days. when jim to franco called me up and said i saw what you were talking about, i saw a satellite dish on the side of the road, and the guy was in a van watching a football game. that struck me as may be a business that might make sense of some time, because i knew a lot of people, i knew there were online football games and

maybe that would want to watch a football games. with the early -- you had the big 10 edition. that was the intriguing part of the business. ultimately the thing that intrigues me most was not the business itself but the fact that i did not know anything about the business, and neither did anybody else. really was the infancy of the big dish satellite business. there were maybe 1000 or 2000 consumer satellite dishes in the entire united states at that time. i felt like we could start at the beginning, starting gate and we could go as fast as anybody else could go. that was different than my experience when i worked at frito-lay, a division of pepsi. they did not need me.

there were people that had been there 20 or 30 years a new lot more about making potato chips than i was ever going to know. they did not need me to tell them how to make potato chips or how to make money. they did not need a financial analyst to say that. that became an intriguing business. i thought people would stand in line to buy these things. did not quite turn out that way initially, but that was a pot. -- but that was a fault. >> did you think at some point, this is good, i am going to get someone to buy the business and take the money and run. did you ever think of selling out? >> my goal was to make a million dollars, which was actually a lot of money back in 1980, by the way.

there's a time three or four years into it when i actually had a million dollars in the bank. we got pretty good at it, and when you get good at something, a lot of times you get passionate about it. there was a guy named david drucker, who is actually in the audience here. he said if you could launch satellites, you could make these dishes smaller. he worked for united cable at the time. he started talking about how you could make the dish smaller. there was a nasa satellite that had payload on it. that is when we started thinking, why don't we do that? one thing led to another.

>> so the passion quickly became more important than money. a lot revolves around material engineers. what was it about building a company that made you want to stay with it, as opposed to hitting the reset button? >> as you get passionate about it, you start building something. it was a lot of fun. i love working with the people i worked with and also people outside the company. anything from ph these to hobbyists. the creativity was amazing. we were starting a new industry and the creativity in how you would make the dish work, and how you might make the polarity change. it was pretty impressive. there was a day when we got offered $100 million to buy the company. that was probably five or six years into it. then what would you do with the

money? it would be like winning the lottery. at the end of the day, it is probably not that much fun because most of the time you spend your life with people asking you for money. >> people in that being very unhappy after winning the lottery. >> i certainly have seen people over the years and they usually go through a couple of stages. they are at certification have become that play golf, for about six months they are pretty happy. the problem is, you are off and never gets any better. -- your golf game never gets any better. if they are married, the wife does not want them at home. she rules the roost big can you imagine going home and tell your

wife how to do the dishes, or where to put this, or why she is not looking nice today, to go to work. she already knows all that. she does not need you to tell her what to do. but his wife told me that. she said please keep creston busy. a lot of people i've talked to that sold their businesses that they get bored really badly and they want to get back into it again. if everybody gets bored after they sell their business, i don't want to get bored. >> you make a hard move in 1990 to making satellites -- putting satellites up in the sky and toward direct broadcast. erased $337 million in junk

bonds. talk about the capital intensity of that time, and were there any other options? would you raise money through john bonds again -- 3 johnson bonds --through junk bonds again? >> the fact was that we had a business that we knew would become obsolete. we decided that we would try to launch our own satellites, and realized that was risky. we knew doing nothing is even riskier. that became the logical conclusion. so we went about trying to figure out how to do it. there were a lot obstacles, money being one of the biggest ones. it costs money to build and

launch satellites. we had made quite a bit of money. by that time, we had not spent any money. we saved all our money. we had maybe $100 million. we went to raise money and they said we would never be allowed to raise the money. we put all the money back in the business. >> we were all in, and i learned that from playing blackjack. the odds were in our favor, so we went all in. we found somebody else street after knocking on a lot of doors. after i made the presentation, the guy said i was born to raise money for you. i had been turned down by 28 firms from wall street at that time. they said let me get this straight, your going to go launch satellites and competed against at&t in comcast, and

general motors is going to be there to 0.5 years before you are. you don't have any money and you have never built the satellite before, and you are going to do everything yourself, a builder on receivers, and launched a chinese rocket that has 50% chance of success. you mure card, and we will call you if we think that makes sense. this guy said i can raise money for you. j.p. morgan is looking at it. that time, lehman brothers. i have a couple of guys that may want to raise money. i went back and call them a couple of days later and said i like what you said, i will give you guys a shot. that company went and raise billions of dollars for us and

it ended up being the best performing, high-yield fund. it became one of the highest performing, high-yield bonds ever issued. i would hope we don't have to do too many more of those. our credit is a little bit better today. we would be willing to do that. >> one thing that is really amazing that comes up again is, your willingness to cannibalize yourself. the painful reality is most incumbent firms, a rival technology can come along and is very hard to relate. you want to buy destructive technologies, and now thinking about the wireless play. this goes back to your card playing wisdom. most executives cannot do that and most companies cannot do that.

kodak has barely made the transition to digital photo and now is gone. they just can make that transition. >> it is difficult for a variety of reasons. to some degree, you get in have a of stopping to learn -- get in a habit of stopping to learn. when you become successful, it is hard to continue to take risks, because you could lose. what does that song from bob dylan, nothing to lose? when you have something to lose, you don't try it. so you have to develop an attitude that you are willing to take risks.

in our case, we are doing the same thing again. >> the first one is when you when and and launched the dbs. >> we had that early on that when there was a new product it came out, and we went out and put in a purchase order, we had maybe $10 million that we put in to buy this product. we thought it was a really good product. it turned out it was a good product and it made us a lot of money. we have done it a few times. obviously launching of satellites was one time. now we believe that we are a one trick pony as a company. we have great products.

but most everybody who wants pay television in their house in america today has it. there is not a lot of growth. is down to maybe 1 percent sunny year from 3% a year. there are four major competitors in those markets, so it is really does customers moving back and forth. it is a good business, but 10 years from now will not be a good business. when you put that together with mobile video, mobile data, and mobile voice, then you have a business. that is how we are trying to transform the company and we are willing to take the money we have made so far and risk it again, trying to get into that business. >> you share some interesting

stories earlier on about ecosphere. you had one dish on the back of your truck. you had two of them. >> the very first day on the job, always driving in the middle of the night. we had it in a trailer on the back of the car and about four o'clock a.m., a gust of wind came and flipped over the trailer and broke the dish. so we lost half our inventory. [laughter] >> on my first day on the job. i found out i had a really good partner because he did not kill me. we made the best of a bad situation. number two, we overs -- we understood that we could

overcome obstacles. we never really had that serious of an obstacle since do we have had stuttgart have lost hundreds of billions of dollars. -- we had stuff where we had lost hundreds of millions of dollars. it was not as painful as turning over addition 1980. the day in which the chinese rocket takes your first satellite out, did you think about that is going over, and what was the sense of emotion during that day? >> i have my whole family with me and i was pretty calm. we were over in china in the middle of nowhere. it was pretty calm. we had done everything we possibly could do to make that launched successful. then there are 20 minutes of a controlled explosion that to cannot do anything about.

we had worked really hard and done everything we possibly could do. a lot of people helped us to get to that point. we had two good options. one of the satellite would be successful and we would be in business for a long time, or number two, it was not going to be successful and i would go back to being an accountant in alaska. that was ok either way. it turned out the way it was supposed to. >> [unintelligible] competing head-on with cable.

you had the 1992 cable act to help you out with new access programming. when you look back that venture, taking on the cable companies with this new technology, what are the keys to success? wouldn't we do what could have gone wrong, and how did you manage to fight it off -- what could have gone wrong. >> some of the people are going to help pave the way. we were a distributor for direct tv in the first two years when i started. even prior to that, they are people like general instruments to tried and failed to enter the business for several reasons, mostly timing. i think we were fortunate that the cable industry was arrogant and did not believe -- the first company that we started was

called anterese. >> amendment only decided they did not want to pursue it because they did not understand why anyone ever want satellites for the cable. i said better picture, better quality, lower price. those might be three really good reasons. they were arrogant or comfortable enough that they did not see taking the risk to do that. ultimately the cable company got into an -- a comet called prime star but they never could agree to compete against themselves.

that ultimately got sold off and direct tv bought it. i think because we were on the edge of technology, it kept getting better and better. there was a piece for the government played a role there, too. as you pointed out, none of this would have been possible without good public policy. some took a stand against the incumbents and said we need competition. we will get congress to pass a program access law in 1992 that allowed companies to sell programming. most of the good channels for cable, other than the local broadcasters.

it took a lot of public policy and technology and to some degree, some did not want to compete against themselves. anytime you have changes, that happens. >> your satellite product was digital, which gave you a higher quality. you had an easier it bandage over them. then they had to upgrade their whole week that is how they got broadband. >> bringing broadband to the majority of americans, because while the cable industry was asleep at the wheel when it comes to straight broadcasting, we are not asleep at the wheel to figure out how to grow the business.

they were able to do technology and drew a lot of hard work they were able to figure out how to do broadband through their cable plan. now the most profitable part of cable companies today is because of the satellite industry taking one-third of their customers. >> [unintelligible] >> netflix is forcing us to think about things like over the top videos that maybe we would not have thought about before. so you have destructors coming into the business. it was our being asleep at the wheel, what we did not do netflix.

this eeo was certainly asleep at the wheel. people are always coming up with better ideas. it's have to be conscious of it. >> phil mentioned the technology side. you are also present on the sales side. i understand it offered free satellite dishes to the whole city of boulder at one point? >> i don't know if we did boulder. i know we did some small towns, and certainly down in southwestern colorado. the cable operator was one of our first satellite retailers. when the guys who talked about the business, and he was going to shut down his cable. we just roller trucks in and they hooked everybody up for free. it was a publicity stunt as much as anything else.

>> how does it relate to your management style? are you hands-on involved in all the details? >> i am more avenue micromanaging than just letting somebody do it. i am not a great manager, if you talk to people. either you trust somebody day one until they prove you wrong, or you say i don't trust you and tell you, show me you don't trust me. show me you can do it and then i will give you a lot of rope. up until the last year or so i have been involved in the daily aspects of the business. i would say that i was relatively on top of the business, certainly more so than most ceo's for companies our size. i was talking to -- i had an information flow on the things i thought were important. i have had board members who

passed a resolution you cannot sign checks. it is a single easiest way to stand up for your business. if you know where the money is going, you know everything about that business. it may be after the fact, but at least you know something after the fact, as opposed to not doing it. i signed every check in that company until seven or eight years ago, then i went from $5,000 checks to $10,000 checks, to $100,000 checks. it takes me an hour or two every week.

there is a lawsuits on if we did something wrong or right. i might not otherwise know about it. i would say you should tell me about it and then i will decide if it is important. >> if you ever start a business, the checks. as long as you can stand it. >> the newest venture that you have in assessing the wireless business -- you have already invested $3 billion in spectrum from companies that went bankrupt. the light squared sava obviously did not give this

business opportunity a great name. you are now asking the fcc for flexibility in spectrum that will allow you to offer a wireless broadband company. will you go with these other companies to get a sale? what is your thought about why you can pull this off and others have not. >> there are few things create we listen to the president of the united states is said that broadband is this the administration's highest priority. we have a blooming -- gloomy partnership ahead of us. that was one aspect. this is a government initiative and a government priority. they give you some confidence when the president of the united states says this is important. the second thing that we really do need is more wireless spectrum. it is a shame, what i have

always told the sec, if you started 1776 schuchat drop pretty good succession plan. it is all chopped up and does not make sense. companies try to use the spectrum in a way that was not economical, and hopes that would be able to use it in a more economical way. we've basically block -- bought the debt of that -- of those countries. then by going to the government was something creative in saying here is how we create competition and how we can alleviate some of the spectrum

crunch. we just think is a good idea. a lot of times, good ideas did not work in washington. this is not our first rodeo. the government does work on president and there is precedent for the companies to be able to use the satellite perspective create we knew there were be some interference reasons so we did a lot of homework between the different bands and frequencies, and when after frequencies that are pretty clean in terms of -- >> we have taken our time with the government and ask for input come anywhere from nasa to the gps, so we know what we are doing and do not make the same mistake again.

>> i think we win on public notice today, after over a year since our first filing. so it takes a long time, and there is no guarantee that the rules will be accommodating -- there is no guarantee that even if we get in the business, it would be a long shot that we could compete against at&t and horizon. they are huge companies that have the power of scale and competency. >> what lessons do you take me for your playbook? >> i commend light squared for being innovative. i think the government tried to do the right thing.

i think that alternately, and politics played a role there, and it should not play. i think once with all the problems they were having, we first approach the fcc about it and said we wanted to go with the full commission for a ruling. we did not want to do it staff level. that is a material difference in terms of how much scrutiny we would get. ultimately, the mission decided they wanted even further scrutiny from that, so they went to full rulemaking which was even another level of scrutiny. that is really the key to it.

if it is not a good idea, let's find out about it now. >> if you want to send them a question, please write them and we will have some people coming down in the audience to pick them up and bring them up. so get ready to share them with us. the proposition competing against companies like at&t, verizon, for most people that is enough to make them think maybe i should find another business. you have done this before. you are now out in the prospect of doing it again. what if all the key lessons were keys for success that enables us to do this? basically to take on incumbents and win. >> there are a few things that have to happen. understanding the sacrifices and what it will take to be disruptive to someone with that but critical mass in the business. you have to get lucky.

either technology has changed, your timing has to be right kamakura or the incumbents don't pay as much attention to you as they should. third, you have to come in with a better price. you cannot come in with something that is the same as an economist. it has to be better product and it has to be less expensive. your timing has to be right. you have to have a great team to do it. my analysis for our team is, we are like a bunch of old cowboys in texas and we decide the grass is greener in montana, so why don't we just drive the cows up there and see how it goes. we will get $2 a day and we will split the profits will we get there if we are successful. >> some people say i want to go on the cattle drive and some want to stay in texas.

we'll probably go little younger. one of the things everybody has to read is lonesome dove, and then everybody figure out which guy they are. it makes it funny gives you something to focus on. we can focus on something we can understand and that is what we are going to compete against. >> when it is just you and your wife, -- we did not need the money. how this little company with 30,000 people taking on basic company propositions, or to move the company from texas to

montana, is it a harder proposition? how do you think about it? >> it is hard to make that decision. we are a public company and we do have responsibility to people that we did not have before. we have over 30,000 employees. i take seriously the fact that they need to provide for their families. we don't take it lightly. for us, not taking a risk is the bigger risk. this is a case where if we are unsuccessful, the spectrum probably still has value. this is one of those things where we are not successful, there are people that have scale in this business today that will be valuable to them. we are not benefiting the oil company like we were when we had nothing. i think it would be difficult to start a business with a wife and five kids. it would be more difficult to start a business because you

would have the risk there, not just to yourself. it's easy when your 25, 27 years old. >> what are your estimates on the capital intensity? you are able to get the necessary approval. what would it take in terms of capital to do that? >> i can tell you that the industry is probably spent close to $100 billion to do what we are trying to do. hopefully we will do that for a fraction of that cost. technology has changed so rapidly. we could be stopped before we start, if the rule goes on too long. we might miss the window to enter the business. you always want to disrupt or injured when the technology is changing. in the wireless business, it is changing from ltg. it is a world standard, a one

world standard. somewhere up to 100 times more capacity. it is a good time to enter the business. we will spend billions of dollars for sure and create tens of thousands of jobs to be successful. we have been saving our money and we are prepared to go spend it that. >> you could have bought sprint and t-mobile. why choose to build this from the ground up as opposed to looking at one of the legacy carriers? >> we did not know enough about the business to do something like that.

second, the cost of the spectrum was about the same amount that those companies had. i think t-mobile -- they paid 39 billion. a similar spectrum that they have. it is like a better economical model for us. we don't have any legacy, we can build the technology without a legacy of switched networks and analog phones. we will be able to do something called hd voice. you don't have any old legacies. this is me talking, so here is what i want to do.

are really just want a phone that i can talk as many minutes as i want. i can text while i am talking and surf the web all at the same time, and it cost me $50. and when i get the bill, it is $50. i signed up for a plan of one of the carriers that was $59 but my bill was something like 150 four dollars and 28 cents. i used to be an accountant, and i cannot tell you where the 160 four dollars is. i cannot get through, and i don't know what to tell you. it is like when you go to a strange city. i don't think the world's business has to be that way. i think actually should have a phone that works. i am really interested doing that.

>> to see that as a function and the breakdown in the wireless market? how competitive do you see the wireless market today in broadband? >> it is very competitive. there are only two that are better, which are at&t and verizon. there are a half-dozen other players that of their challenges. it is unclear where they will end up. my experience has been, i have worked with some of the wireless players. things got complicated because they kept adding things on. they also like that is complicated, because from a marketing perspective, you did not understand your bill. it is kind of crazy in today's world to get 200 text messages. it does not cost you anything to send text messages in the wireless business today.

so it just got complicated. it doesn't have to be that way. if one phone works when you go to the broncos game and other phone does not work, if you happen to be with the person whose own works, you can tell your friends about it. if you do that, you can be successful. if we don't do that, if we are just like everybody else, then we won't be successful. >> the amazing thing here is you are able to think and act like a start up after all these years. what role do you think start- ups' play and do you sometimes look to invest in swings. >> one of the problems you have as you get to be a bigger company is, we are not really entrepreneurialism.

we end up with more professional managers and entrepreneurs. even though we try to have a cultural of of the burners, it does not work out that way. year end up having -- we try to have cultural entrepreneura. >> the founder is thinking in this guy is not that smart, why is he telling me what to do? those are difficult things. we'll have to fight for that. the way we set up the company, i am really on the wireless side. we are going to montana. dish network continues to run. this eeo runs that business, and it echoes star had the ceo in that business.

they know how to manage those businesses. i am the signing their checks. keeping them honest. my point is we have to start the wireless business outside of this network and then we will pull the men as we get it growing. >> i was interested to hear you talk about the culture you try to create, but it is difficult to maintain. >> i did not handle authority well. particularly authority that i did not think was as smart as me. i realized that early on. later i realized that i was

wrong in their but were people smarter than me, but when you are 22 years old you are more naive than that. i think the dish would be too slow for me. when i worked at frito-lay, i was a financial analyst but i wanted to learn about operations and marketing. they literally said he had to go to an ivory league school to be in marketing. i went to an unaccredited business school. in operations, they said finance people were good at operations. i rode in a truck on the weekend so i could learn about operations. i came up with the way for that business to save $30 million.

here's how to save $30 million. they said, you don't understand. we are going to get our bonuses this year. if we say $30 million, then we have to make another $35 million next year. we have just grown 10% a year. >> i was naive. i am understand a lot more about what they are saying now as a public company. at that point, i am not as well go start my own business, because how hard can it be? it's got to be easier. as a result, we don't manage quarter to quarter. it is a huge advantage in the marketplace, not to go and say that your earnings went up 10% a year. sometimes we say earnings went down by 200%. but we don't have to manage quarter to quarter.

it gives us a huge advantage. i will give you an example. when we bought the bankrupt companies that had spectrum, we actually paid the companies before the sec approved our deal. we actually paid off all bombers -- pay off all the bondholders. we were out at $3 billion and did not have approval. reason we got the deal was we did not have a contingency for sec approval. there were some risk that the sec would not approve the deal. therefore we were taking a chance in doing something that was a little bit risky. we were able to get ourselves in a position to be in the wireless business where our competition was not. >> he was very frustrated because he said we want to get a big piece of the business. i said, what is the deal with charlie? he said charlie is not interested investing in the

content. >> is that true, and why are you willing to put a lot of money on the table when it comes to wireless businesses? >> there are two reasons. content take some extra excreta expertise that we do not have. we are not really knowledgeable about that. the second thing is that the return on content for us on a

given where we are today, we do not think is the same as return for distribution. we see distribution as our dna. third, we want to be switching the content. s soon as we get into content, that of be the first thing that would pop up on your screen. we want you to trust us that we are putting up everything in equal manner and that we give you the choices as to what we've -- guess what you want to watch it is not a secret that comcast owns nbc, and that when you watch nbc golf, there is little ball logo when they are talking about the golf channel. if you watch abc news with brian williams, they will talk about the weather channel. maybe the weather channel person is not the best person to talk about that.

but companies do that. we just said we will we the switzerland of content. we would like the best distribution path and put it out there for customers. they can get it wherever they are. hopefully that will pay for what they watch. >> barry also made a proposal that if you on distribution, you should not be allowed to be incumbent. do you support that proposal?

.

there were widespread expectations that the military would put off the elections. they have had numerous opportunities to do so. they held a very clear to the election schedule and timetable. for all of the talk of the military favoring a particular candidate, there does not appear to be any evidence of vote tampering or electoral fraud. despite the numerous legal challenges, much of the campaign has run smoothly and provided for a provocative debate. all indications point to a the fact that the military will hand over power to a civilian government.

we can put that on the positive ledger for these elections. second and most importantly, these elections produce a highly dynamic political map in egypt. in contrast to the parliamentary elections, which were held last november, which saw the islamist win a 75% of the vote. the secular forces combined gaining 25%. in this election, the three top islamist candidates received 35% of the vote. this is between the front runner, who is mohamed morsi, the independent candidate, and a lesser known islamist candidate who garnered 6% of the

vote. between them, they won a 35% of the vote. we also see the sharp shift in the political map in the remnants of the national democratic party, which was the ruling party during the mubarak era. the ndp won the seats and did very badly. -- no seats and did very badly. they have mobilized for a campaign in support of ahmed shafiq. in addition to that, this was a remarkable surprise, the socialist candidate really turned out to be the dark horse in this election. he ran as an independent with a clear leftist agenda.

most polls seem to have dismissed the fact he would do well. he came in third. garner and roughly 21% of the vote. winning in areas that have been known to be traditional strongholds of the muslim brotherhood. cairo, alexandria, and also in the four rural districts of the delta. the political map that the merged -- that emerged, now we have a completely different map that is highly diverse and shows what is a very healthy sign, that politics is alive and well. it is turning out to be a very competitive race.

related to this, it shows that the electorate is highly engaged and highly mobilized. what we have seen over the course of the last few months is the electorate has focused closely on the ups and downs of egyptian politics. i think the most significant thing we have seen has taken the form of what seems to be a backlash against the muslim brotherhood. there is a rising concern of the prospect that the muslim brotherhood of monopolizing all of the levels of politics. that was reflected in the fact that they did so well in the parliamentary elections. the tendency to monopolize the constitution writing process. they are contesting the presidential elections after they had committed not to do so. what the electorate -- what we have seen in terms of how the votes have split reflects the fact that the electorate is

highly engaged and watching the developments of egyptian politics closely. it is mobilized, politicized, it is highly engaged in the political process. if we move to the negative side, the outcome that is before us, the election that will feature ahmed shafiq and mohamed morsi set up for a polarized outcome. shafiq seems to be the complete antithesis of everything the revelation has stood for. the revolutionaries will argue that egypt did not go through this transition only to see the restoration of the old order

represented by general shafiq. egypt did not have to go through all of this just so we could go back to the old order. the same applies to the muslim brotherhood. it has tended to confirm the worst fears of mainstream egyptians of one political party monopolizing all power. we have in these two candidates what are very polarizing tendencies. this adds to what is or what has been a very problematic transition since the overthrow of mubarak. if we factor in the fact that the turnout for this election was less than 50%, roughly 47%, each of the candidates will have only garnered 12% of all of the votes cast by eligible voters.

the clam will be that they represent only a minority of the electorate. however, on the other hand, the days when an egyptian president will garner a majority, i think those days are long gone. to explain this situation, which i think is -- it has this highly polarized situation. it has already triggered some incidents. we have seen them develop over the last 24 hours. i think the reason why we have ended up with this polar as situation is a function of the polarized nature of the transition itself.

over the last 15 months, we have had a situation where the was a polarized -- where there was a polarized debate, religion versus secular politics, the old guard of versus the new revolution, the muslim brotherhood immerses the protesters. all of this in a highly charged political environment. there was no negotiating forum to develop a consensus. i think, more importantly, the reason why we have this polarized outcome has to do with what is the anomalous nature of the revolution itself. the revolution started out much more as a protest movement then as a full-fledged revolution.

it was not a revolution in the classic sense. where we have a defined leadership that can put forward an alternative vision for the old legitimacy that crumbled with the fall of mubarak. the revolutionaries, because of the quality, the leader of this quality, had a hard time transitioning -- leaderlss quality, had a hard time transition in. the revelation -- transitioning. the revolution did not put forward a candidate. this left the field open to other candidates. one claimed to speak for the revolution. he assembled a very odd coalition of secularists. he did not manage to convince the broader electorate that he was the one who spoke for the revolution.

another man, the same thing. he claimed the mantle of the revolution on a platform of gradual change from within. the far right candidate, all of them claimed to speak for the revolution. none of them represented the type of candidate that can lead a third force in egyptian politics between the muslim brotherhood and the military establishment and the old order represented by general shafiq. the revolution was always ambivalent about a formal political process. the revolutionaries were the biggest losers in the previous parliamentary elections held in november. now they find themselves heading into the runoff on january 16 without a candidate to represent them.

there is no clearly defined center in egyptian politics. what we have now is the polar extremes represented by mr. morsi and general shafiq. what can we expect heading into the runoff? much will depend on how the next three weeks developed. we will see two competing ideas between now and the 16th. we will see a process of politics and a process of protest. the process of politics has already begun with the two leading candidates beginning to woo the independent voters who have broken for the three candidates who did not make it into the second round. they are talking about political maneuvering, deal between the candidates. certain guarantees, and

especially on the part of the brotherhood. that, i think, will be one process. the other process will be represented by the protesters. this is what we have seen over the course of the last 24 hours. the revolutionaries will seek to delegitimize the election. this will take the form of protest, legal challenges against the process. i think we will see these two competing themes as we head into the runoff. i think, just to conclude, i think given everything we have seen in how this has played out and the political landscape that has developed that has shown a remarkable degree of polar some, i think the trend is towards consensus. more importantly, the consensus that the new president will have to base his legitimacy on after

the election. given everything we have seen, we can assume it is that which will be the hallmark of how the next president will seek to govern. let me and if there. i am sure there are much more things to address -- let me end there. i am sure there are much more things to address. >> i would like to turn to thomas. >> presidential elections, it is another turning point. it is another historical moment. it is another step towards democracy. that is how people are describing it. it is done in the name of presidential elections. it is hard to believe that all of these turning points,

historical moments, that they have taken place in the last 16 months. they are still taking place in egypt. yet, more will come. more is expected. more we will see it, sooner than later. i will try to be realistic. it was always optimistic or pessimistic. this is the main question that everyone asks, whether in the personal or public life. as you will see in my speech, my presentation, i will try to act like the admin, collecting ideas and throwing them to people. maybe they like it, whatever.

poke it, whatever. i will try to do my best. the main thing is optimistic or pessimistic. most of the egyptians are pessimistic in the short term and optimistic in the long term. there is another question. how do you see -- the full half or the empty half of the cup? one of the best answer is i get is a i see the full half, but it is full of what? that is the main question. the main question in the coming weeks, in four weeks, four weeks in which egypt will be shaped.

some of the questions will be answered. the last two or three weeks, whenever you read any analysis by experts, observers, analysts, most of the questions are unanswered. still, egypt's case is unclear. it is true. many factors, as mr. haggag explained, this is the case that is in front of us. there is history, there is politics, there is a religion factor, there is the use of religion as a factor in shaping or misshapen things. all of these factors are acting or reacting or preaching or teaching people in the name of the revolution.

-- or cheating people in the name of the revolution. the people want, they want what? they want to say what they want to say. in the coming four weeks, why it is important. i will start from this week. two days later, today is tuesday, thursday, the parliament will decide if they are going to extend another year of emergency loans. this is going to be another bargain. saturday, it is expected that a verdict will come up regarding to mubarak. we will see what will happen as a reaction. two days ago, it was announced that the arab league foreign ministers are going to have a meeting on saturday.

it was transferred to doha from cairo because on saturday there will be the trial of mubarak. from now on, many things will happen. we are beginning to figure out how these 50 million people will vote. 50 million people are there. those who vote are 46%. it is 23 million. the first two candidates, the front-runners, they got 10 million. there was another 13 million people. we have, out of the 50 million, -- 23 million, how many of the rest will come out to vote? one of the issues we raised yesterday, maybe there is something, people talking about fraud.

in the parliamentary elections, those who participate in the elections, and even before that, in the case of the referendum, the number was 46 million. in the last three or four months, according to some people, lawyers, politicians, four million or 5 million people were added. who are these people? how were they added? who did it? who is asking? who is not answering? egypt is very interesting.

why i am asking this question, when karim was lev -- elaborating, it is very interesting we are asking this question. in the last 10 years before january, 2011, the only question asked, it was raised, if mubarak's time would come when not. it was not just in egypt. it was in this town. the main question, is he coming? people ask, if he is coming, how will he be able to come without making any problems? as a matter of fact, most of the issues raised were related to this one issue. it is a nation of 80 million people -- more than that. 50 million of going to vote. what about the rest? there is another issue which is very interesting about the coming days. after the election, let's say, most of the questions -- the presidential election, there is a question mark or exclamation mark about what is the president's job description?

i will not say the power. the job description. nobody knows. at the beginning of the revolution, people were saying, we do not want another pharoa. this is another issue. first, what is the power? what kind of power he has. i cannot say she has, at least not now. in the future, maybe. we are having this issue. the second issue, which is very important, what is going to be the supreme council of armed forces situation starting from july 1? it is not that far. july 1. they promised to leave the power.

this is what everybody else in the world believes, including washington. i am saying washington because part of our discussion will be about how washington and cairo for see or see the future together.

what is going to be the situation, what kind of power? people are arguing about the issues. it is going to be civilian. one man is a former military person, ahmed shafiq. we may argue that he is not wearing the uniform now. that is another issue. it is still there. islamists, that is a big issue. the whole issue of this, we are going to be like what? usually people are asking, is egypt going to be -- i am asking a lot of questions. it is question time.

i do not believe there is an answer to it. unless you have a crystal ball. the question is, a question or a challenge, how islamists are going to control this situation. if they want to monopolize, probably, that is what they want to do. how can they do it? that is the big question. who is going to do what? who is going to form the government? people say, the parliament forms the government. according to military people, there are some ministers who do not want to get rid of the department. the foreign ministry, defense, finance, and interior minister.

they want the president to appoint them. what kind of power will the president have? will he be able to dissolve the parliament? another factor is, we have to think about it, as long as we are talking about people from congress, people from the state department, the relation between the u.s. and egypt. how is it going to be in the coming years? is it chipping in a different way? maybe. in the last 10 years, the relation between washington and middle eastern countries -- there is a security partnership. especially when it is related to getting the terrorist. -- terrorists. it is an issue of security measures and stability.

when they are talking about is lummis, military, it will raise the issue, who is the good friend? all of them, they say, we are not going to talk about it tonight. maybe they argue about the egyptian forces in sinai. in all cases, those who worry about egypt, there are a lot of people. we have to say there are a lot of people. women are worried. liberals are worried. it is not a matter of exaggeration. it is a matter of reality. why is it a reality?

it is not a matter of islamic or not islamic, it is the perception of power. what is the perception of power? i you going to rule the country or controlled my rights? -- are you going to rule the country or control my rights? it is not a matter of christian and muslim, it is a matter of principles, human dignity, social justice. it mike looked romantic now. it was the reality. -- it might look romantic now. it was the reality. there are a lot of challenges. when you ask questions, you will realize what i tried to explain. thank you.

>> thank you very much. you give us a lot of food for thought. now i would like to turn to mohamed. >> thank you. you made my job really difficult. i am going to send a few messages about looking at the near term, what is happening in the elections. first, what have we learned from the first elections? some learned that if you do not unite, you lose. it is important. and i a conspiracy theorist to think that maybe this is not just a failure? it is a possibility. if we look at the low profile that shafiq has kept throughout the election time, maybe this work in his favor.

a second thing, the revolution and revolutionaries, who won and who lost. i think it goes both ways. the revolution 1. some of the votes -- won. sum up the votes the revolutionaries have got. collectively, they got 9.3 million votes. they have got way more. they did not unite. if we add mohamed morsi, from one perspective, it is 15 million votes. we are speaking about tripled the number of votes.

from one perspective, the revolution 1. from another perspective, it lost. why is this the case? from one perspective, prolonging the transition period. egypt is very decentralized. ironically, this is one of the things that mubarak called for. he said early elections. i do not trust him. i do not think he would have left. i think it was very important not to prolong the transition. the other thing is that the divisions among the revolutionary forces, it cost them a lot. a lot of people preferred security. with a lot of protests, people do understand what the purpose is. all of these mistakes, we ended up with a 51% turnout. if they were united, they would win the majority of the vote. the interesting situation is at the moment, 75% of the

egyptians in two dozen 5, they did not vote for the muslim brotherhood. in 2006, they did not vote for mubarak. we are asking them to choose between shafiq, who is an extension of mubarak, and the muslim brotherhood. the majority of egyptians did not vote for each of. -- either. the amount of votes by the muslim brotherhood -- in the parliamentary elections, they got 47%. what does this tell us about the performance? it is an interesting thing about

the people. they know how to penalize poor performance. they have a point of view. they do not just go after oil and sugar. this is a very important point. the revolution did win and lose. you can call me a conspiracy theorist. just throwing out some messages here. i think the national democratic party its structure, its network, it is functioning very well.

maybe the showing was intentionally low. they kept a low profile. the networks are still there. this is another possibly contesting thing. there are normally three parties contesting. we are speaking about revolutionary forces, the muslim brotherhood, also, ndp. it is alliances. these are the short messages. we can continue to think about them. where are we going from there? before speaking about the president. who is going to make it? who is not going to make it? let's agree that the structure is that a going to govern the ability of becoming president to act -- the structures that are going to govern the ability of becoming president to act are established structures. they were established under mubarak. it has been established since 1953. the security establishment, the intelligence, they are very decentralized. the president might be begging for his daily briefing.

the head of the intelligence was handpicked. we are speaking about lots of tradition within these establishments. we are speaking about the president. there has to be something. otherwise, it is going to be a deadlock. the coming president, whoever he is, he is going to face two challenges. i would like to distinguish. existing challenges and new challenges. the existing challenges include high unemployment, the economic situation. the situation in sinai is way more serious.

there are lots of weapons. the intelligence establishment, without it, the job is going to be difficult. some are saying the staff is making the situation tougher. they are making it tough for the people. they are driving them to hate the revolution. if this is what they are doing, it is alarming. they can control cairo, that is not a big deal. this might not be the case in sinai. these are existing challenges. new challenges, cards. in addition to the constitution, this is a problem. in addition to extending the emergency loan, gas prices are going to rise. we know that. security is definitely a problem. gasoline is another problem.

some people are happy. whether they are happy or not, they are legal decisions. there might be millions of dollars that egypt has. becoming president -- these issues are waiting. they might be intentionally created to welcome him. then, there are expected price hikes generally. general price hikes. how can we speak about -- we are speaking about morsi, shafiq, they are going to go for the runoff. i distinguish three kinds of discourses. given the complexity of this situation. the first discourse is the

contest between the revolution, morsi, and the old establishment, represented by shafiq. it puts the revolutionary forces on one side, including the liberals, and shafiq on the other. they have to give guarantees to the people. unfortunately, i see a lot of revolutionary forces aiming at boycotting the election. this is going to be very difficult for the muslim brotherhood. in other words, shafiq is going to get a good deal of the vote. he is going to get part of the votes that went to the secular candidates. if morsi can get the votes that went to the two other men, this

is going to be problematic. we are missing people say they are going to boycott the election. it is serious. they need to give guarantees. some of the guarantees are unrealistic. some are calling for dissolving the muslim brotherhood. this is unrealistic. some real-estate guarantees include agreeing on the name of the people who are going to be members of the constitution committee. the of the thing is a promise to establish -- the other thing is to promise to establish a new government after the election which is not going to be headed by a member of the muslim brotherhood. plus, some other guarantees like a written promise or decree or whatever you call it saying, here is what we promise. a government, a coalition

government, vice president, here are the names of the people in the committees. some steps have been taken in this regard. i do not know how functional they are. one other important request would demand to morsi is to demarcate the relationship between the muslim brotherhood and egypt. the freedom justice party wanted to run a candidate. the decision was made in the office of the muslim brotherhood. these are some of the demands. another negative is that this is a contest between civil society, the muslim brotherhood, and the deep state, which includes a strong vote for the military. another discourse, the narrow

coalitions. look at the runoff as a contest between mubarak's establishment, represented by shafiq, and islamist friends. this is not in the favor of either of the parties. shafiq does not want to be perceived as part of mubarak's establishment or part of the security state. morsi wants to include not only islamist parties, he wants the voices that went to others. 50% of the egyptians are centrists. many voting are voting for the center. it penalized the muslim brotherhood.

this is another task force. -- discourse. another discourse sees this as an islamist secularist contest. both parties are working on the fear factor. this has been the case for the first round of elections, playing on the fear factor. shafiq is building a strong coalition. i think shafiq's alliance is stronger. why? the alliance is businessmen, it is some part of the community, even the young christians are likely to shift to shafiq in the second round of must strong steps are taken by the muslim brotherhood. -- round and less strong steps are taken by the muslim brotherhood.

-- round unless trong steps are taken by the muslim brotherhood. shafiq is playing on the fears of this system. interfering in personal lives, in art, culture, society, this is a threat. it is the effect of an islamist state. -- the threat of an islamist date. morsi -- state. morsi is playing on fears that shafiq might be a reinvention of mubarak. that it is civil society versus the deep state. they need bold steps to build bridges and a stronger declaration.

the problem is that since mubarak's oust, the brotherhood did not show that. losing the voice is very dangerous. this in at the center position -- losing the center position, more abstention, what will happen if the turnout is 35%? who will win? i am not speculating. i am not campaigning. i think shafiq has a coalition with a stronger group.

he has a bleak business people. he has members of the -- he has elite business people. he has members of the ndp. two quick points. shafiq is closer. this might be a problem for morsi. shafiq will suffer from the parliament and some interviews. i know the muslim brothers are intentionally blocking some steps needed in the economy. the imf wanted to give egypt a loan. the muslim brothers insisted they are going to block it. they do not want the government to benefit. maybe having morsi with help.

can we look at the deal between the muslim brothers wiccan except -- where they can accept shafiq as president if they appoint ministers. is this possible? we can hope it is possible. i think we can see this is a possible deal. the muslim brothers are interested in establishing bridges. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. you raised a lot of very interesting question. it will affect egypt in the weeks and months ahead. i would like to open it up to questions from the audience. please raise your hand and identify yourself. we will try to get to as many as possible. >> you have all mentioned how low the turnout was. around 50%. even you mentioned it may go as low as 35%, affecting the credibility. why do you think not that many

came out? what i your expectations for the runoff? >> -- are your expectations for the runoff? >> it is good we reached that number. that is a big issue. for 60 years, people were not voting. in the 1970's, they were voting for the first time. i was surprised that i saw a lot of people who are politicians, they did not vote. that is another thing. as we say, do not worry, we will take care of your vote. this is the concept. to see people voting, that is a big thing.

just to give you a number, mubarak, when he was elected, -- elected, he got 6 million votes. at that time, those who vote -- the poll was 32 million people eligible to vote. 7 million people cast their vote. i did not know the percentage. >> go ahead. >> people give up. -- gave up. people wanted to get done with the transition. we know the rosters of people who were allowed to vote were not revised. there were names of people who had passed away.

there were some people who were outside of egypt, the registered twice. -- they were registered twice. another technical problem, in the parliamentary elections, we had 45 million voters. now we have 50 million. 5 million people were added to the rosters. who are they? it is something we are not sure about. we know that egyptians are registered outside. there are a lot of problems with the rosters. >> you are asking about the vote. we know that between 7 to 9 million egyptians are living abroad, outside of egypt. of those who registered to vote, 400,000 people out of the 7 million to 9 million people.

in the united states, those who register is 30,000 people. we expect that in the united states, there is 1 million people -- 30,000 people registered to vote. >> question. [inaudible] 60% of eligible voters. i have a question in regards to the progression. i see they have put the cart before the horse by having the election before the constitution is written. the president's job description has not been written.

you have the presidential election. it is the same thing for the parliament. they went faster in that direction. i think he should have a constitution before you have an election. i wonder if anyone can comment on that. >> do you want to? the easiest answer is that the transition has unfortunately, from the beginning, been a work in progress. if you go back to what i was trying to describe about the issue of competing legitimacies, there was no consensus on the design, sequence, or time frame of the transition. they put up a of a template for the transition that was always -- put out a vague template for the transition that has always been subject to pressure, legal

challenges, renegotiation. that will explain the situation that you described. initially, the original intent was to have the constitution before the presidential election. what happened? two things happened. pressure on the part of the demonstrators to bring up presidential election. we would do to have presidential elections month from bell -- months from now. they had to bring up the timetable. at the same time, what you had was a deadlock in the constitution writing. it delayed the whole

constitution writing agenda. now we have a very strange situation in which the timetable for presidential elections was moved up and the constitution writing process was delayed, the formulation of the constitution. it was a very messy transition. it was highly contested. it was a work in progress. there was no consensus over the timing. >> if i could just add, the non- muslim brotherhood members coalesced to protest what they saw was the muslim brotherhood monopolization of the writing process. you had divorce groups -- diverse groups, they all got together and said, we should take a objections to the court. it became very political.

any other questions? yes. >> the question about the third place finisher. normally that person and of being a key factor. -- ends up being a key factor. is that hal is going to play out? i know there is not much of a track record in voting. how the third place supporters' votes will break. will it be an islamic bombers is secular choice -- islamic versus secular choice? >> nobody knows how the votes will break.

there is a jockeying between the two top contenders who are trying to woo the votes between the three candidates who did not make it into the runoff. there is a question that i do not have the institute. to what degree do these voters -- i do not have the answer to. to what degree do these voters vote in a bloc fashion? will followers vote as he does? that is highly questionable. one clear example of that is the vote which we did not talk about. the political leadership declared their support for a man. the independent islamist candidate. all the indications show that they did not vote as a block.

it raises a question as to what degree voters really follow their leader or candidate or to the degree to which they vote independently. >> the thing that i want to focus today, that is why i am trying to explain, unfortunately, we have a short attention span to things. a few weeks ago, it was ngo's problems with the egyptians. then we forgot the ngo's. now it is the elections. there is a political system that is allowing this person or that person to win. then we are looking to the muslim brotherhood.

the establishment has been there for 60 years. the muslim brothers have been there for 80 years. the same thing we talk about liberals, i am not trying to make it complicated, it is the case. we have to see the woods, not just the trees. we talk about liberals, it is a problem raised many, many times. they think it is people coming on television, they are talking about women's rights. they do not believe in god. the liberals have been there for 150 years. whatever we see civilization, the modernization of the world, egypt is the outcome of those people. it is not like somebody came out, came back from golf with

some money and said, those people are the ones who are ruining egypt. it is not the case. that is why i am telling you, it is the whole idea of who is going to win. both of them, the revolutionaries are saying, it is a bad choice in two cases. is lessgoing for what that of an the other. not what is better than the other, what is less worse than the other. >> one last question. >> for many reasons. and number one, 54% of the egyptian borders stayed away. if they really cared about the outcome of their election, they should have been there, the voting.

if you look at the votes, it was not really a good case to talk about revolutions. if they continue to stay home and not to go and vote in the runoff election, it will be a disaster. because, as you said, well, actually, it is deeper than that. for whatever reasons you have in mind, but you forgot one thing. the muslim brotherhood, they did not, in fact, managed to deliver any of voter. they can influence the final outcome. i also have to stress an egyptian regime. i have the connection with egypt. there are two major issues in egypt that people talk about whether they are sitting in public or private -- security, and economics.

there is going to be a reminder of the history of mubarak. it is very hard to tell, at this time, who is going to be winning and who is going to be losing. i believe it is not going to be decided until everyone goes and devotes. -- and of votes -- and votes. >> unfortunately, we are out of time. did you have a question? did you want to respond? >> thank you for your points. that is why we are trying to projected to the future. it is not an easy job. however, people who work in think tanks, or what ever, we try to project. he can bir