before comcast bought a lot of nbc. do you feel fully integrated? >> i do not know that we are fully integrated. we feel very comfortable with the assets and comfortable with the level of integration between the two companies. they're obviously very different businesses and companies. steve burke had a great vision that he wanted to bring the best parts of the culture and management culture but respect the differences between the companies and the unique approaches and cultures of nbc universal as being an entertainment and content in news and information company as opposed to a distribution company. steve has been able to execute that balance almost perfectly. partsringing the

of the companies that need to come together and respecting the differences and allowing them sometimes to function in accordance with their historic practice and culture. >> he owned 51 certification of nbc? >> 51% with a pathway to on all of it. >> do you see moving forward owning it all? >> we have the option malika pe. we are certainly very happy with the asset and company. with content and distribution. we think our happiness, we think companies of both companies are very happy. >> what are you doing in washington? >> on this particular trip we

are here to celebrate the year 2 launch of internet essentials 2.0 we had an incredibly successful first year, internet essentials being the nation's most comprehensive broad band adoption programs for low-income americans. and our first year we were able to sign up 100,000 families, over 400,000 low-income americans. most of them for the first time being connected to the internet in their homes. it sounds like a big numbers. to size it for you, that is equivalent to the entire population of major cities in america like miami, a tulsa, minneapolis, the populations are all run 400,000 people. when you are successful and signing up the equivalent of a major city in america for this

service, you have something that is gaining traction and making sense. >> is this something mandated as part of the nbc deal are something that comcast is doing on their own? >> both. this was a comcast concept that we were preparing before the nbc/universal transaction. we offered it up as a voluntary commitment to the sec as something to help the sec. we would have done it with or about the transaction. we have gone far beyond the nature of the commitment in terms of eligibility of the program and the speed of the project, led the way we are running signups. the way we are promoting its. . it barely resembles the original program that we put in front of the commission at the voluntary

commitment. >> we want to introduce our guest reporter. she is the editor in chief of cable facts daily. >> i know some of the early data that you have from the program was that the computer rates were very low. have you any more details there as to why that is? >> rates are a little higher as we have gone through the year. over 100,000 families, and 11,005 fun trick computers being sold. -- 11,500 computers being sold. based on our research, we thought for futures were going to be an essential element. the research out there is that one of the significant impediments to low-income americans signing up for internet services is that they do not own a computer. the research we do is that most

of the internet essential customers say that they already own the computer. if you think about it, and might make sense in the early days of the program. we all know the major barrier to broadband adoption, particularly in low-income neighborhoods is in cominternet literacy. they do not know how to use the internet or computer. they are afraid of the internet. it would make sense early adopters maybe families who already had a computer. we may be in the early days hitting a population where the computer hardware is not necessarily be a major impediment for those families. we're concerned about it. we keep looking at it. we're worried about the price point.

there does not seem to be evidence that less than $150 price points has been a problem. we are worried. in 1.0 the adoption was for a network computer. for some that is a great choice, but others might prefer in laptop or desktop. if we were very happy yesterday to announce a partnership with the non-profit partnership with the cable industry including comcast. we have a partnership with them or internet essential customers will have access to the computers that are going to be offered as part of them to compete. they will be laptop and desktop. now if you are an internet essentials customer and you want to buy a computer for the same

cost, you can get a net book, laptop, or a desktop computer. we hope by increasing the option galaxy and choices we will be able to accommodate any demands. >> are you finding that most of these customers would prefer mobile? >> that is an interesting question. obviously, all of the customers we signed up want to have a wire line connection. there is a lot of research out there that mobil usage is even higher among minority communities than it is among white communities. we have seen some pretty startling research and some of these minority communities, 70% or 80s service through mobile applications.

-- 80% service is through mobile applications. i am not a critic. we are in the business. no reason for me to be critical. my comment now is not a platform comment. it is more a device, and then it is a platform comment. if you're going to do mobil on a laptop and get real broadband speeds, i do not have any problem whatsoever. if you go into the educational context and you're talking bought mobile on a smart bomb and this access to minority communities, i do not view that as an acceptable substitute for a net book, a laptop, or desktop. atlanta a woman in whose son was in and the fans writing program. one of the right to the

assignment was to edit a newspaper story. the way you did it was good to a home worksite. you loaded the newspaper article. he edited it and then up would be edited article to the site where the teacher would have access to it, could market up correctly and put it back on the site for you and your parents to see. this family did not have brought it in their home. she said she was signing up for it because of internet essentials. when esther, what do your kids to napper homework she told me be the story about this assignment. she said he did it on my smartphone. she had tears in her eyes. she said had never tried to edit a document on the smart phone? -- have you ever tried to edit a document on a smart phone? it takes twice as long.

it is very hard. you are a professional writer. i still like to see a page. i like to see the context of it, not just a sentence or two. this woman got it that smart phone access to the internet for purposes of homework does not work. it is not what the tremendous educational enhancements that are available are supposed to work on. they're designed to work on large screens. large screens primarily means wired connections. the other problem with mobile connections is the expense. you will go through a 9.95 worth of data with one homer assignment. by offering this projecproject u

can eat for the month is a tremendously attractive option. >> are you looking to expand youto other hard to reach a demographics like seniors? >> is always under consideration. i am a believer of learning to iraq before you run -- to walk before your run. with low income families of children you get the benefit of the parents and the kids. kids are going to be in school and yet the educational impact of that. we have looked at senior population, a disabled population. the problem is they are much more complicated to reach. eligibility determinations are more complex.

the beauty of internet essentials is that eligibility is simple. you have a trout in your house you did you have a child in your house participating in the free lunch program, you are eligible. if you were to take in say you are a citizen who are over 65, you are 1500 lower than the poverty level. people do not know. making an eligibility determination, it is a lot more complicated than the eligibility that we're using for this population. >> the exclusivity than is coming up. my understand is the chairman has circulated an order that would allow the band to fire

october 5. some networks that does not matter for. they are conditions under the nbc merger. not every the work that you are affiliated with. do they fall under the same? >> i know there has been a recent flurry of parties on this subject. i would rather stick with our position. you can appreciate this. it is not start with the legislation. you have to start with what congress said. it is amazing the opponents of an effort to allow the best placidity bantu expired just sort of forgot that there is a piece of legislation that congress pass that set out a standard if you look at the original language and you do any assessment of the marketplace, there is no remaining

justification under the standard for an exclusivity ban. i do not think the chairman have a choice but to circulate the order that he circulated. this chairman has been very clear from the day here right in the office that he will run a data driven and objective sec and will look at every policy question that comes up. he will assess it objectively. he will make decisions based upon the data and apply the law. if you do that in this case, there is reasonable justification for continuation of the end exclusivity region of the end exclusivity ban. -- of the exclusivity ban. this is been the position in the proceeding. our order lasts until 2018.

forever it applies to, it applies to. after that time, we should be treated like everybody else. if people believe that it is appropriate for it to continue, and they need to go back to congress and get different legislation. the current legislation does not support the ban and the current competitive posture. >> what happens when october 5 rolls around? do we suddenly see several? >> i do not think so. the fears had been overstated. i do not know for sure. the marketplace is that many of these networks require broad distribution to be successful. exclusivity marrow's this.

to get the economic equivalent of a broadly distributed channel when you enter into an exclusive arrangement results and a large aphelion -- a feeling it. i am not sure what the appetite is on the distribution site for extraordinarily high fees. my own suspicion is that least four existing, mature networks, you're not going to see a lot of fundamental changes. that is just one person's prediction. >> google fiber recently raised

some concerns about giving up some of these must have programming. what do you think of their interest in the marketplace? do you see them as a disrupt your? >> right now we do not seen them as a destructor. . we're watching what they are doing. the expense of the build out of the kansas city experiment shows and demonstrates quite clearly bthe magnitude of the enormous investment the cable industry has made in building out our infrastructure. i do not know that i see a business model for the expenditure of that level of

money to build out a national fiber network. the same thing when verizon went into the market with biofios. at&t thought the same thing. they decided not to build a national or regional fiber network. we have consistently said and continue to believe that we are not afraid of competition. we like our product. we think competition makes us a better company. we think it makes a sharp. it improves the quality and innovation of our offerings. just like satellite made companies, it does make comcast a better company and force us to move more quickly. whatever other competitor comes along, be will be happy to welcome them to the fray.

we will embrace the improvements that they will make in our product and service for our customers. >> when you hear the term "tv everywhere," what does that mean? >> i will start with the broadest definition and then narrow it. for many years a week at comcast -- we at comcast, people use to argue about whether comcast or distribution was keen. -- king. the customer is increasingly demanding a their content in an anytime, anywhere place. we do not do appointment television. but as for the he went into the family room and watched television. it does not happen anymore. not for most programming. what people want to do now is

watch what they want to watch, where they want to watch it, when they want to watch it, and a device they want to watch it on. tv everywhere is enabling back customer vision, giving customers the opportunity to time delayed their television watching, what it on demand, started in the living room, and it in the bedroom. watch it on their tablet or on their smartphone or on their big screen television. in the broadest sense, that is television everywhere. if you narrow to be everywhere and you referred to the time warner/comcast announcements about a business model for television viewing, this is about taking the contents that customers paid for once in their

cable subscriptions or their google fibered subscriptions. giving people the opportunity to take that television that they're already paying for and to watch it everywhere they want to watch it and on any device without having to pay more for it. if you are already paying for your hbo subscription, you can watch hbo program live on your television. you can watch it on demand. you can watch it on the application. you can watch it on hbo go. you can watch on the programmer site for the distributor site. all you need to do is prove you are a comcast customers and to get access to your content and all those devices. we thought at the time we made the announcement that this would be incredibly attractive to

customers. with the olympics, we demonstrated that this is incredibly attractive. the amount of viewing that took place on multiple platforms of olympic content was absolutely unprecedented. literally millions of additional people authenticated their presence in order to watch olympic content as a result of the attractiveness of the content. i think had developed a very customer friendly and a very programmer friendly model to enable customers to take full advantage of the programming they like the most. >> does that threaten your business model? >> it does not. the beauty is that it is fully respectful of the business model. it covers a lot of ground for comcast. if you say does it threaten the

content business model, which is a very important part of our business, it the answer is no. once our nbc/universal customers are paying for the content, a get some access to that content on multiple platforms. -- it gives them access to the content on multiple platforms. protect us from piracy and that of content and protect us from unpaid dues. on the district use inside, it is also appropriate for our business model. you have to be a cable subscriber in order to authenticate yourself and see the content, whether it is on the application website, but nbc.com, all the content requires authentication.

this is not disruptive to the overall cable television model infrastructure. it is a way to ensure that the content that will continue to be significant revenue stream to pay for the content to produce what people want to watch. >> what can be destructive would be services like netflix or roku at the time there's talk of the doj looking on to on-line providers. is there much more there? >> roku is just a device that enables you to view internet content on your television. it is not a competitor at all. it is a facilitator of

alternative services. if you take netflix, we could talk about any number of these. generally speaking, both reed hastings and brian roberts and others in the cable industry have said they do not view netflix as being competitive with the cable distribution model. they viewed as being complementary. almost all of the netflix content is library content. it is content you might have watched at 1.3 or cable or satellite project at one point or through your cable or satellite subscription -- have watched at 1.3 or cable or satellite subscription. if you are a law and order fan, you have lots of law and order special victim library content on netflix. if you want to watch the current

season of law and order, you have to watch it on your television with a comes on. or have to watch it on demand where we will have the last four or five shows and you had available. you not be able to watch that on netflix. in a way, i do think they are complementary. if people like law and order, that they might want to watch the old shows on netflix but they will want to watch the news shows on nbc. if the what the new shows, it might remind them of that to go back and look at some of the older shows. i am not reed hastings. he would tell you the exact same thing. the other side of that is of everyone needs to remember that in order for netflix to work you need a broad bank connection. we are not your mother's cable company.

we now did not just send a guide to your house and running wire through the wall. we are in the broadband business just as much as we are in the video business. our view is that our broadband innovation has been able multiple innovative businesses, industries, and product offerings to develop starting with google and amazon and ebay. sphinx for netflix will be the first person to tell you -- netflix would be the first person to tell you they cannot work without high-speed data connections. even if you want to what netflix, you have to watch it over our connection. it is the second ladies are complementary businesses and products cannot really competitive. is with thennect xbox live which goes on your

private network versus the public internet. is that something? >> if you read the plain english of the open internet order, and the x box service is not a managed service. there's no disagreement between netflix or comcast in the treatment of the services. it is just that the opponent of the way in which we're treating video on demand to use their your x box, comcast video-on- demand -- use 3 or >> box is explicitly authorize. it is not being covered. these are not services over the internet. they are on our private managed network. it is very clear in the negotiations and from the language of the open internet order itself but what we're doing is wholly inappropriate. i would also note comcast does

not have a cap any more. we have a data usage threshold. in most of our markets we have nothing. we are trying some consumption based areas. reed hastings has said that it does level -- at that level it would have no impact on netflix anyway. this is more a tempest in a teapot. it is not reflective of the careful negotiations that went on in connection with the open internet order and the language of the open internet order. >> we are out of time. thank you both. hopefully it is before three years bef