get regulations written that make it impossible for anyone to ever challenge them. and that is why regulations are that is why will we are still the most innovative nation on earth, every single year we have lost some of our vendors. there is one more thing i want to point out. in the 21st century millions of our best paying jobs will depend on access to markets abroad. and that is why foreign policy comes in. it is not that we desire to tell people what to do and their country. all the world benefits and so do we economically when people are living in stable countries that can afford to buy the stuff we build. that is why we cannot allow any hegemonic power to arise in any region of the world that we have to ask permission from before we do business with some country. that is why we cannot allow any country like china is trying to do, to land at the ocean belongs to them.

if you want to defeat the likelihood that your military will have to go to war, make it a military that will never lose any more. [applause] and the 21st century work will be about skills. when my parents came here, they had no skills. they had the equivalent of fourth grade, maybe six grade for my mother. that they lived in a country where despite not having advanced education, you could make it to the middle class. that is increasingly difficult. you know that. it is increasingly difficult to find a middle income job without

advanced education. and we in this country have a higher education system that is not of this century, but the last. why are we not graduating kids from high school certified as welders and electricians and bmw mechanics? [applause] why do we have a one-size-fits-all higher education system where unless you are a 19 the-year-old high school graduate who can go to school full-time, it's really difficult to get the skills you need? why are we making it difficult for the mother i talked about, someone i actually know, who as a receptionist at a medical clinic? her boss was heard to stay until 7:00, because she can't. after school care closes at 6:00. the only way she can make enough money is to study to become a paralegal or an ultrasound technician.

why do we not have an education that allows her to acquire the skills she needs so she can go from making $30,000 a year to making $80,000 a year? so she can have the american dream and so can our children? but education is a monopoly, controlled through a handful of institutions the recertification process. meanwhile there is no competition, no innovation. the price keeps going up, and so do student loans. and by the way, the number of college graduates who are graduating with degrees that do not lead to jobs is astronomical and unacceptable. and the current administration wants to double down on that outdated system of the past. we cannot continue to do that. the second danger to the american dream is the cost of living. there are two aspects i want to focus on.

we had a health insurance problem in america and we have it worse than today. we had 70% of americans who had health insurance from their employer who were generally pleased with it. what the administration did was set up something that disrupted health insurance for everyone. as a result, people have lost their jobs. people have lost hours at their jobs. people have lost access to their doctors. people have lost access to their facilities. they were taken from the insurance plan that they liked and thrown onto a new plan with a higher deductible and a higher pavement. there are companies that refuse to hire people because they do not know what it will mean for them. this is the reality for obamacare and the different

between obamacare now and three years ago is it is not something that people are reading about in the newspaper. it is happening to them. i predict it will happen in the state. [applause] the other is the cost of education, of higher education. it is unbelievable how much loan debt our students are now getting when they leave school. when i went to the u.s. senate, i owed over $100,000 in student loans. i was able to pay that off with a book that some of you have. it is available in paperback. [applause] that was a real struggle for us. early in my marriage, my loan payments were the single vaguest expenditure of my personal budget. more than my mortgage, more than anything else.

there are people in america who have loans like that, but they cannot find a job. so, they will be forced into bankruptcy or be unable to buy a home and start their lives. so, we have to address it. before any student takes out a loan, the school they're going to should be required to tell them, this is how much money people make with this degree from our school. so you will know whether it is worth taking out $30,000, so you can make an informed decision about borrowing $30,000 for a job that pays $20,000. the market for philosophers is very tight. [laughter] the cost of living is critical as well. the truth is, our wages have not kept pace with the cost of living in america. the solution to that is not more government. it is robust economic growth

that creates not just new jobs, but better paying jobs. 40% of the new jobs created under the obama presidency a less than $16 an hour. you cannot build a middle class like that. we need higher paying jobs to empower people with the skills they need so they can savor a garment, send the children to college and retire with dignity and security. here is the last point. that is the importance of our values. let me tell you why. you can't have a strong country without strong people. and you can't have strong people without strong values. the values of hard work and is a blend and self-control and respect for others. it doesn't matter how many diplomas you have on the wall. without values, you cannot succeed. and no one is born with those values. no one. every person in this room that has those values has those values because they were taught. they were taught either parents

in word and indeed. you saw the way they live their lives. the father who got up at 4:30 a.m. every morning to go to work. those values are learned and they are taught within the family. that is why family is the single most important position in all of society. [applause] but when family breaks down, there is a wealth of catastrophe. i don't care if you come from the left or from the right. no one can deny and no one does deny that the single greatest cause of poverty in america is the breakdown of the american family. [applause]

so, you may ask, what can we do about it? i think there are three things we can do about it. here are three things we can do. first, leaders in both parties need to talk about this reality. we spend a lot of time reminding people that smoking causes cancer and obesity causes diabetes. we should also spend some time reminding people that family breakdown causes poverty. [applause] the second is, we should not have any law or policy that undermines family life, and we do. our tax code punishes family life. in many instances, it punishes marriage. do you realize if you are on medicaid and you get married to the father or mother of your children, you could lose your medicaid coverage? we should not have any policies to discourage marriage or family formulation. and we need to empower parenting in america. that means having a tax code

that establishes families, but allowing parents to have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. [applause] giving parents the right to speak out about their children's education at a meeting without being arrested. [cheers and applause] by the way, i want you to think about this for a moment. this is fundamentally true. the only parents in america that do not have school choice, the only people in america who cannot choose where their children go to school are poor parents. go back to the example i gave you a few moments ago. that single mother. if she had the opportunity to send her children to any school she chose, maybe she could find a school where aftercare was

open until 7:00? maybe she could find a school that provided a better learning environment? maybe a school that reinforced the values she wants to instill in her children? instead of being forced to send them to a failing school because the government tells her she has to. we have to be advocates for school choice -- even in the democratic party. but school choice and empowering parents is critical to restoring family life in america. i just want to close -- i guess saying something that i find to be obvious. but the fundamental question before all of you in the elections in the state, the elections of the future, the elections in florida, is not

simply what party will be in charge. that is important. but that is not the central question. the central question we are being asked is the question every generation of americans has been asked. every generation before has been asked to you what america to be a special country or an ordinary one? every generation before us was asked that question and every single one of them chose something special. we are reminded of the generation that answered firmly -- we do not just one america to be special. we want to world to be free. and we are honored by having you here tonight. [applause]

[applause] this generation had to answer that question. the challenges they faced was extraordinary. their parents did not want their children to go to war anymore then we would want them to go to war. they did not want to go to war a more than we would. now we are being asked to answer the same question and i would venture to tell you the challenge that we have is not

nearly as difficult as the one they had to answer. and that is to maintain america as special and unique, one that is on like any in human history. often when i say that to people about how special america is, every now and then someone will roll their eyes and say, that thing about america being exceptional, that is something we tell each other to make ourselves feel good. that is not really true. at america is a rich and powerful country. there have been others before and there will be others cents. i guess that is the right to believe that. you see, neither one of my parents had the opportunity to do what i was able to do. my father worked for 70 years. i have a nine-year-old son. it is hard for me to imagine him working. that was what he did. my mother was raised in a rural setting i have father who had

been disabled by polio when you was a young child. they were born into a country they loved, but into a society where your future was determined by your cast. whatever your parents did for a living, that was probably what you were going to do. it is hard for us, you and i, warned in this country where we have known anything else to imagine that and it's easy to take for granted what we have here. i was raised by people who knew how special it was. by people who made it the purpose of their lives to ensure all of the things that had become possible for them would be possible for us. my parents did not just what is to have dreams. they demanded it. they insisted upon it. they let us know from a very young age that we had a privilege that few people who have ever lived have ever had. and that is a privilege unknown

to any other nation in human history. that became the purpose of their lives. every time i speak at events like this and i see a bartender standing behind a rollaway bar, i am reminded of my father. because that is what he did for a living. so one day his children could be sitting at one of these tables or even standing at a podium like this. [applause] it gave purpose to their lives. it gave meaning to their days. nearly and of my campaign, it was also near the end of my fathers life. he passed away in september of the same year i was elected. he had become sick with cancer and was near the end of his life one primary day came around.

i did not have a highly competitive primary. the individual i was running against had become an independent. he eventually became a democrat. [laughter] former governor crist by the way announced a few days ago that he would be traveling to cuba, so he may have one more party change in him. anyway, i did not have a competitive primary. my dad was very sick at this point. he was basically bedridden. but he knew i was going to win and he was proud of me. but he really couldn't get around anymore. on the night of the election, during the day, i went by my parents', and my nephew answered the door. he had a big smile.

i said, what are you smiling about? why father had not been out of bed for months. he said, come in, and see for yourself. i saw my dad fully dressed in his wheelchair. he was ready to go. for the first time in months, he was dressed and ready to go to his son's victory party. he wanted to be there because he was proud of his son, but it was so much more than that. nice like that was affirmation that he mattered. that is life had meaning and purpose. there were days he did not feel like going to work. my dad worked until he was 70. i know there were nights when he did not feel like going to work. i know there were times when he was discouraged. i remember when my family moved to las vegas. he could not find a job in miami beach. someone who had been a bartender for years had to start over as a

bar boy working for 19-year-old bartenders. life was not always easy. but they kept moving forward. i know when they were my age or younger, they had dreams. they wanted to do things. but those dreams became impossible for them and the very purpose of their life became that that day would never come for us, that whatever we wanted to be, we could achieve. but i think that nights and nights like that were an affirmation that they mattered. that their lives have purpose. that they had something they were leaving behind that had true meaning. that their sacrifice was not in vain. that is a testament to my father and it is a testament to your parents, but it is also a testament to america. i recognize fully that there are not but a handful of nations where that story would even be possible. and in the end, what we are called to do while i serve and public offices to preserve that.

i think being the kind of country is worth fighting for. i think being that kind of country is something we can unite our people around. i think we have a country that is crying out to be unified behind an agenda for the future. and to me that agenda is very clear. we want to remain special. [applause] we want to leave our children a country where the son of a bartender can be anything that he wants to be. this is the kind of country we want to fight for. this is the kind of country we want to leave behind. our country needs a political movement that makes it the central cause of their existence. that is where we come in as republicans. the other side says they believe

in the american dream, and i don't doubt that they do, but the true american dream is not what government can do for us, do what we can do for ourselves and for our nation together. [applause] and that is our mission to embrace the opportunities of the 21st century. so we can leave our children the single greatest nation in all of mankind. thank you for having me. [applause] >> here is a look at some of our live coverage tomorrow. 8830 a.m. eastern, the u.s.

chamber of commerce will host a discussion on the state of u.s. and the structure and its ties to the economy. that is on c-span 2. c-span, a discussion on state expansion of medicaid under the health care law. that is live at 12:15 p.m. eastern. >> each issue should be handled differently, but i have a general philosophy. economics is my guiding principle. from that comes four factors. as the commission have authority to act on particular issue? consumers?rm to is the solution tailored to the particular problem we are addressing? even with all of those three

elements, do the benefits of regulation outweigh the cost? that is how i'm approaching each issue individually. you tend to take each issue as they come before you with my overall philosophy. >> new fcc commissioner michael o'reilly monday at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. you can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime . there is a schedule of each of our network so you can tune in when you want, play podcasts of .ifferent shows take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, android, or blackberry. week, davidhis

mckinley came to the house floor to thank mothers in advance of mother's day. he also spoke about the holiday's history. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor our mothers across america. mothers play an incredible role in our lives. we've all seen the sacrifices they have made to raise their children and the care and devotion that they dedicate to them. we know their commitment. mothers have been our greatest advocates. when we were young, they cared for us when we were sick, supported us in our pursuits, lifted us up when we fell down and read to us at night. they held our hand when we needed them. mothers work eight to 10 hours a day in the work force. then they come home, they do

the cooking, the laundry, help with the home work and then get up the next day and do it all over again. so when was the last time we actually took a moment to say thank you? thanks for our mothers and grandmothers. take enough time to say, thanks, mom. there is one person who did in a very special way. see, a young lady born in 1864 in a small coal town in west virginia. her mother helped save thousands of lives on both sides of the conflict. when she passed away in 1902, this young lady, anna jarvis, wanted to celebrate her mother's life and came up with the idea of a national honor for mothers. mother's day.

consequently in 1908, anna jarvis organized the very first official mother's day celebration which took place in andrew's episcopal church in graphton, west virginia. but anna wanted more team to honor mothers. she worked with the department store in philadelphia and soon thousands of people started attending mother's day events all in retail stores all across america. ollowing these successes, anna added this to the national calendar. she said they are bias toward male achievements and the accomplishments of mothers deserve a day of appreciation. anna jarvis started the letter writing campaign to newspapers and politicians urging to have this special day. many towns, churches, adopted mother's day as an annual event. her persistence paid off. in 1914 president woodrow

wilson signed a measure officially recognizing the second sunday in may as mother's day. anna jarvis never married or had children of her own but she dedicated her life to establishing a day to honor her mother and all mothers across america. this sunday we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of mother's day. this holiday is just a small way to show our gratitude to our mothers and grandmothers. this sunday we can stop for a moment to simply say thank you when e when they're gone, our mothers are gone that loss reaches into all our hearts. it touches each of us. no longer will we hear the sound of their voice, the touch of their hand, their warm embrace. it causes a huge loss in all of our lives. we should pause this one day to

say thank you to our mothers who love us in spite of ourselves. so mr. speaker, i ask that this mother's day we honor the dedication of anna jarvis, her vision, her dedication as well as all >> on this mother's day, some clips from our c-span video library. >> and he came home for christmas, the day after christmas, he came in the kitchen where i was and said mother, would you mind if i invited a girl to visit? i said, i would be delighted. give me her telephone number. when do you want her to come? he said, today. [laughter] we have had tipper ever since. they both went to boston to

school and they married the day after she was graduated. out to be thened very best campaigner of all of us. >> the phone rang and a friend of ours named hank miller said, two planes were shot down and we did not see any injections. -- injections. we decided we would not say one word at this dinner and we did go to dinner. when we came home, the chief of naval operations called and said , we are sure he is gone. i was taking care of my daughter's three children and i went out to a country house that he is a prisoner of war. it depends on where you are standing, how things affect you.

>> i realize that >> he had gone from hot springs as a delegate to washington. he had his picture made with john kennedy, shaking hands, and i will never forget the expression on his face when he came back and showed me the picture. i said right then, in my minds , it will be government. that will be his career in some form. of course, i had no idea it would be running for the presidency or anything like that. >> all this baloney about george competing with his father is just ridiculous. they are devoted to each other, and there was never any competition. my george is putty in their

hands, i must confess. i think they feel loved. i have a legacy, other than being the enforcer, that i raisede along with george a great family. the national cable and telecommunications association recently hosted a 2014 cable show in los angeles. the annual event brings together executives and other leaders in cable to talk about technology and other issues relevant to the industry. next, discussion about the challenges facing cable, including competition from digital providers like netflix and amazon, and the need for more affordable programming for consumers. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you to the and cta -- ncta for having a moderate and

host this wonderful panel. i'm so excited to be talking with all of you. interviewed,i've and some others, i've wanted to interview. let's get started. the most important personal question i have is for rob marcus, which is, after the deal gets done, what are you going to do? >> you are always taking me on, betty. [laughter] i have been asked that question a lot over the course of the last couple of months, and i've said the same thing to everybody. it is way too early for me to start planning for the -- for the next chapter. i have a lot of work to do running time warner cable between now and the closing. we will see. >> rob and i are neighbors in new jersey. i promise you it was not me stalking you outside during this whole thing could first off -- this whole thing. first off, i don't pick on robert. i have talked to rob about consolidation in the industry

many times. time warner cable and comcast, we heard comcast is going to be 4 million about customers to charter. >> we prefer "divest." [laughter] >> the question is, jerry, are you a buyer or a seller? >> you don't west -- waste any time, do you? tell me what the prices, and i will tell you if i'm a buyer or a seller. [laughter] >> are you looking, are you actively looking? >> we are always looking for acquisitions that are strategic and add value to the company. it is a unique time in the business. there is a lot of consolidation. there is a lot of geometric changes in technology that are causing some shifts. interest rates are relatively low. it is a great time to buy. look. continuing to >> outside of just looking at

consolidation, in my view, correct me if i'm wrong, aren't the big threats really coming from down the pipe with google, with amazon, with netflix? those are the big threats right now. >> well, there are several threats to the business. one is we have a cost structure, programming costs growing at double-digit rates per customer, and that is not sustainable. as you suggest, there is emerging competition from a number of companies that seem intent on getting into this crazy business. as i mentioned, there is a significant geometric change in new technology. those are the three risks we are trying to navigate through. >> betty, this very video-centric view of the world that causes people to think of over-the-top providers exclusively as threats -- i have viewewhat counterintuitive

of that in that clearly, over-the-top video is one of the things that highlights the value of the high-speed data connections that time warner cable and other cable providers offer our customers. so, the speeds, the robustness of our hsd offering is made special by the fact that there is creative people delivering that content over the pipes. on the video side, there is the potential for competition, which is not bad. it drives us to be better than we were, but there is more that makes our offering more value. >> i would echo that. clearly, social and video platforms are competing for eyeballs, advertising dollars, but we have a better product than they do, and when you hear yahoo! announced they want to commission a comedy series, they want to get into our business. yes, they are competitive, but shame on us if we do not affect

our turf and work together to sell the value because we have a better product with more value that is cheaper on a per hour basis with those companies and we are allowing them, in some ways, to accept the tone of the -- set the tone of the conversation. we should be setting the tone. we have the better project. >> it is easy for you to say that. you have a great job. you program sports, second of all, live sports. you are sitting pretty these days. >> i appreciate that. i do find that many people would like to have my job, and almost all of those people are willing to tell me what i could be doing better as well. [laughter] there is no question we sit in a certain catbird seat. live sports is ascendant, and it is the most powerful form of programming on the planet. again, it is part of what we all do together.

i make the same point. we need to be selling that. we have tried to use that to buttress the underlying power of this product to compete against those companies, and i think we need to continue to do that. >> even beyond line -- live sport, if you are in programmatic services, and nancy is in, and turner, the explosion of speed is dramatically increasing distribution. for cost -- companies like us, it is fantastic. i think it will explode demand, and it will provide us opportunities to get products and services to more people in more ways, in ways that they want to consume them, which we think will cement the value proposition -- >> of content. >> yeah. we do have a great offering today.

i think all of the companies here are in incumbent skill positions to exploit those opportunities, and i think it is great for consumers. i think they are the ones that will win in all of this. >> one senior media executive had said to me one time, and i am quoting him because i do not want to offend anyone on this panel, but he said "look, netflix is a perfect poster child of the failure of the cable industry to innovate." what do you say to that? >> i am highly skeptical of that comment. i am not sure that i get it. the fact that someone cap with an interesting technique of aggregating and reselling other people's content over the cable infrastructure is in no way, in my opinion, a failure of the cable industry. >> you are seeing consumers use both. that is missing here. we would all like to be in a

business where we do not have to report our numbers, two, so you are dealing with a netflix and amazon that is not sharing their viewership. anecdotally, there is a lot you are hearing a lot less about "house of cards" season two than season one. how do you work to renegotiate future seasons if nobody has metrics to base anything on? >> when you have a sony, to you and say look at our platform, look at what we can do with your content, what do you say? >> everyone has heard the pitch. they probably saw it last year at the cable show. it is a beautiful-looking platform. i do wish that our cable partners would take a closer look at how do we make the consumer experience better and better. that is where the partnership between, i think, the programmers and the operators, needs to be solidified.

let's get out of the way of the negotiations, and in front of, you know, putting the consumer first, and putting the experience first, or a lot of competitors and technology companies will pass us by. >> can i take a different view? i do not know who mentioned that about netflix as a failure of the cable industry. >> are you trying to get me to name names? >> i am the gray hair on the panel, literally and figuratively, and what i remember is netflix would not even exist if it were not for the cable industry that developed the dialogue internet -- dial-up internet to the cable system with the fastest speed than most capacity. so, there are a lot of companies that are in existence simply because we as an industry spent a lot of time in capital building the internet is this. >> they are actually existing on the infrastructure that you built, and on the content that we produce.

it is ok. competition is not a bad thing. we have to do is respond, and figure out ways to innovate. i agree with nancy. one of the things we're doing that is important is figure out how to make authenticated television work, and allow people to get their content on every device in an easy mechanism because we could compete there. we have superior content. we have to have superior delivery systems to distribute that material. >> i have to amplify that one point -- if there is a call to action in this convention or gathering, i think it is this -- for programmers and should bidders to work together to continually improve the consumer experience -- consumers to work together to continually improve the consumer expense. authentic content is a barrier to usage, and if you polled the majority of the people sitting in the audience, and asked them what is the username and password given to them by the

platform provider, the overwhelming majority of you all in the industry probably do not know -- i have three homes with three cable providers and i do not know anywhere -- any of them, so i do not have television everywhere because i cannot figure out how to use it. we have to make it easy, consistent, and the idea of dramatically improving the availability and robustness of video-on-demand is the single biggest opportunity that we, together, can create, which would create value for the district understand the andor the distributors programmers. >> the consumers wanted. -- want it. in one short year of our tv everywhere app being offered, they have been downloaded more than 11 million times, but the authentication is not great, and that means it is too difficult to do. >> for the 2010 world cup, one out of every three hours of viewing was on a device outside of additional television. that was 2010.

we are getting ready to the world cup in june, and my guess is it will be north of that. >> what is the biggest challenge for you, john, when you see that? >> the biggest challenges i to committed by john martin here, we need an easier process of authentication. the people in silicon valley, they do this by simplification. once they have something, they can sniff it out and deliver you the content. >> i could give you that have glass full perspective, for our part we are making great strides with our app, available on a platforms, and the most recently we announced on fantv. it is on android, samsung smart tvs. the video offering is available everywhere. usage has been impressive and growing quickly. i agree that the process of authentication used to be easier, but the early returns are quite good when you think about the fact that this way of

viewing video did not even exist several years ago. the fact that last month we had one million unique users accessing our video product via something other than a set top box is significant. >> rob, when you hear the programmers say there is more than just authentication as an issue, but let's say you take that one issue as a cable industry. the operators are working on that, and as john martin says, working together, but you have silicon valley and the tech companies figuring out in that time, in the space of a few months, they are able to figure out -- >> yes, but without content, the tech companies are just building platforms. they can build away -- >> most tech companies are creating content too, now. >> we like the dual model, a dual revenue stream, and do not

want to go away. >> by the way, it is not either/or. i do the opportunity to collaborate with that tech companies as being part of the openness that time warner has demonstrated had the factor we are making video available on devices and unit -- user interfaces that we do not control is something that gives customers more choice. i think setting up this content providers versus cable providers is a false split. >> it is all about provide a better customer experience. look, our customers are going to go to a netflix and two others, and we want to make it easy for our customers because we want to be the provider of choice because as rob indicated, the more and more content that you view online, the more you're

going to want to come to the cable, high-speed service, because it is the best out there. >> so, john skipper, when a line -- when are you going to stop gouging rob and jerry. >> doubting them? >> gouging. >> i do not doubt the more gouge -- doubt them or gouge them. at espn, the job is to create value and work with distributors to sell their products in the market, and there's no question we created the product with the most value, and it is the most expensive product in the market to create and to sell, and nobody doubts it. every year they do a survey of what is the most valuable network, and it is always espn. we worked very hard with our partners, with you guys to create value. we were the first in the market with authentication. we were the first in the market with an hd channel. we were the first in the market with a 3-d channel. we are open for business to do things that create value, and i do not think there is any doubt that in this market that the

single greatest buttresser of the pay process is espn. i hear this a lot. i am respectful of you asking the question, but we need to be working together because we are providing something of great value that people want. there is another canard in the market, the notion that only a few people are watching sports and other people are paying for product they do not watch. 150 million people consume espn every week. 86% of people do consume espn in a quarter. it is not the case, no matter how may times barry diller says it, that a few people are watching sports and a bunch of grandmothers are paying for it. it is not the case. >> my mother loves it. there's a grandmother in a house that watches lots of espn. >> i do not know many people that do not have someone in the household not watching espn.

is a nice rhetorical device, but not a fact. >> your predecessor has been vocal about the fact that programming costs are getting out of hand. >> there is no question where a model where your cost of goods sold is growing at a rate that exceeds that the market will bear at retail is problematic for the sustainability of our overall ecosystem. john has his own problem. when he goes to negotiate with teams and leagues and conferences about the next round of licensing deals, he has costs that are also accelerating. so, there is a fundamental problem in the ecosystem. at the end of the day, we have to figure out a business model where our willingness to pay for these elements of content, whether it is john or a distributor, are more responsive to what customers are actually willing to pay. you have a disconnect now which is that for the most part john is not going directly to end-user customers, so he does not have the feedback loop to guide what he is willing to pay for product.

we are stuck in the middle. that is a problematic element of the model. we have to figure out how we introduce a greater degree of flexibility that gives us more consumer feedback, that ultimately drives cost profit. >> our products are sold at the same rate, so we are making discrete choices about how to make investments to make our network-branded environment as valuable as possible to each industry bidders as well as consumers. >> i do not want to be cavalier, but rob is right. there is pressure on prices. it is a $70 billion business, and we are making money, but since all of us have pressure to grow, we're not going to all grow and make more money, unless we can figure out a way, which is why i was advocating we have to sell the pay-tv sub because if you have a stagnant market, we will have pressure, and we will find we are discussing who is getting a larger or smaller share. there was not this discussion

when there was a growing pie, going from 70 million households with pay-tv, 280 million, two 90 million. we have to find a way to grow the pie. >> we are always following the trap of focusing on this are cost problem, which is a real one, but it is a list -- important to all of us to tout the value that we deliver to the customer every day. it depends on the calculation, but it is not unreasonable to assume that roughly -- that we essentially charge customers $.20 an hour of video viewing. that is a staggeringly good value by any measure, and sometimes -- >> you said $.20 an hour. >> $.20 a viewing hour, which i think is well worth the price of admission, and very often in the context of these conversations, what we do have to grapple with a programming cost issue, we loose track of the fact that we are still delivering tremendous value.

>> are consumers at a breaking point? >> there are some segments of the population where affordability is a real issue. >> yes. >> we have to figure out ways to design products that accommodate the more budget-conscious customers. we have light video, light hd products that are designed to not necessarily deliver all of the capabilities of the full products, but that meet certain customers budgetary needs, and it is essential that we be able to do that. >> i am concerned that we're going to reach a tipping point where we are going to start pricing some households, ethically those with distressed household incomes, out of the market -- particularly those with distressed household incomes out of the market. we need to have the flexibility, working with program partners, to be able to offer less expensive tiers. >> à la carte pricing?

>> not necessarily à la carte, because i do not know how you do that. and what they say here are 300 channels, go through each one and tell me if you want it or not? but more affordable types of packages what people have more choice rather than putting everything in an expanded basic bundle. unless we do that, one of three things is going to happen. cable operators are going to have to continue to raise prices, which is not consumer-friendly. the government is going to get involved, like they are in canada. they are starting to take steps to doing mandated à la carte. or, operators are going to have to make tough decisions about what programmers i am going to carry, and which ones am i not going to carry. >> some consumers are given à la carte already through netflix, hulu, amazon -- it might not be à la carte in the way we thought it could arrive, but the customers have choice, and they are still overwhelmingly choosing cable. >> because they want to watch espn. [laughter] or the history channel, or cnn, or tbs, but i hear a lot of talk

about it -- what would create the action with the entire industry starts to trend that way? >> as some operators this -- discovered they will not carry certain programmers because it is too expensive, or we continue to see prices rise and some people start disconnecting from cable altogether. that will put a lot of pressure on all of us if we hit that point. >> speaking about programs and content, i want to ask programmers, clearly, you are looking for the big hit shows. you're looking for the next big "duck dynasty," right, or the next big show on cnn. how do you find that? is it getting harder to find that? >> absolutely. the demand for content has never been greater, and the competition for creative talent has never been greater.

it is probably the most commonly asked question in the turner group, and certainly in the a&e group. there is not a single machine. it is a taste-driven, instinctual art of the business. i think it is about having impeccable relationships with ip creators, show runners, directors, writers, and we spent a lot of time in our company focused on that, and we get it wrong a lot, but we get it right more. those are the odds that we are playing. i worry a lot about where the next generation of creators is going to come from. >> why? >> i look around and i see a lot of smaller production companies selling for astronomical prices, and people cashing out, and the next crop of creators is opting to go to youtube, opting to go

to vice, different avenues. how do we attract them to our platforms and our storytelling, and our systems? i worry a lot about that. >> as do we. i think we have an advantage position in that ecosystem, though, because it really is about brands and scale. i think in order to stay relevant, we are going to need to try to find those taste-makers, or those individual voices that are not being exploited on television today, and for us at turner, we spend almost $4 billion a year on programming costs, so, it feels like we are in a good position to be able to not be able to be outspent by competitive forces, but we have to be able to have those outstanding relationships with the creative community, which

you need to consummate cultivate and turnover. i think it is an amazing development in television that the number one show on television is on cable. >> the number one, and the number two, maybe. >> we are talking about -- >> "walking dead." >> "walking dead," ok. >> at the number of years ago, people would have said that is structurally impossible. if you can find that good of the voice, you can see that cable is as strong a vehicle as any to which the consumer. i would look to see over the next five years any remaining distinction between broadcast and cable annihilated, blown up, it is irrelevant. we have some of the most profitable television networks in the world. we want to be in the market with the very best projects and we want the best people working for us, so -- >> it is getting harder. there is an arms race for programming, and there is more outlets for people to express individuality. >> all right, well, i wish we had more time, but we have to wrap up.

thank you much to a great group of panelists, and a great discussion. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal," david hawking's looks at the history of congressional select committees. health policy reporter louise radnofsky explores the following uninsured rate in the u.s. also, pay and benefits for active military personnel. we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here is a look at some of our live coverage tomorrow. at 8:30 in the morning, the u.s. chamber of commerce will host a discussion on the state of u.s. infrastructure and its ties to

the economy. it will be on our companion network c-span 2. a little later and the day on c-span, discussion on state expansion of medicaid under the health care law. the alliance for health reform hosted the event. that is why the 12:15 eastern. 12:15 eastern. >> this issue should be handled differently, but i have a debt -- a different philosophy. it starts with the basic premise i approach everything, which is economic freedom. it is my guiding principle. --m that comes four factors does the commission have authority to act on an issue? two, is there harm to consumers and a solution where we can actually remedy any harm that has been brought forward? three, is the solution tailored to the particular problem that we are addressing and that we not regulate by analogy? forthcoming even with those

three -- forthcoming even with those three, -- you do tend to take each issue as it comes before you. >> new fcc commissioner michael o'reilly monday on "the communicators" at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. . "q&a" withon c-span, evan osnos discussing his latest

book on chinese culture and society. after that, prime ministers questions at the british house of commons. a discussion about regulating large financial institutions and the 2010 dodd-frank act. ♪ >> this week on "q&a," our guest is journalist and author evan osnos who discusses his new book, "age of ambition: chasing fortune, truth, and faith in the new china." >> evan osnos, in your new book, under the acknowledgments you start off by saying, none of my grandparents lived to see this book but they are responsible for its inception. my grandparents on my father car side came from poland.