the country. it is much worse than the taliban. the taliban is deeply entrenched. down the up five years road in a new civil war in d you have safe havens for the taliban and isis, i would say -- >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q&a." >> you are watching "the communicators" on c-span. marave been talking with c tayer. we have talked about the 25 years television has been in place, its development. we just started our conversation last week on what is next, when it comes to watching video. let me start with a broad

question. how do we watch video today? well, first question is who is we. many of us -- and that is increasing every day -- are watching in a multiscreen world. that has been one of the more exciting outcomes of this whole digital revolution. he used to be that there was a stationary screen, and with hdtv it was a big screen, but with the internet and the wireless world extending things, now you have tablets and smartphones and wi-fi all over the place such that tv is not just a stationary, lean back experience in the living room, but it is a very mobile experience wherever you want to go. it is not just tv, it is also a video. those two terms have a lot of overlap. at the cable industry of the

satellite tv industry did something very interesting -- they became a lot more proactive over the years, tv everywhere. they were seeing that the internet was going to become a huge threat to their underlying business, and by the internet i mean the insurgents that are really fighting the incumbents for control and shaping the next generation of tv and video. that's google with youtube, facebook with instagram, twitter with vine, and netflix. so in response, but certainly proactively, the established media companies created this environment called tv everywhere. what that means is if you are a subscriber to cable or satellite, you pay on average $80 a month, instead of only being able to watch your content in your living room, you are

also for no additional charge able to watch it on your tablets or smartphones on the go. tv everywhere has been rolling out. most of the major content providers have their version of it. there are a couple issues with it, but overall it is going very well. meanwhile, you have these carteena like al la rolling out every day. the most confusing but the most exciting time ever for the media and tv business. chapter, theyour global tv video service market, you write, exceeded $220 billion in revenue in 2013. then you go through and list what you call the media kingpins. you have as number one comcast.

mr. tayer: yes. that wasn't necessarily in order, but in this case, at least in the u.s., you would have to list comcast at the top of the list. they still have the most subscribers, even though they were not successful in buying time warner cable. they were successful in acquiring nbc universal from ge in its entirety. first they bought 51% and then the remaining 49%. they are not only the biggest distributor of content in the u.s., but they are also one of the biggest content companies through nbc universal. they are also very adept with technology. they employ thousands of their own engineers, in addition to working with some of the best technology companies, like aeris. they bought motorola.

then aeris bought that unit from google -- so comcast not only developed its own technology but also worked with technology leaders. so you would certainly have to put comcast at their, but it is a very competitive market. people to realize how competitive it is, although you certainly have to wonder if there is sufficient competition, especially in high-speed internet area. mr. slen: you will list disney has immediate kingpin, especially with regard to sports. yes, disney is one of the sports giants. espn, which iswn

one of the big sports but they also own disney and all the associated channels, which are incredibly valuable. bob eiger has done an amazing job growing the entire disney business. mr. slen: what is the importance of sports to the cable industry, to the satellite industry, to the video industry? mr. tayer: sports is hugely important. not to everyone, though a lot of people highlight the channel bundling issue and the fact that they have to pay for espn even if they don't like sports or even if they don't watch espn as a reason that they don't want to continue with such a big package. but in the book, i have a chapter called "sports, the great divide."

for anyone that likes sports, it's perhaps the biggest reason why you wouldn't cut the cord with cable or satellite and just go solely to the internet. as i mentioned, there are five big media companies that have licensed the vast majority of the rights to sports events. sports, nflat these is probably at the top of the list. certainly financially they are at the top of the list. their annual revenues are roughly $10 billion, in the majority of that revenue comes from sports rights from four of the five companies i just mentioned. also getting billions of dollars areyear in sports tv rights the nba and major league baseball. in terms of every two years, the olympics is in the billions.

down the food chain a little bit but also very popular, in the hundreds of millions of revenue per year, are sports like golf and tennis and soccer, although outside the u.s., soccer is the most important. areasrts is one of the that is certainly growing on the internet, and if you look at mlb.tv, that is a very popular service that is completely over the internet. you stillst people, knee-jerk cable or satellite provider if you like to watch a lot of sports, especially live sports. mr. slen: 25 years ago when you were working on the rollout of digital tv, did anyone in your group have a concept of this tv everywhere, and all the different ways we could get video? mr. tayer: we had a big picture. we had a sense that we were at

the forefront of a tech tonic shift in the tet -- of a tectonic shift in the television business, but we did not anticipate television everywhere or smartphone where you could watch hd television on the go, innovations like companies from apple came much later. i use the metaphor that it felt like we were on a rocket, and we were quite sure where we were going to land. exciting, and it kept rolling out and it cap changing, and it was a lot of fun. mr. slen: just to go back a little bit, one of the people who cross your path that g.i. was donald rumsfeld. mr. tayer: yes, he was. that was another interesting phase of the roller coaster of corporate history -- g.i. and motorola.

thattory behind that was forstmann little, who was the leveraged private equity firm of the day, back in the late 1980's, to the leveraged buyout of general instruments. at the time, it didn't seem to make any sense that lbo companies with biotechnology typically, they like to buy companies with very reliable cash flows, and with a tech company you can get blindsided into oblivion by a breakthrough. but they bought us, and they then wanted to bring in their own ceo. when iher interesting -- interviewed mr. rumsfeld for my book, i wanted to do some fact checking with him. it wasssumed that republican party politics that

had to do with why he suddenly became the g.i. of general instruments, and he corrected me in his way and said, no, it was the opposite. force and little head of -- forstmann little had a very powerful advisory board, and on bob strauss had been the chairman of the democratic party, and they were quite friendly, and it was him who recommended they bring in donald rumsfeld on the forstmann advisory board. later when they wanted a ceo, he had previously been the ceo of merck, a pharmaceutical giant -- no, not merck. he also had quite a reputation as a ceo in the private sector, even though he had been the youngest secretary of defense before that.

he has this unique public and private sector background. he had been on the cover of "fortune" magazine, ranked the most feared boss in america. 1990, hesudden, in stepped in as our new ceo. mr. slen: and he had something to do with the first hdtv broadcast at the u.s. capitol, correct? mr. tayer: that's true. when we finished testing our digital hdtv prototype in the b indcaster's lavi d.c., we passed with flying colors and the word was getting out that digital worked. our competitors were going into those labs and they also were following us in developing digital systems, but we wanted to make a big splash.

donald rumsfeld lined up a situation where our engineers would do an over the air broadcast in d.c. to the u.s. where thereding, were quite a few senators and congressmen and fcc commissioner's waiting to see if this would really work, and what it meant for the country. it was a very patriotic moment. mr. slen: how to that test go? mr. tayer: it went flawlessly. they flipped the switch and it went from standard definition to high definition, and there was an american flag waving in the brilliant colors and high resolution of hdtv. i wasn't in the room at the time. i was back in san diego. but from everything i heard, a lot of jaws dropped, and they felt one of the biggest technology breakthroughs in decades had just been proven. mr. slen: in television areas, you talk about something that

has been ubiquitous in living rooms across the country for the last 25, 30, 40 years -- the set top box. what is the future of the set-top box? mr. slen: a lot of people like to criticize -- mr. tayer: a lot of people like to criticize it but without understanding its role. its role as nothing more than to bring the digital content into the home. t does sort of act as a proxy for the gatekeeper law of satellite-tv provide. whether it is a cable box or time warner box, it is a box near your tv that converts the signals. if you are a paying subscriber, it then displays them on your tv set. so that box is also very important because it

incorporates the security and encryption technology that protects that content. you mentioned a number earlier, that the global pay-tv business is almost a quarter trillion dollars annually. the majority of that revenue is actually in the u.s., about $150 billion annually. it is the security and encryption technology that really protect that content on behalf of virtually all the content providers from hbo and showtitime. now we have a whole new generation of boxes that are bringing in internet content, and those are roku boxes and apple tv boxes, and products like that. you even have smart tvs without boxes that can bring in content, but in many cases, there are

limitations if you don't have any box at all. mr. slen: with encryption and security, as a gotten tougher, with more and more use of the internet in delivering signals? mr. tayer: well, the internet has its own versions of security and encryption, more and software. -- more in software. but as long as were on the topic of encryption let's go back 25 years he cousin wanted to make a point about general instruments. we were really the first company outside the military that dealt with the nsa, because we were encrypting tv signals. at the time, we had a running joke that nsa stood for no such agency because no one was quite sure they existed at the time in the 1980's. but they used to come visit us in san diego, and our security

engineers of visit them in maryland, because they wanted to understand what we were dealing with respect to encryption, especially in terms of trying to export it, because at the time, all encryption was on the u.s. munitions list, as if it were a weapon, even though we were using it in consumer products. so that was just an interesting anecdote of early dealings with the nsa. of course now everyone knows they do, in fact, exist through the edward snowden scandal, incident. whatever you want to call it. back to your question about the internet -- it does have its own security. it is mostly and software. generally, hardware security is more secure, and that is what is grihe irs, who now owns the technology. cisco owns the scientific-atlanta. also have hardware

security. one of the things about the internet and on demand that makes it a little easier to deal with less hardware security environments is the move to an on-demand world of content. video, it isdemand a point-to-point video stream as opposed to a broadcast of one to many. it is really that broadcast, like the olympics of the super bowl, where you are broadcasting it to millions of homes. in this year's super bowl it was to 114 million people simultaneously, where you really need hardware security. mr. slen: from page 322 of your book, "the quid pro quo of the internet is consumers and present willingness to sacrifice

privacy and security for convenience and efficiency. even as we rage at the nsa's overzealous data collection and surveillance, under the cloak of protecting us from terrorism, we rarely blank when it comes to intrusion by the masters of the internet, their electronic wants following our every move, squeezing more money out of us." you've pulled out some pretty good tidbits there. yes, i think that is very much the case, that whether consumers realize it or not when they start to tap into the richness they are tonet, some extent and to a significant extent agreeing to give up privacy. google looking at their viewing habits or surfing habits in order to serve them better ads, and that is how

it can be justified, or many that mostly have to do with advertising and e-commerce optimization. tv orn people put a smart home, theyx in their aren't really thinking about it. now some of these boxes even have cameras. i think somewhere near that page, 300-whatever, i said the cameras in andnew product, hd cameras, that the living room is really the last bastion of privacy out there. about should think twice what they are putting out into the world in that upstream over the internet. that, i think

everyone has to make their own trade-off, and in most cases the internet and all the richness of it is worth the trade-off, as long as we are all cognizant of the privacy quid pro quo. mr. slen: are the apple tvs, the google tvs, compatible with comcast and the charters and the fios? mr. tayer: are they compatible? i'm not sure exactly what you mean by compatible. they do allow some of the same content, but let me put it this way because i think this gets into the cord cutting discussion carte content. for a consumer who doesn't care much about sports, and in particular for millennials, and also for people who don't really care about seeing the first viewing of a hot new tv series, cord cutting can make a

lot of sense. you can get a lot of that content now through the internet, through netflix, roku andulu, and it is apple tv that bring in the content. and but it is not really a wholesale substitute, and in that sense, maybe not compatible per se for one of the cable or satellite tv boxes, but it is compatible in the sense that the same subscriber, consumer household, can have these two side-by-side. you can have your satellite or cable box and watch espn live. you can also have your apple tv box or your roku box and watch netflix on your own schedule. and a sense, everything is getting better for the consumer and the consumer has the best of

both worlds, although if you want to be completely economical about it, you have to look at how you might cut the cord. but when it comes to a la carte, let's be careful because that could end up being more expensive. mr. slen: in your chapter called "through the electronic portals of our home" -- is it important to controls that pipe into the house, were with mobile does it not matter? mr. tayer: i think it is important. i think it is important that it's the consumer that controls what comes over his or her pipe ultimately. i think that is the philosophical ideal. what you mean is on the distribution side. who's controlling the internet pipe? what's important is that it is competitive, that it is fast,

that it is almost flawless for the consumer. but that gets into the whole network, net neutrality debate, where you really don't want anyone party controlling the bits coming over that pipe in distinction from the cable or satellite pipes, where it is thatvideo service provider has some control as a gatekeeper over what is coming over that pipe to their subscribers. mr. slen: so what is your opinion of the fcc's recently neutrality decision? mr. tayer: it was a very complicated debate and discussion. i think it is going to work out for everyone. i think the hyperbole on both sides got a little bit out of control. it became so politicized.

i think it is all going to work out, but i do feel that the fcc, to some extent, took the country's eyes off the ball. the most important issue is more competition and ongoing innovation for those broadband pipes. the truth is then that neutrality decision -- and i would like to explain about it -- was more preventative than punitive. powell, who michael had been the chairman of the sec in 2002 -- the fcc in 2002 really got it right. declassified internet broadband at that time as an information service, not a telecommunications service. of 1996unications act makes that important distinction.

the reason he classified it and the fcc classified it as an information service at the time was to be regulated, but to be more lightly regulated than the telephone monopoly, which was very tightly regulated. the reason for wanting to be a little less regulated was to encourage investment and innovation. so what's happened in that ng 13 years since it had been classified as an information service was the broadband service provider spoke over cable modems and dsl, than wireless, invested well over $100 billion in infrastructure, and so much innovation was we are benefiting from today resulted from that investment. it was a little bit of a bait and switch. and i don't mean that so much to

criticize today's fcc, because they do change hands, but to suddenly reclassify all of that as a telecommunications service and suddenly be tightly regulated seems a little bit like a bait and switch. the reason i say that is because we still need an a norma's amount of investment -- an enormous amount of investment. i don't think the people who are screaming about this will come true. that innovation will be slow down. it is all still happening. the reason for that is that the fores are so high, broadband innovation. we don't have the benefit in the u.s. or the situation that some other countries do

have with their government essentially subsidizing broadband infrastructure. in our country, private industry is really doing it on its own. 100 billion more dollars to be invested in our infrastructure. into u.s.t speed homes -- in some homes don't even have broadband internet -- we aren't there yet. we are still in the middle of a lot of innovations that are yet to occur. fortunately, we have a strong free-market country here, but i do worry a little bit about unknown consequences of the net neutrality debate. it is one thing for the current fcc and for tom wheeler to say he will use forbearance, which is legal jargon for restraint, 80-year-oldses that

regulation to impose on isps. so let's take them on his word for that. but what about the next sec and the one after that? is there a slippery slope or the regulation of the internet just comes prematurely, when it is still not that mature? mr. slen: and for the past half hour here on "the communicators," we have been talking with marc tayer, author of "televisionaries." mr. tayer, thank you for sharing your experience with us and our audience. mr. tayer: thanks very much, >> announcer: up next, newsmakers with the president of emily's list. then, we will hear from the presidential tendons who spoke

last week.ittee >> on the next washington journal, a new ap survey of economists that forecast weak economic growth for the next two years. with theonversation cato institute and roosevelt institute on wall street regulation and the recent volatility in the stock market. washington journal is every morning on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. mr. mcardle: on newsmakers this week, we are joined by stephanie schriock, of emily's group. and joining us to help us with the questions and studio we , are joined by matea gold of