. >> tell us about philo. >> well, philo, is a tv service that like i get access to really broad selection focused content, for a low price. >> how do you do that we know that people are cutting the cord they are finding their -- you know regular cable bills too expensive want to watch what they want to watch how are you rufrg this just $16? >> so the key to how we can get the price so low is that by cutting out the live sports, content that is largest portion of the typically cable bill, so we can bring price way down for folks who are less interested in sports, or they have another way to get it, and as for how you watch it you can watch on i think device you have on a computer, on a mobile phone, tv wherever you are, it works the same, on all the devices, anywhere. >> it is incredible what is happening in terms of viewing, isn't it? streaming, and how people are really dictateing the way they watch when they watch. tell us how you think this is going to change? in the next five years where is this going? >> yeah i think that -- if you look at how tv is evolving has been slow to embrace

another alternative for traditional tv, this one for cord cutters who don't want to pay for sports, philo launching a bundle for $16 a month, four $4 adds another nine channels. the folk is broadly entertainment, including comedy central, the food network, mtv and nickelodeon, but with no news or sports the channels are supplied by discovery communications, scripps networks interactive, viacom and a&e networks. those are also philo's backers, investing $25 million into the startups these media companies are looking to create a new revenue stream to battle rising cord cutting and cord shaving which was consumers switching from traditional tv to skinny bundles. viacom's channels are not included in hulu tv's bundle. those digital bundles are up against a different kind of free content from the social giants, facebook just yesterday announcing an original show starring bill murray about my knowledge -- about minor league baseball, free and ad-supported. all of these options are competing for ad dollars as well as eyeballs with the broadcasters who are suffering from declining ratings and sub

>> i would like philo to succeed.ng on what research you look at, anywhere between 25% and 50% of consumers don't value sports enough to pay for it. we're not talking about a narrow slice of the market. i'm not saying philo will be that big, but it's definitely a sector of the market it should be added to the ecosystem. that's good thing for content and a good thing for viacom. >> as a longtime media executive, were you surprised by the department of justice lawsuit against the at&t/time warner merger? >> i think we were all a bit surprised. at the end of the day, i'm not an antitrust lawyer. i don't work for at&t/time warner so we're watching like anyone else. >> do you think that deal will ultimately go through? >> time will tell. >> what about all those interests in the fox assets? who do you think is the most natural buyer there? >> again, you know, interesting story. there's some people who are rumored to be looking at it. we'll have to see if there's a transaction. atthen end of the day, my focus is on running v

is there a republican philo >> >> we have extent it is fragmented then that is problematic. but with the republican philosophy that i missed? the zero. the philosophicalal way to state this may be politically is in a great way to talk about it during the transparency of risk. so the philosophy behind dividing the market places to help people understand exactly what it is. criticism of the risk pool where everybody gets in is a c tremendous process for lot of republicans they feel that is relatively non transparent but in reality you are subsidizing the risky. but if he were to create a separate pool of higher risk than you could see from the aha government perspective where is my subsidy dollar going? if you have a reinsurance mechanism to see it is going directly to subsidize those in high-risk. otherwise it is more opaque. that is the philosophical argument. i have never heard that the that is the of philosophy behind its but the challenges of high risk pool and insurancece mechanism has not worked particularly well in the past arguably because they have not been funded fu

created where congress said future companies in order to get to the market to do a viral privet study of philo with fda. the generic compass it will do the studies and make investment. they go out into the market with their own cash and they're willing to pay for their market value to buy the branded drugs and they can run to comparison studies they can't get the drug to get the branded companies adopt anti-competitive tactics to prevent them from getting access to those drugs. i think that's a real problem. we have seen some of our own policies be used in ways to do that, to frustrate that. the risk management plans that we imposed when real car companies to place on the drugs as a way to provide for the safe use of the product of being used also to block the sale. it takes you were from like 2000-5000 2000-5000 doses of the branded drug in order to run a study to compare your drug to the branded drug. together place we see these activities of all fall within the direct purview of fda. oftentimes lucy branded companies selling drugs to a very tight supply cheap it might so three single specia