jacobsen's property. the problem is in the streets. the city has come out regularly since 2001 to clean up a line in the street because that is where the problem lies. mr. jacobson has no control over that. the problem the property owner has is he will now be required to spend $2,000 in liens, fines, work that was expended when he has no control over where the problem lies. that is in the street. mr. pacino, who did the work, can describe to you what he saw. he had the sewer department with him when he did the work. i think it will be a little bit clearer that this is not so obviously a problem with mr. jacobsen's property. it is clearly much more a problem with the city's property. i have a letter from mr. jacobs said that he prepared before he left that explains what has happened over the years. at the back is a picture that was taken last week that shows this to which -- shows the sewage coming out. as i said, this picture was taken last week. this was subsequent to the work completed and finalized. as you can see, there is still a

>> i do not know if the tree is located on the jacobsen's property or their neighbors. >> is there a picture of the sidewalk? a diagram? >> here is where the sewage goes. you can see, this is the edge of the jacobson's property. if the problem is here, it looks like it is in the next door neighbor's property. it would have to be downhill. this blockage would have to be downhill in order for it to cause a problem in the jacob's soson's property. >> what took so long to get action on this? when you get a violation notice, the property owner is responsible for proposing what the fix is. clearly, there was a problem. i think at this point we are being asked to uphold the issue, that you fixed it. there are penalties and fees attached because of the violations in the beginning. your claim, at this point, is that the problem is not fixed. >> our claim is that we were required to do work that was not necessary because the problem persists. the whole point of the process here has been to correct a sewer problem that would solve the nuisance problem. my point is, we spent a lot of time, and a

. >> host: paul jacobsen talked about the incentive options to get to that magical 500 megahertz, how much of that will be through incentive options? >> guest: i heard chairman jenna chose to say today about 300 megahertz at the broadcasters are occupying right now. so if that's the case back into a fairly long way there. >> the plan would have -- part of that spectrum they will continue to occupy into the broadband plan. 120 megahertz account of the broadcasters but it might use incentive options for satellite people as well. as of tonight at 90 megahertz used. it would be to use and satellite spectrum to get to incentive options. >> guest: the interesting thing will be the dynamic that gets created when there's a market system and then you see who really wants to participate to the broadcasters to want to be over the year because as we know most people are getting their content through cable or satellite today. and so, we'll see how that goes. and if the guys can put their local content out on those other systems and they're guaranteed to get to do that, do they really want to raise

. >> i am dying and jacobsen from jacksonville florida. thank you for your comment. the underwriting team has been our nation can't be strong if our economy is not strong, and this morning we attended a breakfast for information technology and that is -- at the breakfast we basically heard that while the united states a very good at negotiating trade agreements we might not be so good at enforcing those agreements. the result of which is that china and korea and vietnam and a variety of other countries, number one insists that we build manufacturing facilities in order to have access to the markets, which is not accept the free trade, and that more importantly our technology is either being reverse engineered or outright stolen. and we don't seem to have a mechanism to enforce that because we bring suit in their courts and then of course we'd lose what is now a level playing field. so my question is number one is that true from your perspective, and if it is true, what do we do about it? because it dramatically affects our economic security and national security. >>