that was the essence of bill mcgowan and mci. but that was bought by verizon, and that company is not the bill mcgowan and maverick company that mci. was. so i start with that saying this issue is not about promises. there's a lot of things that need to be thoroughly investigated by the department of justice in reviewing a merger. this is about law enforcement. this is about what the clayton act requires as passed by congress. the justice department to en force the law. -- enforce the law. and in doing that, promises are interesting and are certainly thoroughly reviewed. but what is fundamental is what is the market structure that we're looking at? and what is the impact a merger will have given that market structure. and what are the post market incentives. and that's why i bring up bill mcgowan. sometimes can change. that's what needs to be thoroughly investigated by the justice department here. notwithstanding what has been said, i believe there really are four competitors leading the way in the wireless market today. and it's

similar to that of mci back in the day. just learning from those lessons, ensuring that competition is actually positive for services, for driving innovation and lowering cost is really something we also have to keep at the forefront. finally, really, stability. we would not be able to deliver a lot of the services we do throughout rural alaska without some of the programs that have been available and administered by the fcc and other parts of the government. we believe we have a responsibility to use that funding wisely and to use it for the purposes for which it is intended, and that is to deliver services for as many communities and throughout alaska as we can, but to be able to make plans to take advantage of economics, to really deliver efficient services, the programs really need to be stable and predictable, or else it's very difficult to bring the private investment alongside that is unleashed by those programs if we don't really know what's going to happen with those programs in the near future or even in the midte

we fought a battle similar to mci back in the day we were gci doing here in alaska. learning from those lessons of entering the competition is positive for services for driving innovation and lowering cost is really something that we always have to keep at the forefront. finally, stability. it will not be able to deliver the services we do throughout rural alaska without the programs that have been available and administered by the fcc and other parts of the government. we really take -- we believe responsibly to use the funding wisely for the purposes which it was intended , too deliver services for as many communities and residents throughout alaska as he possibly can. to be able to make plans and take advantage of economics and deliver efficient services those programs need to be stable and predictable or else it's difficult to bring the private investment alongside that is unleashed by theirs programs. if we don't know what will happen in the near future or even in the midterm, as well. certainly, programs change but as much stability as possible really helps us

now, that's mci, and that's te righut it's not bad enough to affect daily function yet. and it's felt to be a gateway to full-blown dementia. now, in the study they lowered the blood pressure, that top number, the systolic, to 120, and they found that when they did that they lowered the risk of mild cognitive impairment by 19% compared to if they lowered it to 140. now, it looked like that more aggressive treatment also lowered the risk k of full-blown dementia but the authors said to me look, it's only a 4 1/2-year follow-up, we need more numbers to prove that. >> very interesting sxip know we'll have more from you to follow up on in the future, jon, thank you very much. >>> up next here, an update on demi lovato after an overdose. come away with me barnabas! but i am a simple farmer. my life is here... [telephone ring] ahoy-hoy. alexander graham bell here... no, no, my number is one, you must want two! two, i say!! like my father before... [telephone ring] like my father before... ahoy-hoy! as long as people talk too loudly on the phone, fifteen minutes cove you cat on

we fought a battle similar to that of mci back in the day and we were gci doing it here in alaska.ust learning from those lessons of ensuring that competition is positive for driving innovations and lowering cost is really something that we have to keep at the forefront. and then stability. we wouldn't be able to deliver a lot of the services we do without some the programs we really take, we believe we have a responsibility to use that funding wisely for the purposes in which it was intended. to make plans and deliver efficient services, those pro programs need to be stable and predictable because it's really difficult to bring the private investment alongside that unleashed by those programs if they don't really know what's going to happen with those programs in the near future or even in midterm as well. certainly programs change but as much stability as possible really helps bring along the private investment alongside that's necessary to take some of these different use cases, new technologies and drive it even deeper and deeper to citizens so that we can really breech that br

as you know a lot of stuff counts as coming to the fruns mcis using china as a way station.o something to it and send it to the united states but the fact that we don't save enough compared to what we invest means we have to have this big deficit with the rest of the world. >> professor, do you think the federal reserve should take into consideration what's going on with the trade war in terms of determining whether or not they go ahead with the forecasted path for monetary policy >> yes but i think the impact on the fed on monetary policy is likely to be pretty small, unless the trade war gets a lot lot worse then it seems likely it's a bit inflationary and the fed cares about that it's a bit contractary on the overall economy and the fed cares about that it's like a supply shock if you just imagine this is like a small oil shock. illustrate not oil -- although oil is going up also -- so you can think of it as kind of magnifying the effects of a supply shock age gous to a oil shock but not so far in magnitude. >> it sounds like silly semantics but i'm curious from somebody

mcis no longer an emerging country.e there. >> absolutely for sure the one thing i would say is that because of the trade disputes that the president is having with the eu it obscures what would normally be common cause with the europeans they have long had complaints about china as well. they have done steel tariffs on china lopping before the u.s. did. they have had lots of concerns they have also stopped lots of deals that they didn't want to see happen things that another -- at other times we would have called protection i was except now we have a president who agrees with knows positions. but again we don't hear about that because we get focused on what has been the u.s.'s -- and the president's very strong stance against the eu itself when it comes to trade. >> all right we have to leave it there. michelle thank you see you back here tomorrow toni torey thanks very much. and as we mentioned you have an interview you want to tell us about. >> secretary of state mike pompeo in the room there but mike pompeo this mor

best explanation i've heard for what happened on that press conference stage, which is if you believe mcisd you need russia as an ally to combat china, that's a logical explanation for what happened i don't agree with it. i don't think most people agree with it. but it's an interesting take and you know, i guess in many respects even if the president thinks that and that's a genuine belief it's smarter to leave that issue aside and just effective effectively say intelligence communities in the united states are strong, solid and he has their full -- his full faith and qualifies in them and also to say, yes, russia meddled. what i tiend -- go ahead did- >> i was going to say to your point there is a longstanding belief within the political establishment did -- definitely on the right over the decades that the u.s. should have as good a relationship with china as it does with russia because the last thing we want is for mcand russia to team up against us and that's what our strategic goal should always be. i'm not convinced that that's necessarily what the president was thinking about yester