>> yes. >> mr. ergen? >> no, not yet. >> mr. o'leary? >> yes. >> we have, clearly, a split amongst the panelists here. mr. barrett, and i appreciate the wdsu affiliate, in new orleans does, it's one of the affiliates. do you currently have the legal rights to sub license all broadcast programming transmitted over your signals to companies like netflix and sky angel and who does not qualify for compulsory copyright licenses. is it something that you have the legal rights? >> with respect to how we transmit their signal to other distributors. >> so limited rights? >> yes. >> mr. ergen, your company is opposed to paying for access to content. >> no, we're not opposed -- no, we're not opposed to paying for content. >> mr. johnson? [ inaudible ] >> when you say content you mean local programming or cable channels? >> any content that you -- >> no, we expect and have been paying for the content, yes. >> mr. hyman? >> all we do is pay for content. >> this is something that already occurs. i want to ask mr. barre

. >> and mr. ergen? >> no. >> okay. thank you. now, mr. ergen, i have a question for you with the auto hop issue, as you testified in your statement, and i think everybody knows, the auto hop technology lets consumers skip over commercials and other things that they don't want to watch, and as you said that would mean that when kids are watching tv they wouldn't have to see junk food and alcohol commercials, i would submit that as the fall approaches, many viewers would skip over the shock and awe tv commercials that everybody will be treated to in the campaign this fall -- >> so. i'm sorry? >> and the volume, too. i think the volume is the issue, but if people had auto hop it would let them decide what they wanted to see. now, i know that this is in the courts right now, but talking not about the legal issues, the consumer choice and innovation in the

you just heard the two comments made by miss sohn and mr. ergen. how would you comment upon them? i would be limiting my comments because as head of the association i would not be a party to the transaction and not have the specifics that they have in terms of the conversation. all deals like this deserve the vigilant and that's why they have an anti-trust process and we should rely on the skills of the federal communications commission to vigorously scrutinize the transaction for those purposes and to reach a conclusion in the public interest. i don't believe that it's intuitively clear that it's a capitulation and it wouldn't be continued competition among these companies and i think that's why we have an antitrust process and i have a lot of faith in it. >> let me ask you, mr. barrett and you, mr. o'leary. july 1st is the deadline for the completion of the rule making and the implementation of the provision switch i built into the 2010 law for video accessability. can you give us an update as to where the two industries are in terms of complying with that? >> speaking on behalf

respect to how we may transmit their signal to other distributors. >> limited rights. >> yes. >> mr. ergen, your company is opposed to paying access for content. >> know, we are not opposed to paying for content. >> mr. johnson? >> will use the content do you me local programming? >> any content -- >> we have been paying for the content. >> all we do is pay for content. >> this is something that already occurs. i want to ask mr. barrett -- you own a stake and a7e, lifetime, other cable channels. >> correct. >> when you are negotiating with different distributors, is that a free market? do you sit at the table? are there any compulsory laws that have to happen? >> will negotiate on behalf of hearst telelvision and are not involved in any at linked and associations. >> i want to ask you about some comments he made on page 9 and 10. you made remarks about 3675. you refer to their content. first they will turn back the clock to a time when cable and satellite providers confiscated and resold broadcast signals to subscribers without containing -- obtaining consent. i would first a my legislatio