. >> mr. hyman. >> getting there, yes. >> mr. font? >> i agree with mr. hyman. >> mr. powell? >> make that three. yes. >> mr. bearet? >> 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. >> t

johnson, mr. hyman, mr. powell, mr. euro ergan, isn't it strange the child can be watching the sprout channel's caoiu on the same television and the same living room and the way the programming got from may have been subject to different rules depending on whether it was provided by sky angel, netflix, a cable company or dish? shouldn't the regulatory or non-regulatory treatment not same? mr. johnson, we'll start with you. >> well, we're asking for a level playing field. we have the same access to the programming that our competitors do, and because there is the definition of mvpd is up in question. >> right. >> we have not been able to have the access to that programming. >> mr. euro began. >> in i would say yes in general, the rules should be the same. to the chairman's earlier point, if you're going to be an mvp provider to get all the rules or eliminate them for the current incumbents. there are cases where things are different between the technologies and i think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. cabl

. >> mr. hyman, thank you for your testimony and participation. we will now go to mr. jim funk, senior vice president of product management for roku. thank you for being here. we look forward to your testimony. >> good morning, chairman walden, ranking member eshoo and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me here to testify today about the future of video. my name is jim funk. i'm senior vice president of product management at roku. roku was founded ten years ago in silicon valley. we are a rapidly growing company with less than 200 employees, still small by comparison with other companies represented at this hearing. the company's founder, anthony wood, is a serial entrepreneur who among many accomplishments started replay tv and is considered the inventor of the dvr. while the dvr is now among the most popular entertainment devices, roku is betting on the internet as the future of television. four years ago, roku introduced a small internet connected set top box that allowed consumers to stream movies like -- stream movies from netflix over the interne