mr. rutledge? >> thank you. i'm tom rutledge, chief operate tour of the cablevision systems. as you noted, they are wreaking havoc. the draft legislation is a good framework for advancing this goal. we look toward to working with you and others to take consumers out of the middle. i'd like to make two central points today. first retransmission takes place within a highly regulated environment that heavily favors broadcasters over distributors and hurts consumers. it is not a free market. plain and simple, the rules create the potential for network television blackouts and raise prices for consumers. second, because the government laws created the problem, only the government, the fcc, or congress can fix it. we've proposed modest changes. here's why retransmission consent is broken. fcc rules give local broadcasters a government sanction monopoly on local programs and local markets. the cable or satellite wants to carry, but thinks the local broadcasters monopoly price is too high. too bad. fcc rul

mr. rutledge? >> i think that broadcasting has a special place in the social obligation to its community, and i think that the fcc and through other policy means should intervene when, rather than let signals go off, it does have some disruption, you know, nobody wants to pay high year rate, so i agree to make negotiations more complex for broadcasters, but i still think it's better than allowing people to be held hostage so i think it is inappropriate for broadcasters to troops it falls which are free and unlikely spectrum being used for the public good. >> mr. uva? >> senator, thank you. i also believe that there is a very important role for both sides to play in educating consumers about twice because of the end of the day the consumer does have the choice to receive the signal free over the air, to buy it from a multiple system cable operators and satellite provider or telephone company. we believe very strongly that educating consumers about the choices they have and the remedies available is

mr. rutledge?> i think that broadcasting has a special place in the social obligation to its community, and i think that the fcc and through other policy means should intervene when, rather than let signals go off, it does have some disruption, you know, nobody wants to pay high year rate, so i agree to make negotiations more complex for broadcasters, but i still think it's better than allowing people to be held hostage so i think it is inappropriate for broadcasters to troops it falls which are free and unlikely spectrum being used for the public good. >> mr. uva? >> senator, thank you. i also believe that there is a very important role for both sides to play in educating consumers about twice because of the end of the day the consumer does have the choice to receive the signal free over the air, to buy it from a multiple system cable operators and satellite provider or telephone company. we believe very strongly that educating consumers about the choices they have and the remedies available is al

mr. rutledge? >> we think the fcc does have the authority to help -- >> is your light on? there you go. >> we do think the fcc has the authority. we know the letter sent to the chairman, but they've exercised broad authority in other ways. they do have the obligation to watch out for consumer prices and to protect the consumer and fairly broad authority which we pointed out in our written testimony, and so we believe they do have the authority to help the consumer in these kind of disputes. >> okay. thank you, mr. uva. >> i do agree that the fcc has the of 40 in its rules and the communications give the right to monitor and determine whether the negotiations were taken place in good faith or bad faith and the ability to enforce. >> mr. britt? >> yes, we think they both have the authority and the obligation to oversee and be involved as appropriate but they have chosen not to exercise that. >> thank you very much. i appreciate all your time. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. let's try to sort of wrap up here a little bit on these thoughts. mr. speaker, let me ask a couple mo

mr. rutledge? >> we think the fcc does have the authority to help -- >> is your light on? there you go. >> we do think the fcc has the authority. we know the letter sent to the chairman, but they've exercised broad authority in other ways. they do have the obligation to watch out for consumer prices and to protect the consumer and fairly broad authority which we pointed out in our written testimony, and so we believe they do have the authority to help the consumer in these kind of disputes. >> okay. thank you, mr. uva. >> i do agree that the fcc has the of 40 in its rules and the communications give the right to monitor and determine whether the negotiations were taken place in good faith or bad faith and the ability to enforce. >> mr. britt? >> yes, we think they both have the authority and the obligation to oversee and be involved as appropriate but they have chosen not to exercise that. >> thank you very much. i appreciate all your time. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. let's try to sort of wrap up here a little bit on these thoughts. mr. speaker, let me ask a couple mo