strategy, the strategy of cutting back on purchases collapses. argument, which is that comcast might be able to strike a better bargain thanks to its increased size. that is far from clear. the stakes are higher for espn compared to today because espn ises more revenue, but that true for comcast. the stakes are higher for comcast as well as more customers complained to cancel their service. such a must-have with programmers that again special power. the third analogy is that comcast is just like microsoft. the idea here is that netflix and other online video providers will be undermined. this deserves careful attention because i think we can all agree that preserving innovation and competition is very important. this third analogy seems wrong to me as well. for one thing, the cost of strategies is quite high. there are existing protections under the earlier nbc merger conditions for online video that would be extended to time warner, which could be thought of as a benefit to the deal. what i do think we see here is not so much foreclosure, but an ongoing fight among powerful firms, and ongoing fight to figure out who should pay for the infrastructure that makes possible the dramatic online video and how those payments should be achieved. thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, professor. we invite you to testify. >> thank you, chairman and memberairman and ranking and committee members. i am very happy to be here. i've practiced antitrust law for about 25 years and about half of that time, i was with the antitrust division. comcast and time warner cable say they do not compete for subscribers and you have heard that this morning, but the fact is, comcast and time warner cable to compete. that is what brian roberts, the comcast ceo, told the senate judiciary committee in comcast's --e -- make a merger megamerger with nbc universal. mr. roberts was right. they compete in a number of ways . they can be to carry local and regional sports teams and they compete for advertising dollars. mr. chairman, to help illustrate how sports programming would be i would askmerger, unanimous consent to submit for the record and article i former bush administration official rat lightman. -- brad lightman. it explains the impact of the merger and is highly relevant. >> without objection, all the witnesses and introduced any extraneous materials or records. >> thank you. as for cable advertisers, they will have less choices if this merger goes through, including smaller local advertisers in your districts who may get shut out entirely. have a says people multitude of choices for how they get broadband. you have heard that here today. at an investment conference in 2011, mr. roberts said that comcast had only one broadband competitor. he was talking about fires, -- in 15% of is only comcast territories. this merger is very likely illegal, the parties know it and that is why they are here talking about how they plan to fix it. i am here to tell you what they won't. why it is illegal and why the fix does not cut it. this time it is different. let's talk about video first, since i think that is the easiest. they want to put together comcast content with time warner cable's wires. the antitrust theory is that after the merger, the company would have both the ability and the incentive to withhold nbc and sports programming from rivals such as satellite companies, other cable systems. that would drive up their competitors costs and make them less competitive. that is called input foreclosure in antitrust jargon. is it a radical theory? no. it is right out of the comcast u complained. but this time it is worse. let's talk about the even more serious issue of broadband. comcast and time warner cable's chairs of the broadband market -- shares of the broadband market are much higher. we have not heard the witnesses talk about what those shares are, but by some estimates, they are 50% or even more. what is the problem? simple. online video distributors like netflix come according to the antitrust division, are likely to be the best hope for additional video programming and timeon in comcast warner cable territory. if comcast can get hold of about 50% of broadband subscribers through this merger, it puts itself into a position to influence how this new form of competition will play out. the antitrust theory is called customer foreclosure. keep innovative competitive -- competitors from been able to connect with their audience or charge them so their costs go up . again, this is not a radical theory. it was mentioned that the concern in the 2011 comcast-nbc u complaint. in the d c circuit in the microsoft case. same analysis has been applied in other cases where the internet is threatening an old business model. the key point is that the legitimate role of antitrust is to keep the pathways for innovation open. there is also a buyer power theory which is discussed in my written terror -- testimony. isthe merger anti-competitive, the best remedy is simply to say no. the haverhill remedies do not work well -- he haverhill remedies do not work well -- behavioral remedies do not work well. they do not present prices from going up. partial divestitures also often fail. woulds case, were comcast pick up new york in l.a. in l.a. and other markets, it is likely to keep the most profitable subscribers and the most profit margins and divest the others. that will not restore lost competition and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> at this time, you are recognized. >> good morning. i, along with my two daughters, represent the founders and ruralty shareholders media group. thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the importance of independent programming any impact consolidation the cable industry from a rural perspective. rfd tv was launched as a public interest channel. fccks to congress, and the establishing the 1992 cable communications act, the 146 independent program producers, along with the millions of have congress, the fcc, and charlie to thank for having the foresight to create and give independent channels the chance to exist and prosper. in 2007, we evolved into a for-profit entity and the media group was formed. recognized as one of america's leading independent networks, it is ranked the most reasonably independent cable news survey. nielsen rated and distributed -- it is the number one channel for time spent viewing and for adults 50 plus as a percentage of our overall audience composition. in 2008, we signed an eight-year agreement with comcast following success in nashville. in october of 2010, comcast launched us on all systems in .olorado and mexico and utah we work closely with comcast and invested heavily in this launch by purchasing billboards, radio trainingnizing and comcast telemarketers. lunch was a cook for us -- the launch was a success. independents try harder and have to deliver. in january of 2011, the comcast-nbc u merger was approved. on august 13 of this past year, despite strong ratings, low comcast dropped us on all its cable systems in colorado and new mexico. lost 470,000e homes. today, we have worked diligently to understand comcast's decision and to find a solution. the city of pueblo, colorado, and the colorado governor's , localize significant efforts for comcast to reverse its decision and return the popular programming to these two states with such strong ties to the western lifestyle. meetings have been held with the regional denver office and with comcast for a birmingham executives in philadelphia to no avail. why were we dropped? it is the question that everybody has. it seems to be simple. we are just a true independent. we enjoy excellent relations with all the other cable operators. this past year, charter launched us on their ft. worth system and in october, time warner added us to franchises in the state of kentucky. our concerns with comcast taking over this major western city should be obvious. in addition to 30 million homes may being denied the choice to access this proven channel and a wall built between rural and urban america. in the past, the united states government has taken critical steps to ensure that rule ral america -- the information superhighway must put on every country road. the 1893t was when indications act led to the establishment of rfd. tonk you for allowing me not wear a tie and i look forward to answering all of your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. shaker? you're recognized for your opening statements. >> [inaudible] thank you, chairman. ranking member johnson and the entire committee for the opportunity to voice our concerns. this particular transaction is not about video, but rather about the future. it is about the internet. 15 years ago, i had the good fortune and the good luck to found a company on a simple principle that the internet was going to be the only network that mattered, bandwidth was a commodity and technology would allow us to drive down prices forever. those bets turned out to be correct. we went through a tough market segment and we have been a good citizen helping lead that technology fight in driving down the cost of bandwidth. comcast, however, has not been quite as good of the net citizen and is looking to be a worse net citizen going forward if they are allowed to comply -- combine their network with time warner. the internet is based on the idea of free exchange of traffic. -- wellhe mechanisms is comcast signs a decree with nbc universal and said it is not going to interfere with traffic inside of its network, it has been very clever. it interferes with traffic before it enters its network. the internet today has allowed 2.7 billion people wirelessly and another billion people to connect. networks.et is 44,000 interconnect one of two ways. they buy connectivity from companies such as ours or they connect through those connections. comcast does not operate in global network. -- it has used its market galan scope to extract -- market scale and scope to extract free connectivity. it did not carry its fair load. because it represented so many customers, operators and others eer with them. that was not good enough for comcast. they started to demand payments for connectivity. a larger comcast will demand even greater payments. let me use an example of netflix. netflix is our largest customer. we are their primary carrier of internet traffic. netflix buys that connectivity because we deliver the highest quality at the lowest price. we have dozens of competitors. we offer the lowest price and the highest quality. netflix wanted to do business with us. they continue to be our largest customer, but there was a problem. we cannot deliver all of the traffic that netflix was delivering to comcast customers. when we deliver the traffic, the ports for connections between our network and comcast he came full. patch became full. we went back to comcast and between our network and comcast became full. we went back to comcast and said, can you upgrade? comcast refused. they not only refused cogent, they refused every other major backbone. in doing so, forced netflix into a corner. they forced netflix to have to go and directly enter into a contract with comcast, paying a higher price for a less robust product. that is not a free market. that is an abuse of market power. are two parties that do not sit in front of this committee today. , is of millions of consumers think this committee cares about them. the justice department, the fcc. there is also entrepreneurs and innovators. we sell service to thousands of providers. i cannot predict where the next youtube or the next netflix will come from. i can tell you that their business models are highly dependent on eating inexpensive connectivity and what they are not dependent -- hitting inexpensive connectivity. -- highly dependent on getting inexpensive connectivity. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. schaeffer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am least to be here today to discuss some of the technical issues that may be relevant to our consideration of the proposed comcast-time warner cable merger. at the outset, i want you to know that comcast and time warner cable are two of the many companies with whom my company has commercial relationships. the views expressed for my testimony are my own. i'm an academic researcher and a commercial vendor. my current company provides network management and analytics solutions to a range of large content companies and consumer internet providers. my career has included roles as the chairman of the principal internet industry engineering association in north america as well as the project director of several national science foundation and research projects. in the study of internet architecture from the university of michigan in 1999. in 2010, i collaborated on the largest research study of internet traffic to date. earlier this year, my company, along with academic and industry research partners, began work on a large scale follow-up study to our 2010 research. my testimony this morning is largely based on these research efforts. 10 years ago, the internet was smaller and it looked very different than it does today. early on, almost all traffic traveled across an internet core consisting of 10-12 large national and international internet providers, including companies like at&t and level three. it connected content providers would access networks around the world such as earthlink and aol. these interconnections between providers are known as peering. the exchange of internet traffic is largely developed without regulation. both today and in the early days of the internet, service providers such as at&t sometimes negotiate the exchange of internet traffic with other large providers without paying for access or traffic rights. the industry calls these arrangements settlement free peering. consumers paid access networks, such as aol, and those access networks pay larger providers, such as at&t, for connections to other access networks. the industry called these arrangements transit peering. over the last 10 years, technological advances have dramatically transformed a landscape of internet connection . these market forces include consolidation and the rapid growth in the internet content and advertising revenue. our research has documented the accelerating impact of these market forces. internet traffic was once broadly distributed across thousands of companies. by 2009, half of all internet traffic originated in less than 150 large content and content distribution companies. today, just 30 companies, including netflix and google them contribute. been significant changes to interconnection at the core of the internet. today, there is much more direct interconnection between access networks and content providers. rider --al of transit provider is because they seek greater efficiencies of scale. our research has found a significant degree of vertical integration and blurring of traditional distinctions between companies. content providers, cable internet servers, are for wholesale transit and transit internet providers provide content distribution. a large transit provider as well as the second largest continent distribution provider. our ongoing work has found growing diversity and complexity in the internet cyber supply chain. this refers to the increasingly diverse set of third-party infrastructure and services supporting the delivery of internet content. websites once came from computers directly owned and managed by the content owners located in tens of thousands of enterprise machine closets and data centers around the world. today, the majority of internet content leverages one or more multiple third-party content distribution services, hosting providers, exchange points, or cloud providers. examples of companies providing these different services are identified in my prepared statements. i hope my testimony and my research findings help provide .he technical context thank you for your time and attention. i am pleased to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, dr.. at this time, we will proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. in order that each member has sufficient time to ask questions of our large panel, we expect to have two rounds of questioning . -- il say that members will say members of the whole committee, as we start the second round, i will yield my time to you because i am told that is the only way we can accomplish. you have been here the entire hearing. you will commence the second round. i now recognize myself for five minutes. you stated to my counterpart was that we carry independent networks because we are always focused on the consumer. if you have compelling content and you can make that case that our consumers want to watch the content, we will carry it. i would ask you if you stand by that statement. ,econdly, i would caution you what may be a consumer in philadelphia, maybe a consumer , or in colorado, is a totally different consumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do stand by that statement. i completely acknowledge the second part of what you are saying. we try to assess what our customers want in individual markets. where as we do centralize negotiation of content deals at of our headquarters in philadelphia, or is enormous input from local systems as to what channels and programming their customers might want to see. to put flesh on the bones of this. we think we are the most independent programmer friendly distributors in the industry. we carry 160 independent programming networks. in the last three years, we have negotiated and given expanded distribution for 120 of those networks. we are a company that really does try and find the niches ofs -- the programming that customers in particular markets are interested in. have comcast lived up to the statement? 160 programmers that he mentioned, we are proud to be two of those programmers. that has not been the case in the last year since the last merger. we were taken off of colorado and new mexico and in no states, there was not a raid dispute. we render contract. the city, support of the governor's office -- there was not a rate dispute. we were under contract. we had the support of the city and the governor's office. we had a lot of customers contacting us directly saying they could not get a hold of comcast. write and welks to would personally deliver those letters to the denver office. we have seven of these binders. over 4000 customers were asking comcast not to remove us, yet we were still removed in august of 2013. >> maybe it is not just the numbers. with mergers in the radio , which isbirmingham an sec football town, is getting a lot of hockey news. we get a lot of soccer, which is growing, most people my age do not know what the rules of soccer are. they are football, baseball, and basketball. it is a challenge, but if you it is a challenge need to be aware of. >> i am sympathetic to this argument. i was involved at the time of this decision. in a perfect world, if money was not an issue, and if bandwidth was not an issue, those systems in denver and albuquerque are very bandwidth constraint and our local teams made a judgment that it was more important for us to add more high definition channels of popular programming, like the smithsonian channel and the food channel, that those were more valuable to the customers in the market. it is nothing punitive. we continue to carry rfd tv to about 600,000 of our customers, including in kentucky and nashville. customers --if our let's stay focused on the consumer. it is not like they do not have a choice. if it is important to them, they can switch to wreck tv in those -- directv in those markets. we are not controlling consumer choice. we are an urban cluster cable company and this content, even in colorado, the bulk of our base is in the urban areas of colorado. think that encapsulates the fear that the rural market gets left out. there is still a lot of people -- i will let him respond and my time is up. thing, out of the 160 independent channels that comcast carries, the appear to have taken off one of the most popular channels in the colorado and new mexico market. our nielsen ratings are higher 159.the it was the support of local governments and the request of colorado. if there is going to be 160 independents, isn't there room for one independent channel? it appears to be 11 million homes. 70 million people. one channel devoted to rural america is all we are asking for. >> mr. johnson for five minutes. the minority ownership in the video and broadband marketplace is good business, it is an important societal goal and it helps to expand our economy. that is a value that many people hold dear. its comcast announced merger with time warner, it stated that it anticipated the fcc would require it to get for cable tv limit systems. there was an agreement that has ton worked out with charter sell the 3.9 million channels that subscribers would be required to get under that 30%. did comcast consider doing smaller transactions with african-american and hispanic companies? >> this was a significant part of our discussion and remains a significant part of the discussion. there was no way to accomplish the significant tax efficiencies and competition and public --erest and hand things enhancing efficiencies that we have been able to generate with this. making them available for smaller companies, whether they are minority or not minority, to be able to bid for them. it was a topic of discussion. we have had discussions with numerous minority on groups interested in purchasing cable systems and i'll report to you the same that we have reported to them. he will continue to look for opportunities to create minority ownership in the cable space. >> what about enabling already existing minority owned providers to get larger? >> i am running through my mind and i do not think it would be appropriate to disclose the various groups we have talked to. i am not sure whether any of them are existing minority owners of cable systems. to the extent we would engage in this kind of a process, we would not exclude those types of groups from participating. i have some credibility speaking to this because four years ago, but we were doing that nbc universal transaction, i talked about our company's commitment to minority ownership in the cable channel space. i referenced tv 1, which we hope to create. .- which we helped to create it is one of the great success stories of a minority owned channel. the nbc universal transaction, we committed to launch minority owned networks. we have launched four of those already. space where minority ownership of businesses, wealth creation opportunities, and conversation shaping opportunities is very important to us as a company. >> thank you. viewan-americans television programming at a more significant level than the general population. this seems to be a disproportionately smaller amount of programming towards urban and african-american audiences. cable -- cable programming tier, does comcast carry any african-american controlled and operated networks ? if so, are those networks tier inon the basic every market were only in select franchise areas? >> i am not sure what are basic tier is anymore. i can tell you that our most popular tier is our basic digital tier. we carry 11 african-american owned or targeted networks, which is the sum of african-american owned or operated networks that we know about. i know only three of them are african-american owned. we do not necessarily know whether these other networks are majority african-american owned, minority, but they are identified as african-american targeted networks and we carry all 11 of them. >> thank you. how do you respond to claims that comcast and nbc universal has blocked certain content providers like univision sports from being carried on your services or unfairly laced channels of other content providers, like bloomberg news, because they compete with nbc universal channels? >> those are two very different questions. i would deny those charges. i think they are not true. in terms of the way we treated bloomberg news, the irony of the bloomberg news situation was that louisburg news was positioned in the place it was on the channel lineup he for we owned cnbc. there could not have been any discriminatory intent. i do not want to rely on that argument anymore. we had a dispute with bloomberg news and it was resolved. resolved that matter entirely. >> would you care to respond to the claim about univision sports? >> i was worried about the time. say, we carry eight univision networks. univision has come to us and asked for additional coverage of three additional networks. we are one of the largest, if not the largest, carrier of hispanic programming. 58 channels. we will resolve our issues with univision in due course. >> thank you very much, mr. johnson. i do want to point out, i do not want to sound hostile to this merger because i think the government needs to stay as much out of the business world is possible, but i've had some concerns raised by some constituents and some interest groups that i have agreed to talk to you guys about and i think that is the purpose of this hearing come up to get the stuff on the table. -- of this hearing, to get the stuff on this table. comcast-time warner cable will serve 90 one percent of the hispanic households in the u.s. and will be the top distributor in 19 out of the 20 top hispanic markets. we know you guys owned telemundo . along with what mr. johnson was asking, what assurances can you give us that you won't squirm and eight against -- that you won't discriminate? do you have internal procedures in place to prevent that kind of discrimination? x i should have waited for your follow-up. we have not been able to verify those numbers, just for the record. i have observed that sometimes i understandd that. but sometimes they get is good. and sometimes big is very good. covering a greater percentage of the hispanic population in the united states is a really good thing. we will bring that commitment to those communities in the same way we brought it to the current comcast footprint. a significant commitment to carrying hispanic programming. channels58 hispanic currently. we have a long-term retransmission consent agreement with univision and we carry eight univision networks. >> this follows up on my overall concern about the difficulty for new programmers to break in to the market. you year -- you hear him testify about the fact that his ratings in markets where he was removed from his cable system. i guess the level of vertical integration and the fact that nbc owns [inaudible] >> let me respond to that. this is one of the most litigated issues that exist in antitrust law. a percentage of the market that a single company can have before there is a risk that it can foreclose content to its consumers. twice the fcc had extended proceedings to determine what was that percentage of the market. twice they concluded that the cable company had more than 30% of the market, it would be an undue risk of that company serving as a bottleneck or extorting improper pricing from channels. circuit struck down. share, a cable% company would be able to control the market. we are coming in below 30%. in the cable channel has more than 70% of the rest of the company -- the rest of the country to be able to go after. .> i am running out of time >> the perception that exists -- there are legal rules that prevent us from discriminating aninst a new channel or existing channel in favor of content that we own. that is something that already exists under the law. >> one of the mitigating factors has new technologies, you are getting more competing cable companies. we have two cable companies. comcast ownsd -- the rights to the astros baseball game. not incident for you to sell the rights to carry the astros -- not incentive for you to sell the rights to carry the astros games when you can use it to bring in $100 internet, cable, phone into your house. how will we address the issue of fair access? >> i smile only because i wish we had that problem with the .ouston regional sports it is a perfect example. before the fear about our control of this is overstated. that network is controlled by the two teams. but both the astros and the rockets. we have a minority ownership interest in it, but they control the pricing of the network. they control the distribution of it. even if that were not true and we were controlling that, that is on the program access side. you have the program access rules and i know that under the nbc universal order, a small cable company has a right of arbitration just on that regional sports without any other programs, without any other cable channels bundled with it. >> we will move along. we will now go to the distinguished gentleman from michigan. >> i think all the witnesses for their important contributions. i have a strong feeling that we may have to have another hearing on this because of the complexity of the material. i would like to start off with just observing that mr. hemphill welfare ase consumer the key objective of antitrust law. the goal of antitrust is to ensure dynamic competition in open markets. it i did not hear a lot about -- what i did not hear a lot about keeping prices low and choices for the consumer. i would like to turn to mr. gran did not hear a lot about keeping prices low and choices for the consumer. iss who said that 30% not enough to be anti-competitive. 30% ist has ruled that not enough to be and the supreme 30% ofas also ruled that america was a troubling trend toward concentration. and also, what about the 40% control of the broadband internet? how do you see this as something if thismay not overcome merger were to go through? >> thank you, ranking member conyers. advocate 30% as not being a problem. -- i point parties out a couple of things. first of all, judge diane wood of the seventh circuit, who was also in antitrust division , found that 20% was large enough in the toys r us case, depending on the market. the issue here is not simply numbers. a subscriber is not a subscriber is not a subscriber. when you have the top 10 or top powerkets, that gives you in each of those markets and that is the power we should be concerned about. in terms of the broadband shares , i am not sure whether it is 40%, 50%, it could be as high as 60%, but the one thing i can say is that we have not heard comcast or time warner cable, and today and say we will get those shares down to 30%. they are talking about the video shares. have not said a word about the broadband shares. >> thank you so much. i am under a very tight frame. maybe on the second round. lka.,e turn to mr. po .ast is 8 - ,igher prices and fewer choices which is what we are concerned about. i think the department of justice is going to take some little while sorting this out and i do not know if it is resolvable, to be honest with you. at first blush. what are your cautionary comments to the committee about this? >> very cautionary. these are really three separate mergers that we are talking about, not just one horizontal merger. you have the combination of programming assets. you have the combination of comcast distributional and other programming assets that can be combined. mr. chairman, i would note that grundig communications is a member of ours and is very concerned about the nature of this big deal. and then the ability of the larger company, even though it may not be 30% of the market, to be able to have influence over other programmers, other large media companies that they deal with in terms of what prices are charged to the comcast-time warner company. as the comcast market increases, so can the prices that they demand. is that a point you made in your discussion? >> yes, sir. point toeen comcast the fact that they have declined internet pricing by 92% over a 15 year period. internet pricing at the core of the internet transit has gone down 99%. decline of eight times as much as comcast has passed on to its customers. secondly, a lot of the conversation here has been around video programming. cooks i did not understand his response -- >> i did not understand his response. >> wait a minute. >> [inaudible] >> let him finish. >> i will try to answer that will make it there. -- when we get there. the ultimate way in which video content and be distributed to consumers is over the internet. today, american consumers use about 300 minutes a day per capita of video. only 15 minutes of that is delivered over the internet. ofr time, the cost publishing that content continues to decline and if allowed to operate freely, somewhere between 220 and 250 minutes a day will be delivered over the internet. comcast, through its interconnection strategy, is deciding to limit the ability of over-the-top video because it directly competes with its linearly program video and gives it an additional control point over the production of the video. >> thank you very much. >> we will now go to the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am sure my constituents back at home who are time warner customers want to cut right to the chase. constituents going to face higher prices for services post merger? there is nothing about this transaction that will lead to increased prices for consumers. there are consumer benefits that your constituents will see as a result of this transaction. faster internet speeds, more video-on-demand choices, more free video-on-demand choices, the ability to watch more content on a streaming basis. inside and outside the home, access to our video platform, which is truly a groundbreaking new way of watching television. there is nothing in this transaction that will result in an increase in prices for any time warner cable consumer. >> you said in the past that we are certainly not promising customer bills are going to go down or even increase less rapidly. do you still stand by those comments? >> what i said was, and i have a nasty little habit of telling the truth. iwas asked the question and said i cannot guarantee the prices are going to go down and i cannot guarantee that they believe an increase at a lower rate. i think this transaction has the potential to slow the increase in prices because with our additional scale, our additional investment, and our ability to advantagesurchasing in the set top box market, may be able to move the needle slightly on the programming side. what other benefits we can get as a result of the combined skill of the company, consumers will see in terms of impact on their bills. front andnsumers are center. i think consumers will be the big winners in this transaction. any moderation that we can bring to increases in their bills will certainly be one of the benefits that we would love to be able to see. >> mr. shafer has made some fairly direct allegations. even though the technical aspects of what he is talking about our little bit above me, i do get his point very clearly that the combined share of the amount ofalso share you haven't taught markets and so forth is powerful -- that you have in top markets and so forth is powerful. if you could respond to the allegations. >> thank you for that opportunity. i will try to bring this down to a level which i can understand. i think there are two different markets that we need to consider. one is the broadband isp market, the last mile market. our delivery of broadband services to our customers. the second is the interconnection market, which is .he first mile market how internet providers, how google and netflix, get their content onto the internet and and into i don't believe -- that i will be interested if the professor agrees -- that the market share we are achieving in the isp level is close to the that has any impact on the first market. that is a intensely competitive market area a market with dozens of content operators. organizations. transit providers. it is a market in which he has competed vigorously for 15 years. trying to offer the highest quiet -- quality and lowest price. it is a market where pricing has dropped 99%. as a result of that, the netflix of the world and internet content companies, a young man netflixs to be the next has dozens of choices for how to get his content onto the internet to deliver to our customers. we think that market is functioning very well. we don't think that market and the structure of the market is affected as a result of this transaction. the questions that have come up recently about that market are better look that on an industrywide basis, which is what tom wheeler and the fcc have said they are prepared to do. if you gave me the invitation, one thing i also want to reply is the description of our netflix transaction. which, as far as i know, is inaccurate. we did not force netflix to enter into interconnection deal with us. that was netflix's idea. they came to us it was their desire. wanted to cut out the middleman, their words to read the middleman happened to be cogent, by the way. to deal directly with us. although our agreement is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, and i cannot disclose the terms of the agreement, which i would do it willingly with the permission of netflix. ,t has been public reported contrary to what mr. shaver said. they are not paying more to us under this agreement, but less. commercial' a decision that given the size of the traffic, they could deal with us directly. they turned around two weeks ago and announced they had done exactly the same type of deal with verizon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will now go to the gentlelady. she has a child at the university of texas. [laughter] c thank you, mr. share -- hair. we appreciate you taking the merger has the attention of many folks across the country. differentuents are no . tvy rely on cable access for . for broadband. it is important to my constituents that i hear -- and i hear about it from them. they are concerned of paying a higher price for the same service they have had to read they are very concerned about the impact this might have. the questions, you have said you don't expect this transaction to have an impact on prices. impact,won't have an and economies of scales are not achieved, then what can be done to help lower prices? >> is a very good question. i'm not sure i have an answer. the number onet driver of icing, this may -- pricing. -- and you might want to asking the question. the number one driver of cable pricing is the cost of programming. the cost of programming is , in the costately of producing the programming. in particular, sports rights. if you look over the last decade, there has been a 120% in thee industrywide cost of cable programming. theyet the average -- increase in the most common package of cable programming has risen at less than half that of time. that period cable operators large and small have been million only fighting valiantly fighting to mitigate the costs of programming. i'm not sure what the answer is in terms of controlling the spiraling increases in programming and programming rights. it particular sports rights. isewhere in that upcoming the -- alchemy is the ultimate solution. one other point -- when you look at what happens in the pricing of programming, the fcc statistics deal with a particular package. if you look at the cost of cable programming on a per channel basis, the increase has only been about 0.2% over the last -- last decade. that is about 1/12 the rate of inflation. if you look at promotional bundles, the majority of our customers consume content -- the pricing has been flat over the last seven years. >> i want to ask mr. polka the same question. >> thank you very much. a bit, you are correct. you are correct. there are enormous sports costs. which are paid by large buddies likeown tomcat -- content comcast universal. they pay those rights. they pass those on to their customers, who were cable operators. among which are the 850 members of the aca. whose media sizes 1500 -- median size is 1500. in the context of this merger, there is the ability to be anti-competitive in the use of that programming. i will give you an example. our members purchased their programming 30 national cable holders and cooperative -- through the national cable-television quadra if -- cooperative. it is likely they will seek to recover their sports rights. it is sort of one pocket to the other. if nbc universal charges comcast a higher price, and that price is transferred down to the smaller providers, our members who by programming, our prices is member companies and competitors to both comcast and time warner will rise. which will ultimately lead to rising prices for consumers. that this convinced merger will lead to lower prices for consumers. in fact, to your point about choice, there is no choice today. programming from companies like comcast. how it is sold in bundles. bundles of programming must be purchased were no programming can be purchased at all. ultimately, unless the bundles are broken up, all they will see is higher prices. >> thank you. thank you mr. -- i see next one up -- the next one up as the gentleman from virginia. >> let me direct my first question to you, mr. cohen. comcast isnt that able to obtain discounts, is it likely they will seek discounts to compensate for lost revenue? to theeld my time professor who will comment more knowledgeably. i think the answer is no. we got a terms, if bigger discount, that would cause a programmer to go to a smaller cable company to try to make up the discount by getting a higher rate from the programmer. that would assume any initial negotiation, it left money on the table. charge them less than what they could otherwise get. now that they got less from us, they have to go back and get more from the other programmer. i think economics and antitrust law is pretty well settled on that fact. >> before we go to the professor, i have other questions. next i'm going to go to mr. sh -- schaeffer. do the requirements in the mec order adequately address your concerns? comcast has allegedly it is abiding by the net neutrality rules and not , itriminate against content has refused to upgrade its connectivity to all major backbones globally. they'lletina testimony, in the written testimony, the alleged that the vast majority of traffic goes through connections. -- over 30% of the traffic is going to its customers. there is clearly an internal inconsistency. what comcast has done is by refusing to upgrade the connections, two things. they have denied the customers who they are denying highest-quality service. the requests will not be answered. the bits cannot flow back to their network. secondly, they have created an inferior -- >> let me interrupt you. i don't want to give you the opportunity to repeat your testimony. does the nbc order adequately or dresser concerns? >> no. -- adequately address your concerns? >> no. does this transaction make the comcast standard the industry-standard? ons that have an impact cable provider members? >> i think that is a legitimate question. that necessarily needs to be part of the review by the fcc and department of justice. i have mentioned the number of video concerns today. many other aspects of this merger need to be reviewed, whether the cable advertising market, the broadband competitive market. access to technology, development of technology. how that is met about two other competitors. of inquiry that they need to pursue. >> let me hop back to mr. sch aeffer. you have stated that you asked tocast add additional ports decrease congestion. what our ports and are they expensive? hemphill aive mr. chance to reply. >> the port is the physical location where the traffic flows between the networks. the capital cost is trivial. we have offered to pay not only are copper bowl -- capital costs, but also comcast's. they have refused. >> professor hemphill, we defer to you. to supplement the answer. if there's anything else that you wanted to respond to, have at it. mr. cohenfirst point, said it well. from an economic perspective we would not expect some sort of shortfall in one market to be made up in another. a savvy company is going to negotiate as bested can. there's not some quarter it is trying to reach. to the conversation we have been having about ports. raises any of this foreclosure concern, it is important to understand that payment for interconnection is not new. it is not a new fight. it has always been the case that a payment is either going to be made through cash or reciprocal carriage. to think about this as a foreclosure concern is wrong. is ais really going on fight about who should pay for what in this competitive, highly competitive business. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will go to the gentleman from new york. >> thank you and i want to thank the witnesses for europe presents --. for your presence. i want to raise the question of the implications of this merger on women and minority owned businesses. that amongstwledge the constituents i represent, a substantial number of cable know, ours, as you time warner customers. time warner has been a spot spoke corporate citizen. in brooklyn and queens. i have a relays and -- i have every reason to believe that will occur. issues that they are concerned about that i want to explore. let me begin with mr. cohen. you testified the merger will result in substantial benefits to consumers, correct? >> correct. >> you indicated that comcast -- you indicated that greater customer choice is a likely benefit of the merger. better customer choice in terms of on-demand tv everywhere. that is correct. >> you also indicated that innovation will result from the merger. that could translate into enhanced video, voice, and/or internet opportunities for the consumer. >> scale leads to investment. investment in r&d and infrastructure. networks.re secure more reliable networks. innovation of the future. global andur larger national competitors are investing. products for three years from now and five years from now we cannot imagine now. >> i think that is a sound premise. myever, as many of colleagues have observed, there has been no commitment even -- as a either you relates to the impact of the proposed merger on consumers. -- the people i represent are most concerned about that fact. let me see if we can get a little clarity on that. comcast is a publicly traded company. as a result of being a publicly traded company, you have a fiduciary obligation to your shareholders? >> that is correct. you havef that is -- concluded that this merger will likely result in greater profitability for comcast if it were to be approved? >> i think the answer is basically yes, but i really want to say this. a couple of years ago, we woke up and realized we are now competing in a different class. a couple of members have referenced this. the world is changing with explosives change -- explosive speed. rationale under the merger relates to our ability to innovate, invest, and stay competitive. >> i understand that. i don't want to cut you off, but my time is limited. you would knowledge -- than if more profitable we were not able to innovate, invest, and continue to grow. >> that is a very sound point. and consistent with your fiduciary obligations. to questions my constituents ask is it for reasonable -- is it reasonable for them that likely toto a merger result in weaker profitability, there will be some positive that if it's for them in terms of positive impact for them in terms of price? -- out of know if it this transaction will come customers more satisfied with service. there is more to making customers happy than just the price. it is the value we are delivering. we believe consistent with our duty to shareholders, we have to focus on price, focus on customer -- satisfaction, customer -- focus on customer service. as a way to grow our customer base. all those interests are aligned. >> thank you. >> let me say this to the panel. missouri doesh of his question, we will take a 10 minute break. you all have been in the chair quite some time. mr. smith of missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. my first question is for mr. cohen. you testified that comcast and twc serve different geographic areas and do not offer services to the same consumers. yesterday -- yes or no, will consumers experience any decrease in comp is for video, broadband, or voice services? >> unequivocally, no. >> thank you. mr. pocock -- polka, many of your member companies are in rural areas. like the area of missouri i represent. though they do not compete directly with comcast or time warner, does this affect cable operators who do not directly compete? >> yes they do. re voiced -- our voice chat -- our vice chairman is one of your constituents. it does not compete directly. as i mentioned before, with the combination of comcast distribution assets with time warner cable assets, because of their size and ability to demand lower prices from other programming content writers, it does have an impact on the prices charged i all other -- by all other molded programming distributors. we may not see this until there is more that comes out. the prices are wholesale programming prices. timebility of comcast and warner will create a bigger disparity in pricing between and all time warner, other multi-video programming distributors who by programming to the national cooperative. comcast will pay a lower rate. the disparity in ice is between comcast and our members will increase. so small companies would see an increase, while comcast will see a decrease. >> that is what we expect to occur. schaeffer, i -- would like to ask you a question about interconnection. --t effect would be merger and the merger have in marketplace negotiations? >> it would have a significant impact. comcast would control access to a greater number of consumers. consumers, when they enter into a contract to buy a broadband, they don't mortgage their eyeballs. the comcast feels they do. patrick, i was interested with your testimony. what was the reason they cite -- dropped you? mr. cohen's explanation that it was a bandwidth issue. the thing that concerns me is it is now the policy -- are they going to be dropping independent channels when they need withoutd -- band with regard to support from the audience? anything that to independent channel has going? hen, is there any other reason they were dropped other than man with? -- bandwith? >> it was primarily a bandwidth determination. consumer demand for that channel in that market was -- put it at the top of the list to be dropped. nothing to do with the fact that it was independent or are eight percent owner minute -- ownership interest. >> my concern is this. is a rural tv station. a lot of folks in my area watch it quite often. if other people across this area -- country want to watch it, i hope the have the opportunity. can you give me any that thetion showing 400,000 households -- were there other independent cable television networks that had lower viewership that you did not drop? >> we can certainly follow-up on that. in ain a queue fra -- qfr. we still carry the network to 600,000 or 700,000 users. this is not a situation where we said this is a terrible channel. it is a local market decision hear and in, i understand the content being rural content. we are primarily a urban cluster cable company. even western states, most of our consumers aren't urban areas --. are in urban areas. we are not depriving anyone of access to rfdtv. just only to your consumers, the 400000 in colorado. >> at this time, we are going to reconvene at eight minutes after. thank you for your patience. allow you to take -- >> we will now resume questioning under the five-minute rule. i recognize mr. garcia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hemphill. been made about the size of the proposed comcast time warner merger, leading some to compare this with the failed at&t t-mobile deal. case, time warner and comcast don't compete head to head. how important do you think that distinction is? do you see adverse effects from that merger? size can be good, size can be read. it depends on the transaction. he says the deal doesn't tell us much about whether we should be concerned. i thinktioned before, the absence of head to head competition and output markets or input markets is crucial to understanding the deal. that doesn't mean that doj should pack up and go home. they need to pay attention. we have heard a lot about conceivable or theoretical foreclosure effects. it is important to take a close look. that whole investigation and way of thinking is different from the usual merger analysis. or reducedets, competition and input markets. representare aware, i a large hispanic community. i have heard from constituents. you, in my diverse with diverse and growing consumer needs, it is important that emerged comcast time warner show a strong commitment to ensuring that latino programmers are provided with the opportunity to reach the growing consumer market. how do you think that can be achieved? how can we make sure that what sure -- continues to be strong and providing great service? spent ais something we lot of time discussing, both on the distribution and content side of nbc universal. we have a strong commitment to making sure we have outlets not only for existing diverse voices but for new but -- diverse voices. i've talked about the new channels. 58 channels of hispanic and hispanic themed channel -- television. let me talk about other things in the same species -- space. reach the best way to people is with our vod service. we have expanded the number of vod hours available. in particular, for diverse audiences including the hispanic community. similarly, there is a lot of content we are delivering online. which may not be enough to make up a channel or a program. online content is a great outlet for young, new, diverse producers and directors. they don't have to put a new -- whole movie together. they can produce a seven minute video on youth violence in south miami. that can be available for us to be able to put online. we have created on the distribution side the patina website. website.o free toailable customers. there is a great mix of content and that particular site. we hosted the largest hispanic video on demand event in 2013. it was called expanded he -- x finity free view latino. these are some of the ideas we have created on the nbc site. things is what we are doing in the news said -- space. thereated a news article on website. news able to target related programming to the hispanic community. allow young and aspiring producers and talent to try out their talent on a website basis before they would go to the broadcast network. >> thank you. this time, i recognize mr. collins. >> thank you. >> for five minutes. concerned about the impact of the merger. we have had conversations on both sides. today's small businesses are able to use cable television to geo-target their ads. analysis hast competition would be reduced and cost would be raised. you provide information regarding the scope of the comcast cable advertising business if the merger is approved? thank you for the question. i will start by saying in the the nbc universal comcast transaction, advertising markets were not as important for those broadcasting. this one is different. there are a variety of ways that advertisers can get onto cable at this point. my understanding, it is a $5 billion market. wouldmbined company dominate two of the three ways advertisers can get on. in myedictable result, view, is that smaller going to getre not access to local cable. that time will be sold elsewhere. >> a negative impact. mr. polka, you said it would have a better mental effect for competitor such as netflix and amazon. i think there's an interesting argument that can be made. situations, it is a shortcut to grow instead of competing. in youre union -- opinion, does this merger remove the competitive dynamics from the market? because, really, things that doj consumers lose sight of -- i'm looking at the competitive marketplace. your comment? >> yes sir. when at of the matter is company like a comcast or a time the ourable -- which compete, there is an incentive to be anti-competitive and charge higher prices. we do believe there will be an impact on the competitive market for companies that are providing today ascompetitively a result of become a nation with comcast. yes sir, we do believe there will be an impact on competition. >> to have any examples that might lead you to that conclusion? see price disparity today among our member companies that are in competition with comcast and time warner. what we expect will be even greater ability to leverage programming sources in ways that will raise prices for competitors. if you are in the marketplace, it stands to reason you have an incentive to be and a competitive. -- anti-competitive. we will be raising those concerns at the sec and department of justice. i believe government should stay out of business. be at an, it should hands length. do have a question for you, mr. cohen. sometimes my questions come from the witnesses testimony. years has driven a question. michael -- my friend from missouri asked a question. you knew he was going to be tested mining -- testifying. it would seem like he would become an expert. you were asked a direct question. independentther channels that had less than 400,000 subscribers? do you know if they were less than 400,000? or were you withholding for proprietary reasons? i wasn't sure that was the question. >> it was a question. i thought the question was, were there other independent channels that were lower rated. what the that was question was. i don't know the answer to that question. we will get the answer to that question and respond. have the qfrou down. the 400,000 in that market, that is pretty good. an urban ands rural issue come that struck hollow. move toe people that the urban areas from the farm and like to be connected to the farm. >> i want to be clear. the company does not have a problem with rfttv. we think it is good content. we are carrying it to 700,000 customers. it was a local or condition that move was greater demand to to high definition for other popular channels. that is not a permanent decision. it was a decision made on the time -- at the time based on bandwidth constraints. i don't want to minimize the value of this network or its content. its appeal to consumers including our consumers. i hope i am being clear. i'm not i just -- questioning your commitment. my question was the concern on this passivity -- specificity of your answer given that they were here today. >> his recognize for five minutes. >> i think the panelists. i apologize for being in and out. i apologize. you haven't answered this question, i am happy to go on to the second one. can you speak to what the impact is on jobs? i know it will impact a different sectors of your workforce differently. in general, we imagine that mergers resulting efficiencies and job loss. if you could talk about that. what a merged company -- the impact on jobs. >> happy to answer it. you have to break the jobs down into two categories. of cablemajority industry jobs are local system jobs. local technicians, management teams. call centers. local people who run the system. that area of jobs, legal weecast any impact on -- don't forecast any impact on jobs. for the same reason we say we we don't have any employees that we will take over. theill need approximately same level of employment to operate the systems as they existed before. in terms of corporate headquarters jobs, type jobs, we have a legal department. an investor relations apartment. those are jobs which in a transaction of this type, you are likely to see some rationalization and elimination of employment. only at the headquarters level, which is a very small minority of the jobs in both of our companies. >> thank you. i know it has been said many times during the hearing that comcast does not compete with camcorder -- time warner in a single zip code. that was saidngs in the written testimony was the lack of competition could be used to justify the acquisition of other cable companies. how would you respond to the argument? whatuld do little to -- you see is the effect the merger would have on future mergers in the communications marketplace? what would prevent a well capitalized company from horizontally merging with your broadband providers? lawyer,former antitrust a recovering antitrust lawyer, i will give the only answer i can. it every transaction has to be viewed on its own merits. you have to look at each transaction. i don't to get his sound antitrust theory to just -- say you shouldn't approve this merger because the next should not be able to -- wouldn't be able to withstand scrutiny. i think this particular transaction has strong benefits and minimal antitrust risks. making any ofin these arguments, we could acquire anything we want and there will be no problem under antitrust laws. i don't think this transaction or the questions you asking are creating a president that any other transaction in the cable or broadband or telecom space would have to be approved if this transaction were approved. you have to visit each transaction as it comes. this transaction is approved, it will create a particular market. the next transaction will have to be judged against the market on its own merits. >> does anybody else want to respond? i don't see a limiting principle. that is something i wrote about. given the arguments we have heard today. if they don't compete with somebody, their argument is they are free to buy that company. given the other argument, which as we get advantages of scale, you get advantage of scale if you bite everybody else. -- if you buy somebody else. it troubles me. my view is doj will look harder because of that issue. thisst could be sitting in room again with a different series of arguments with a different merger in front of it. -- ie quick thought about agree with the earlier point that you have to judge each transaction on its own merits. you can imagine an alternative transaction in which the issues werecases -- stronger than the ones that seem to be present here. second, in which the existing protections of the earlier appletand the continuing ability of open internet rules -- where those were not present. those are distinctions you might not see in every transaction. testify, hold the mic up a little bit. i what mr. hemphill said, think this is that transaction. >> thank you, mr. transaction -- chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. hopefully this late in the day there is some original work i can bring to the committee. in 2009, when the approved buying of content -- huge amounts of content -- by a major arce occurred, we passed certain lexicon of where we are today. i have less concerns specifically about the merger the future.out i serve and energy and commerce, even though i have been in a leave of absence. we are taught -- constantly talking about the competitive environment. over here, we look at the sherman antitrust and say, do they meet it? we find the justice department is a hybrid. let me state my concerns and hopefully we will get some questions that may not apply only to today. that if thegree merger was all about an organization, time warner and comcast, where they were going to combine and all they were going to do was supply data to a buddy who wanted to put their entity under the pipe and sell it to me. if i was a cable customer and all i bought was a pipe that we are nota, and longer dealing in analog. just a to. -- data. saying, isly be there competition for data? we can't have that debate because you have become to conduct a company. you are a major buyer and reseller of content. you are an owner and developer of content. your in-house products compete against those you may choose to buy. somewhereoose to put in your channel spectrum in a way that is adverse to the view of that content. have iall agree on that? mentioned anything that is controversial? thisat is the case, committee will have little choice but to see, from what i can tell, you have met the basic criteria. you are dropping a percentage. you are not a new content entity. probably not any credible argument before justice that inehow things are changing any particular market. if there is, you are prepared to shed a market here or a market there to meet that. does anyone disagree that that is where we are? you believe that there's a specific event in this merger that clearly tips over based on president? -- precedent? what is that? >> we are at a point in the broadband market where comcast -- we have innovative competitors. >> name the competitor. name one. >> netflix, etc.. >> you are afraid that the delivery of data for netflix will be adversely affected. >> i am afraid that comcast as toincumbent has an incentive stifle the next big thing. the next big thing is internet. >> anyone have anything else? i will direct my question to mr. cohen. net, a delivery from the cloud. you announced it today. >> it is a video delivery system. it is not an internet delivery system. it is for video product, not our broadband product. >> it is pay-per-view, on-demand. >> it has pay-per-view, video. the fcc could say, that is a great product. but since netflix can feed into dvr and come through that pipe and be entitled to a no premium cost equal access to what you're delivering, the case could be made that all video content, large and small, would be delivered exactly the same from this dvr/pay-per-view. itther up -- whether i buy and netflix delivers it to the x one, or a record the equipment up there, when i ask for it, it would be delivered the same. 10 logically, that is correct. theoretically, the fcc could open up our networks and user interface. the fcc has said you have to give equal access and you cannot charge a premium. that is a given. is delivering a title vi cable service. the fcc could say that if we put thatn on our x1 platform, once we do that, we have to open it up -- >> mummy close. -- let me close. what i see here today and i think the committee needs to do is we need to have a broad discussion about existing antitrust laws. versus how the fcc, which does not fall under a jurisdiction, is creating or not creating things, bothsing in the true data side in the video side. we need to look at antitrust laws as the fcc implementation is going on. that theinced today merger candidates have gone through the check the boxes necessary. what i am not convinced about, and i am hoping the committee will do, is in this world of antitrust versus competition, our reach into the guidelines and what the sec can or must do is something between this committee and emc, we have to have a robust discussion. go competition versus anticompetition is a question linked to current antitrust laws market powerout that distorts. they don't talk about market access that promotes. as somebody that looks at the cloud and its potential, i see your new product as a cloud that they could create an environment in which all content would be delivered equally because once you have a pay-per-view or non-pay-per-view, a cloud product that delivers what i want to one product, you can deliver anything video. there is no difference on the bandwidth. i use the product record online or an alternate part. -- alternate product. ais hearing is giving us reason to do legislative reforms that tie in with the fcc is doing under the competition, what they are doing under net neutrality, and this committee. i hope we will seize the opportunity to seize our reach into this process. i don't think we will publish anything significant. you can check the box today. but we should do more to make sure there is access for the consumer. i think the chairman -- thank the chairman. >> we are hearing the concerns. johnson.o to mr. we go through the first -- mr. marine no. mr. gomez. -cicli -- mr.e cicilini. >> i have five minutes. it i would like yes or no answers. am i pronouncing that correctly? best netflixnext could be stifled? is that what you said? >> innovation can be stifled. that not what doj and courts are for? >> that is what doj and courts for. >> i am from pennsylvania. comcast has a large presence in pennsylvania and my district. impact if thise merger is concluded on present jobs and the prospect of future jobs expansion? is in answer pennsylvania, there is no job risk in this transaction. as i have said before and i will say again, most of the jobs are local system jobs. the comcast system in williamsport, no jobs. -- at risk. no time warner employees. our headquarters is in philadelphia. >> what about expansion? were continuing to grow jobs in pennsylvania today. i think we will continue to expand jobs. but that doesn't have anything to do with this transaction, to be fair. >> i have heard from --stituents, independently and some of my republican colleagues -- that this merger will expand more of an imbalance. withinion reporting already left of center media. effect cable operator, question is directed to me, we strive to provide diverse perspectives and viewpoints across our platform. has been inindustry a blur of the explosion of diverse viewpoints. i would expect us to continue to beble diverse viewpoints to expressed across cable systems. >> you have answered my next question. philosophy ont's delivering political views? we will go on to subsequent. please describe how comcast decides to carry new programs. >> we decide whether to carry programs based on our view of customer demand, interest. bandwidth needs. bandwidth constraints based on financial viability. we never would make a decision about cable carriage for a channel based on ideological perspective or viewpoints. >> in conclusion, will i lose my local news service in williamsport? >> say that again. lose, becauseto of this merger, my local news service? >> local broadcast. no. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> at this time, i recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i was parting of -- comcasthe failed nbc merger, there were questions and concerns raised about the potential for hurting -- competition. recently, it was reported in people took note that al gore was pushing the celsale. reported that al jazeera wanted to get the sharia law push into the united states and they were willing to pay big if there wasess oil or carbon all over the money. they were willing to pay big dollars but they would not do the deal one last comcast was willing