tv The Communicators Craig Moffett CSPAN April 28, 2018 6:29pm-7:22pm EDT
journalistroadened amendment protections. representingwas olson, as," and ted former solicitor general on president george w. bush. watch landmark conversations and join the conversation. follow us at c-span. we have resources on her website for >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a ublic service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to bring you of congress,verage the white house, the supreme and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country.
it's brought to you by your tv, cable, or satellite provider. >> from time to time on in the to bringtors," we like craig moffitt to the table. e's a telecom analyst and we want to discuss the state of the telecom industry in the united states, if we could start there, would you describe the state of the state of the telecom today? you for of all, thank having me back. i think the state of the state and i'm talking traditional more than the cable is actually nute, wrnlably stable. in some ways it's an industry that's gone through, wireless ly on the side, it's gone through a very since about 2014, a series of price wars. a bit more stable than it has. wire line telecom is, of course,
all kinds of challenges and those challenges aren't getting any easier. the cable side of the business, here is tremendous change with traditional video disappearing ather quickly, and traditional broadband coming to what i would characterize as sort of a period where ral maturity broadband penetration is now ather high and growth is decelerating. different segments of the telecom market each have their own story. been the effect of the corn cutting we've been reading about? >> on the cable side of the cutting is rd clearly affecting the satellite companies the most. operators, directv and dish network don't have any to fall back ness on so as their customers leave, they are simply leaving an revenues with them. market isgment of the
in real duress. the cable operators are weathering the storm relatively in the sense that as is omers, cutting the cord really not an appropriate moniker, at the end of the day they are disconnecting their relationship but they are keeping their broad ban relationship and in some ways the broadband relationship. typically they get discount for aking broadband and video together but that means when they are disconnecting the video rises he broadband price a bit, and cable operators are actually gaining subscriptions. losing video subscriptions, gaining ubscribers but losing video subscriptions. >> does that mean people are watching less video, less television? not at all. it's just that americans are getting their video from a lot different sources now. and some of them traditional. there has been this rise of the virtual with mvpd.
multichannel operator or what people call virtual cable operators. sling tv or directv tv. or hulu or youtube those kinds of companies are in replacements ct linear traditional model. there is some interesting math about whether they are, in fact, getting quite as much traction as -- they are gaining as many traditional s the players are losing subscribers, but then there is all of this and video coming from alternative sources. some of it from little the filo tv's, but bviously netflix and subscription video on demand and models like that. and also, a lot of user content, and a lot of smaller tent by producers, the taste maids of he world that are doing more
niche production. typically at a lower cost. but the amount of time that spending with video is actually rising, not falling. hart into ing kim this conversation. editor of a aging telecom company. >> i want to jump into one of biggest stories that all telecom providers, specifically able providers, are watching with the at&t-time warner trial against the doj, which is wrap up in the next week or so. do you have any predictions of outcome of that case and what that means for at&t, win or lose? well, and for a lot more than at&t. let me start with the general wall street consensus. the e case has progressed,
expectation that at&t will win has progressively risen. at something like 60-40 and there is month perfect guess isasure this, my that the broad consensus is that at&t ike 80-20 will win in that case. y own view is a bit more skeptical than that. i certainly wouldn't say that will lose that at&t but i would say i'm closer to agnostic. the judge has asked a lot of questions that have shown him to skeptical of the to rical part of trying quantify the consumer damages that would arise or allegedly arise from vertical integration. equate not sure that i that with the concept of whether r not vertical integration would yield higher prices.
the precise with quantification and still agree argued general theory probably best by carl shapiro in could, in, that prices fact, rise. it's still a legitimate argument. me, it's a relatively simple proposition, which is, the that arises rice a functiontiation is of the asymmetry and cost during a blackout. programming off the air and the distributor in that case loses subscribers, and loses affiliate fees and advertising. if in vertical integration, gets back some of the losses from the distributor by irtue of gaining subscribers to, in this case, directv, you they ibble with how many would get and you may quibble with exactly what the economics
are, but the argument that the net cost to at&t thed be lower and therefore equilibrium negotiation would yield a higher negotiated price, reasonably easy to understand and agree with. nd so, i guess, that's a relatively long and complicated nswer, but my us is precipitation is it's probably suspicion is precipitation not quite as hard for them to prove their case. look for at&t, if they get it, interesting transformation. they become much more of a media company. implications gger are actually for everybody else, verizon, st, fox, disney. this case will be transformative industry regardless of which way the judge decides. and at&t has positioned this deal as a big way for it to
compete with some of the big platform companies that are also getting into and have gotten into the media content distribution business in own right. the google's and facebooks of he world and they have talked about how this data can help them in the digital advertising world. is that pie and is there really enough of that pie to go around, when you're looking at of these different players online of these new content providers, and, getting to this place, in addition the net flicks and virtual companies that you were just talking about, do you see more as a idation happening necessity, as more people try to vie for this finite amount of dollars? >> well, it's a great question nd i think that's in some ways what's going to decide this case. that you need to scale in order
to be competitive with particularly the four big horsemen. it's worth remembering, though, those are very different from each other. whether it's google or facebook, example. business models have very little to do with each other. what they do have in common, and i think what's central to stephenson's argument that he week on the stand, is hat, you're competing with business models that are inclined to give video away for free. least from the perspective of the consumer, it's free. he consumer is in effect the product through advertising, and so while i don't think it's at&t's ic to think that ambition is to go all the way in hat direction, he's clearly talking about a future where he believes it's necessary to at partially subsidize the gettingvideo content by
other players or advertisers to tab. up the in theory, that's a plenty big nough market to support lots and lots of players. the concept, though, of whether targeted advertising ctually leads to morphed advertising dollars or less advertising dollars, academically, at least, is a very interesting question. almost everyone believes that advertising that's better data ed, that has more behind it, should sell for higher cpns or that advertisers more for it. that's the concept that at&t is talking about. opposite tends to happen. that the better targeted the is, the cheaper it is, in part because the same better gies that allow targeting also tend to allow -- targeting that same customer and find them in a heaper place, and therefore,
actually pay less for advertising rather than more. and that will be one of the real controversies and challenges, that the whole digital world the next decade, is will, in fact, better targeted lead to more advertising revenue or less revenue.ing my suspicion is that it will lead to less. >> so picking up on something said about the different business models and articularly the big online platform companies and the consumer is the product in many of those cases, that's been the of conversation especially in a post cambridge analytical world after mark zuckerburg couple of weeks ago on the hill, there is a lot more increasing privacy practices, possibility of regulatory action from the hill taking it up a notch to some of the agencies that do have some jurisdiction here. you think the risk is
but he entire eco-system particularly for the telecom providers who are certainly not immune to this as they move into of a content delivery and digital system? it's interesting. to the last six months of the obama administration, the risk was hat the isps and the telecom carriers were going to be ubject to a much stricter regulatory regime than are the edge providers like facebook and google. is, simplistically, they were going to be subject to an while google ment and facebook would be subject to an opt out requirement. asymmetry would be very, challenging, there was always some interesting that it was actually facebook and google were behind pushing for asymmetry in regulation.
once the title 2 was rolled november, 2016, was quently, when title 2 rolled back to title 1, some of urgency of that disappeared and we're now back to something like a more level playing field, this point, the federal trade commission has jurisdiction again and it's likely everyone will be treated the same way. the risk to the telecom operators is relatively small. and that's because they don't very large businesses at stake in advertising now to begin with. the risk to the edge providers now is actually quite a bit it is to the telecom in that there is a next step that the
is that everyone is subject to an opt-in requirement and for they say m companies that's not terribly different from where they are today but google and s like facebook that would be a very profound change. mentioned net neutrality which wauchz wrapped up in the privacy debate during wheeler era at the fcc. bviously, that issue never dies, it continues, and we're dealing with a cra vote possibly weeks.next few but given this new environment and given that this was largely as kind of a tech versus a ecom kind of battle for decade, tech has a lot of bigger fish to fry in a lot of ways and agitating in the same ay to get attention and to get policymakers to pay attention to it. does that diminish how much that anymore.matters sit no longer the big thing everyone is worried about there. net to be a lot of
neutrality fatigue from what i can see? >> that's a great way to put it right.hink you're but in some ways, it's less that their ve other things on to e and are less able agitate for it. one of the reasons this generated so much heat and arguably less light, so much heat, is because it was viewed as the good guys versus the bad and facebook e were the good guys and verizon, comcast were the bad guys. right now, they are all bad guys. there are no white hats in the room anymore, and so a lot of emotional or moral energy, behind net new neutrality has been drained away, and i may be speaking more
belt insider and closer to the issue than most people are, so i'm probably verestimating how much people but it ught about it, seems to me that the issue has to some extent been exposed for always was. which is a commercial dispute between two sets of companies. one set of companies who are of transport, and would like transport to be free, and one set of companies who are who would transport like to transport and have a this rhetoric of and emotional energy about principles of neutrality and amendmentnd the first and that sort of thing, were trappings to try to argue what essentially commercial arguments and without all of the if you will, about those arguments, people are less inclined to care that about something that's essentially a commercial dispute. pick up on what kim hart was talking about, do you
in see congressional action and if so, is congress mad enough that they may even go toward the european model? i'm sorry, i may have misunderstood the question. i thought you were talking first but you mayutrality have been talking about privacy. >> i'm talking a little bit more yes, i am. >> let me first on net i don't y, no, unfortunately see much room for action, and i hink that's rather disparitying. >> there is an awful lot of all parties from hat everyone would agree to no blocking. everyone would agree that legal should be accessible by everyone. there is some debate really only around whether paid prioritization, or what type of language is appropriate for paid
prioritization. how tightly does paid prioritization need to be constrained? in the grand scheme of things a pretty narrow source of disagreement. here is plenty of room for bipartisan congressional action. unfortunately, the democrats prefer to have this issue as an issue that will base, and so, it is arguably more convenient to have a problem than it is to a solution. the republicans don't want to cooperate with the democrats in ny way and hand the democrats what would look like a win. nd so you're back to partisan politics on both sides undermining what should be a proposition.asy you get it in certain states, states are partisan enough that they can all agree. but that doesn't help anyone. so now we've got this patchwork of some states with net it's a very nd unfortunate circumstance, and i
clear could say i see a path out. i don't. > on privacy, i still think we're a little further away, or we're probably one crisis away real motivation to act, case, t's in this probably less because of partisan politics, and more -- it's still st very difficult to say what the be.ht solution should i think people conceptually agree that customers should own but when you get down to, does that mean a have a portable ocial graph and you try to operational lies that, it's very tough and that's probably well beyond what you can expect to ress to be able to come agreement on. so if there is another crisis, all bets are off, and i think easy to imagine there will be one eventually but right now i don't think we're there yet. on what peter mentioned, which is european regulation in this area,
obviously, the e.u.'s gdpr, the ata protection regulation goes into effect in a couple of weeks. some are predicting that will become the new high watermark privacy practices across the board since so many providers and companies will have to theyy with it anyway since have such a large operation and a lot of viewers in europe. do you think that is actually to be the case or do you think that they will find ways apply different rules to americans, where there aren't such stringent rules, and do you policymakers in the u.s. are watching to learn some essons there, or that you really just don't see that happening on state side? no, we'll certainly pay attention and see what happens. of the interesting questions is whether the law of unintended consequences will that, in effect, compliance cost of will be quite high, that it may
quite ways, unintentionally, create a much bigger moat around the companies already. there google and facebook, and increasingly force advertisers concentrate their advertising dollars on those companies that are can be quite sure compliant, which again, are likely to be google and facebook largest companies. while the regulation is learly well intentioned, i think there is a growing sense that this is a complicated area again, law o, and, of unintended consequences may here.ly apply so my suspicion is people will wait and see what happens, but i it will have an immediate impact on privacy in the united states, and the have a tendency to adopt something closer to a standard instead of
vulcanize each country into completely different. a bit more bipartisan at least for now, global 're all in this race and the u.s. is kind of neck and neck with companies countries, sorry, like china and south korea, and all of the major carriers have put trials and are really putting out, or at least publicly saying they are putting effort into this and spectrum and so who you urious as to think will win the race on the carrier side and how to help the competitiveness. > well, i think all of the carriers have somewhat different perspectives on 5-g. erizon is probably the most vocal about 5-g, but particularly in talking about broadband, which is just one piece of 5-g.
think, may actually be the first with what they call 5-g, at&t is thinking about 5-g from primarily a mobility perspective, so you have all of these different perspectives an different time lines. i zoom out a little bit. 5-g is really three separate now.s right it's a set of ram protocols or access network protocols. that's what it is, a set of technologies, but it's also a of frequencies in that people are con plating 5-g with frequencies, e because that's initially where a lot of the activity is going to e is in millimeter rate frequencies, and it's also in a things, ses, internet driverless cars, and what have you. 5-g.last two really aren't they are sort of tangential to 5-g so let's put those aside for second. you will see 5-g equipment from
everyone. skeptical about the millimeter way of deployment of verizon's ing for fixed wireless broadband. nd i'm very skeptical about the -- cases for 5-g. example, s cars, for it's very unlikely, from a safety perspective, that cars be dependent on a connection to a wireless network, so it's hard to see the intermediating a driverless car market. if you come back to just the of the market and you'll see 5-g, for example, being deployed by megahurt n 600 spectrum in reasonably narrow blocks and they will call it 5-g but is that really 5-g? i'm not sure. fixedll see verizon doing wireless broadband in millimeter
spectrum that it acquired through strait path. really 5-g? again, while i suppose it is, what people quite had in mind. is the nomenclature here getting in the way, i think. i personally don't even see a race between china and the u.s., for example, in 5-g making concept. as a but i think everybody is going o have to slow down a little bit. real 5-g is probably still a bit here, out, whether it's whether it's in south korea or whether it's in china, than currently think. >> and going back to something hat we started out in the conversation, talking about over the top video and streaming services, and all of the models that we're seeing for distributing the content, driving the core
models areat kind of you most bullish about, since that's also a really crowded everyone seems to want to be providing their own service like this? not the distribution side of the business. unfortunately, the distribution side of the business looks to be quite unattractive. now, at&t, s directv ott ing tv, those kinds of distribution services look to be essentially profitless. feeding companies are -- r content into those today, and it's a pretty good in the sense that, a customer gained from one is prettyirtual mvpds close to offsetting a customer loss to traditional. the question is, whether that sustain and whether there is some loss there.
to a zoom back, though bigger picture observation, is, i think what's appening is the customer ownership in video historically was tied to the distributors. by that i mean, the physical distributors. he owner of the pipes, comcast owned its customers, directv owned its customers. increasingly seeing the aggregation and navigation function shift from distributors back upstream to being tied to the studios, customer ownership is moving aggregation and navigation function.
profound shift, you now see studios producing for direct to consumer models in captive way. it's funny, we're fighting in case over me warner whether or not there is the risk keep turner l content exclusive at a time when netflix' entire model is exclusive content and it's just that they produce it themselves sell it themselves. hbo's entire model, inside of their own produce content and sell it direct the whole world is moving to this concept of self-contained or closed systems with captive studio production, all the way through customer ownership. not necessarily all the way through physical pipes. that is radically different
model than what we have seen in the u.s. market in the past. it is funny that we are fighting over this and that at&t time warner case when the world is moving in that direction, with or without at&t and time warner. >> unfortunately, we are out of time. he is cofounder and senior , temp heart.yst -- tim hart. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme and public policy events in washington dc and around the
country. c-span's breath to you by your cable or satellite provider. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. comey will be live on book tv on c-span2 in primetime. "a higherutobiography loyalty." he will discuss issues he faced including hisr including views on president trump. watch james kobe -- comey on prime time, monday at 7:00 eastern. we are live in michigan where president trump is holding a rally 40 miles north of detroit. be president has chosen to at this event tonight while members of the white house press corps gather in washington for their annual dinner. in a rowhe second year that the president is skipping the white house correspondents dinner.
his press secretary is expected to be there. we will have live coverage of that event later tonight at 9:30 eastern here on c-span. >> ♪ ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ i need you more than ever. ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ you know i need you more than ever. ♪ ♪ i need you more than ever. ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ let's spend the night together.
oh my, my, my, my. ♪ something happens to me every time you walk by. ♪ no excuses. ♪ let's and the night together. -- spend the night together. ♪ i will satisfy your every need. ♪ i know you will satisfy me. let's spend the night together. ♪ you know i need you more than ever. ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ you know i need you more than ever. ♪ let's spend the night together. ♪ i'm satisfied. ♪ let's spend the night
memory, all alone in the moonlight i can smile at the old days i was beautiful then i remember the time i knew what happiness was let the memory live again burnt out ends of smokey days the stale cold smell of morning the street lamp dies, another night is over another day is dawning daylight i must wait for the sunrise i must think of a new life and i mustn't give in when the dawn comes, tonight will be a memory too
♪ there's colors on the street red, white, and blue people shuffling their feet people sleeping in their shoes there's a warning sign on the road ahead there's a lot of people saying we'd be better off dead don't feel like satan, but i am to them so i try to forget it any way i can keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free
world keep on rockin' in the free world ♪ i see a woman in the night with a baby in her hand there's an old street light near a garbage can now she put the kid away and she's gone to get a hit she hates her life and what she's done to it there's one more kid that'll never go to school never get to fall in love, never get to be cool keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free
we've got department stores and toilet paper got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer got a man of the people says keep hope alive got fuel to burn, got roads to drive keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free world keep on rockin' in the free world ♪
-- >> let's get a preview of tonight's white house correspondents dinner with the president of the white house correspondents association. we spoke with her earlier on washington journal. >> thanks for joining us. the president is not going to be at tonight's dinner in washington. remind us where he is going to be. >> he is holding a rally in at agan with supporters counterprogramming event. he did something similar to this last year. there is a big difference. this year the white house is sending a representative, sarah sanders, the press secretary. team haveent and his encouraged administration officials to attend as guests of the dinner. >> counterprogramming to type described it. i you expecting the president --
>> i think he will make mention of it. we have already seen fund-raising outreach the email. via email. since he is chosen to be with them instead of in the washington press corps. really weighed whether he wanted to attend and made remarks. >> the presidents of event in michigan, we are airing it live at 7:00 on c-span. the white house correspondents underway thist evening, live coverage begins at 9:30. do you do it and what is the agenda? >> the agenda is to support the first amendment and to use this as a stage to talk about the importance of really good reporting, some of the best
reporting of the year. we announce our award winners. we honor our scholarship recipients. that are scholars universities around the country you are studying to become the next generation of journalists, we bring them on stage and give them a chance to meet with the president. our scholars have the opportunity to do this yesterday. president trump and vice president pence were rolling up the carpet for us, they invited the scholars to come over and we brought them over. the president and vice president spent time shaking their hands and asking them about their studies. the president told them that he thought journalism was a great profession. maybe they should start quickly to replace us in our jobs. it is an opportunity to bring these forces that sometimes, during the rest of the year, face tensions with one another.
people involved in policy debates of the year. concern,e one common that there is value in reporting, in the airing of information and different views and that the first amendment is a vital part of the american democracy. >> how do you pick the host? is it always a comedian? >> it has not always been a comedian. there is always an entertainer. there have been many years when there was a singer, for example. it was in the 1980's that the idea of a comedian began to take root. what is popular about it is that when it is done right, when the entertainer rick -- nails it, they are able to do things. nave a comment let -- commo language of laughter. there is something special
about being able to tell jokes about the leaders, the most powerful leader, and to know that you are not going to be in trouble. but that is a constitutionally protected right. that sends a message to the country and the rest of the world that there is something special about american democracy. >> why did you pick michelle wolf? >> i think she is really funny. that is the most important part. she's a cultural comedian. years,e last couple of politics have been part of her repertoire. most of herrily -- jokes are more about culture and less about politics. she is a women. if there is anything that 2017 taught us, the role of women in politics, how we deal with women in the workplace and in journalism, it has been
something that artists -- our society have been tackling. she had a background in finance before she got into comedy. i very funny lady. >> live coverage gets underway at 9:30 eastern tonight. you can watch it on c-span.org. thanks for taking the time on a busy day. >> it has been a real pleasure. i hope everyone will tune in tonight. >> we are back live in michigan waiting for the president to hold a rally. you can see the crowds there, growing restless. tweeted earlier that he would be out at 7:00. this is like coverage on c-span. >> ladies and gentlemen. please welcome the president of the united states, donald j. trump. ♪
>> ♪ i'm proud to be an american. where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who gave the right to me. i gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. there ain't no doubt i love this land usa ♪ess the ♪ minnesota lakes of to the hills of tennessee across the plains from sea to shining sea from the tray down to houston in new york to l.a.
every -- pride in them every american heart since it's time to say that i'm proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who gave the right to me youi gladly stand up next and defend her still today there ate no doubt i love this land god bless the usa ♪ ♪ ♪ and i'm proud to be an american where at least i know every -- i'm free ♪ [applause] [applause]