What do you foresee in that regard . Michael its very difficult to say because people have different perceptions. It beautiful. I dont find it as radically transformational as i thought analog to hd was, which are member being chairman of the fcc touring and seeing my having my socks knocked off. I have 4k set at home, not a lot to watch yet. It doesnt have that dramatic differentiation. Other characteristics improve quality quite dramatically, hdr cable with the, the way color is rendered is quite beautiful. But this is just a cautionary tale. The human ear can only hear so may things in the human eye has so many limitations. You can only make a machine and begins to exceed real life and you have to be careful i dont know how to put this but i at some point, we are exceeding what is natural and the experience becomes unreal and jarring and almost too sharp that it creates a conflict with the way you see the world. I have no idea if that is 4k or 8k. Or some k in the future. If it helps gary sell more tv sets this week. Gordon i want to help gary sell more tv sets. If you put 4k content on a current hdtv, it is marginally better. If you put it on a 4k tv, i see the difference. Gary the experience and the reality of ultra 4k, the immersive experience you get being surrounded, the fact that you could be there with someone 3000 miles away, the opportunities here are really big and one of the drivers is not necessarily traditional. There are other things out there, there is prerecorded, there is video there are all sorts of things happening in other areas that will change the experience we have as consumers of entertainment and 20 years from now on this stage we will be talking perhaps about the immersive experience and doing it all in different locations. I grew up on a lot of Science Fiction and that is what excites me about my job. The only things that could go wrong is if government requires permission before innovation. The broadcast is an opportunity for broadcasters. Cable is a phenomenally great type line and the cable industry is the most strategic and says we are not going to make all of our money from content. We are going to make it bia make it by being a pipeline. A lot of it is coming from the internet and Youtube Channels and new products are coming up that i would not have considered. Snap chat it was created and made by 21 years 21yearolds and was rejected. We still have a long way to go. We still have parts of the body that we have not used. [laughter] richard what some people find jarring gary im grateful for that. [laughter] [laughter] richard all of a sudden we are talking about 8k. Is that likely to be an inhome Consumer Product in the near term . Gary i dont talk about it because i think when consumers get 4k, they are blown away. We know there will be robotics and drones and personal devices, Driverless Cars it is a great future ahead of us. Yes, there are other generations. This is like the patent guy who said 100 years ago, everything thats going to be invented has been invented. You think our senses are going to limit that . There are algorithms that will advance our senses. Gordon one thing you could plug now, i agree, as someone who is a consumer, who has been around tv for a long time, i understand part of the challenge. But we are being naive if we do not understand the trends that exist on the internet called good enough. The mobile phone is not near the fidelity of a fixed line phone. You could have fought forever. I am old enough, i can remember cell phones were not cheap. We sell fidelity. We sell quality. Telephone servers do not go down two minutes a year. There are so many things consumers will accept. The internet can do the same thing around video if we are not careful. There are kids that are happily contented with periscope and nothing about that will match anything on tv today. It does not mean it is not disruptive. It does not mean you can acclimate a generation around a different kind of Value Exchange of good enough. We think we can sit back and it will sell itself. I think we need to be advocates in assigning quality as high as the virtues people are getting from accessibility that supplements. It is just a challenge. I think we have to be committed to make the case for quality and not assume just put it in front of need or it will sell it self. Richard as far as ultra High Definition developments isnt even greater the possibility the standard for mobile devices . Exactly. Richard how will that impact gordon this is one of the greatest virtues of 4. 0. Broadcast mobility will be part of the future. Targeted advertising. Political advertising is important to broadcasters. It is broadcasting still, but it is going to shrink unless you can be more targeted in microtargeting in elections. 3. 0 allows you to do that. So, there is endless potential opportunities and my challenge is to get all of my members to understand if they want to play in the Telecommunications World of tomorrow as an equal partner with cable, satellite, and the phone companies, you need to be on this new standard. It will open up new opportunities to customers, as opposed to being subordinated to in a position that leaves us really just over the top in the mobile world. And this just not enough spectrum to do all video in over the top. Theres not going to be. So, we need to do this. Richard gary, on the current standard, the government spent a couple Million Dollars equipping the consumers with settop boxes. Are we going to go through a Market Driven program this time . Gary i think it depends whether broadcasters get behind it or not, frankly. That is the challenge. Broadcasters were there in the beginning for hdtv. They lost an opportunity. Even though the market projections ended up being perfect to sell hdtv, we did not have the broadcasters drive the transition. It turned out it was sports, movies, and believe it or not dvd. Broadcasters had an opportunity. They say over the air is important. The individual broadcasters did not promote the use of antennas. They just dont. I think that increasingly will be to their detriment. The same thing you mentioned with phones by the way, the reason for that is of got my share of members in common. Gary the Biggest Surprise for our industry the deterioration of quality with mp3 and people accepted lower quality. It was the tradeoff you are talking about. With smart phones, they do not have fm capability, but there is no market at this point. Radio broadcasters have not created that demand. So broadcasters have this phenomenal marketing to do. Maybe if the individual broadcasters do not see the return to themselves, for the industry there is no question. Sometimes you are creating a need that may not otherwise exist. Gordon gary will appreciate this and i think michael will as well. They all understand on a balance sheet. We are tried to keep all of the frogs in the wheelbarrow. Part of the job our association has is to look beyond the Quarterly Report and say look to the future. And it does require as the digital age did, as it will again with 3. 0 also i have an easier job. That is what our companies are doing. They are always looking down looking for a field. It is a question of aiming for the future. In our industry, i do not think that there is an industry who thinks they can build on the fast. If there was, maybe it was called circuit city or radioshack. Who think they can build on the past. Richard just talking about the key issues in the future Television World michael, it it seems every day there is a new streaming service. How will that impact the cable industry as you see it . Michael i think it will affect it profoundly. It is a risk and a challenge and an opportunity. Look, internet protocol allows the right kind of flexible and strategic use of content. Ip technology, or some form of it, is what allows a recommendation engine. It is what allows integration with commonlyshared platforms. It is what allows the customer specific data it advertisers increasingly demand to be provided and paid for. If those all go well, i think they will do really well. If anyone says we should run away, i think we will get run over by it. I think we do get a little technoecstatic about some of this stuff. Television is still launching a great story. I think as spurs this Distribution Platform or that, i i am still at home watching i think as far as this Distribution Platform are that i am still at home watching madmen. We can get a little bit hyperbolic about how transformational or revolutionary it is. The human beings still craves story and the human being still craves being entertained. That is not going anywhere. Any time in history. Whether it is that thing or this wire or that or through spectrum or through the ground, they well watch it three and 10 hours a month they will watch it 310 hours a month. Gary all these new technologies all new content will evaporate. And the millennium, this was just the worst thing since jack the ripper and the opposite has happened. There is more creativity and content then ever because more technology has enabled to do it cheaper. Big record labels have suffered, but content in music is incredible now. You do not need a big distribution company. Michael i think the challenge that is hard to square is the consumer is increasingly, daily acclimated to wanting the finest and best television can produce and increasingly unwilling to pay or not desiring to pay what it costs to produce. The average Major Television longform drama costs 4 million an episode to make. My kids, i want to watch game of thrones, which has a budget that would blow your hair off. I want to watch breaking bad. Where is that going to be funded . When you jump into original content what was it, a 300 million annual expense . Richard isnt it true that a la cart pricing or packages of programs are something that consumers are going to want . Michael they are not going to want. They want it now. Richard and impact of the future of cable and other industries . Michael i do not treat it as a disruption. I treated as a different market. The want to consume in a different manner. They have the same passion. They have different expectations of when and how. They have different expert patients of what they see different expectations of what they see as the value tradeoff. We had a wonderful time when we all celebrated the 500 channel universe. I remember this quest commercial. This guy walks into the hotel. Every movie ever made. Duration is still valuable. Consumers still craves the ability to have something that is simple, less is more, well priced, well valued. That means youve got to create flexibility around packages. Whether that is working with your programming partners or them experimenting or telling the government not to mandate bundles, or anything, but youve got to create the flexibility to give them what they are asking for anything you should he warned up this generation does not have to just take it. They have the tools, ability and the inventiveness to entertain themselves. If you do not give it to them, they will watch youtube for the rest of your life. Is probably difficult to say in your position, but harking back, talking about the consumers and giving them what they want, i interviewed you when your chairman, and i ask you about tivo and you said this is gods machine. That was my view of you as chairman. That was my favorite quote that you had. Now there are lawsuits against tivo and we expect the personal video recorder to be a usable products. But thats the law. You have to give consumers what they want. Richard what about retransmission consent in that regard . People paying for broadcast signals . What do you think about that . Gordon im all for it. [laughter] gordon as long as broadcasting continues to reduce the mostwatched content, as long as local as valued, as long as we are free people in america, we simply ask for the right to bargain for the power of our content without the government dictating. Richard what is wrong with that . Michael if it is valuable and they do not want the government to dictate it, sell it in the free market. Why do you need a government sanctioning . Richard what the marketplace what they have in mind is marketplace negotiations . Michael transmission are not lines of transmission are not marketplace what is increasingly happening is consumers are looking for the content they want in different forms and the role where the content owner or the ip broadcaster has more control about where and how that goes and the consumer has much Work Flexibility about how the system works. That to me is just the reality of what the market pressures will produce. Look. Back to my original question the only thing i ask is if the government wants to reevaluate the market as it exists today and reevaluate the Market Conditions that led you to those choices, you know, 20something, 30 years ago, then revalidate that. I do think there are strains. Its not just retransmission. I do not want to get caught in that. But i think there is an important need to reevaluate what our Public Policy judgments wouldnt you love for the country do have a modern reevaluation of the sensible of localism . The reality is, i think that is a fair question to ask. Someone should ask that and decide whether the country cares anymore. And if we do care, that i think he has got a point. But if we dont care [laughter] michael none of us are entitled to permanents. We have to be relevant in the modern age. Gordon i think localism means less in new york and washington, big metropolitan areas. I will tell you, being for morgan, being from oregon, it is absolutely vital. For all of flyover america its an important value and if it went away well, its not going to go away, because every member of congress is for it. Gary so, is it like the Second Amendment . Gordon when is the tornado coming . What is the weather . These are things that people count on. You may not think about it in washington. But the one thing that everyone counted on it was not broadband. It was broadcasting. Michael i would agree with everything gordon just said. Localism has a value. Thats not the question. The question is, does it rise to the level where the government should allow other entities to subsidize that model and should the government create legally enforceable preferences for that value as protected by law . Mad men is super, super value will. I do not want to miss it on sunday night. Gordon if the government was to get rid of all of the regulations related to broadcasting, most of them are harmful to our costs. A few of them, a few of them like must carry our beneficial to small stations. There is a tradeoff, but if the effort is to get rid of the few things that benefit broadcasters and leave us with all of the other costing positions, then i would join you in that. I would take them all away. Michael i tried to. [laughter] Richard Michael michael, your industry is engaged, just Getting Started in a rather because you are concerned about the fccs open internet board and the possibility of title ii regulation. Do you want to speak to that . Gordon can i Say Something about that . As a member of congress, i did not vote for Net Neutrality. The best thing about Net Neutrality is it but michael in the bullseye in this congress and not me. [laughter] richard dont worry. You will be back there soon enough. [laughter] michael i want to go back and commend gary, the first one to address this. Hes totally right. I could get in the weeds on this issue, but let me start from a high level point that is really important. Since the internet was invented in this country, the administration of the time, Vice President gore, i could name many people i thought were instrumental in creating the original foundation of the way Public Policy would look at this new thing called the internet. Richard including michael powell. Michael including me. The National Ethos was let entrepreneurs, innovators, and engineers and every day people determine the growth path and evolution of this phenomenal infrastructure, and not adopt the model of a central regulator with attorneys and bureaucrats not working from the bottom up but from the top down as we tried to do with the phone model. That was a Major National commitment. That was the ethos for the last 20 years. For the internet to grow unfettered by state and national regulations. For 20 years we watch to be country produce some of the greatest wealth generating innovating companies in the history of the world. There would be no google, no facebook, no amazon, no ebay, no snap chat, no whatsapp without this policy. The technology was deployed faster than any technology in the history of the world under that commitment. Secondly, we as leaders wandered around the world and demanded other governments do the same. We demanded governments with much more evil intentions over the internet russia, china, the Arabian Peninsula no, we will not stand for regulating the internet like the telephone system so you can censor, so you can extract a necessary value. And on the decision on Net Neutrality, the government switched that longstanding policy presumption. We have gone from a structure that is principally directed by markets and innovators and people to one that has lawyers and bureaucrats with an adversarial process and i do not know why anybody believes that that is a virtuous moment in time, and i do not know how we will have the moral authority to sit at the International Telecommunications union a year from now and tell the russians you should not regulate the internet like a telephone infrastructure. That is a switch. That is the most powerful source of authority the fcc has available to it bar none. It is now a central and powerfully armed regulator and it has created a process of complaints that allows any company to collaterally attack a business decision, to allow anybody who is unhappy with any aspect of the market to run with the commission, and we will also there for the year or year and a hal