Those are two totally unrelated questions. On the first one, are you talking about the Rogers complaint about CTV? That is a question of the code of ethics and whether that's being complied with by CTV or whether it has broken the rule and is in effect confusing its role as newsmakers and reporters of news. That is an issue of the code of ethics.
We have a system by which we ask the CBSC, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, to rule on it. If the ruling is made and somebody doesn't like it, they can appeal to us. I spoke to the chairman of the council. They actually had some other personal complaints on it. They're going to look into it and they're going to deal with it as quickly as possible.
As far as your question about 4(c) is concerned, I think it is for the participants in the market to establish the rules of how much that signal is worth. Clearly it has a value; otherwise it wouldn't be distributed. What is the value? Rather than our imposing it and in effect it becomes an operating subsidy, I think the participants in the market should negotiate it. We will make sure they do negotiate it; otherwise, we won't let them distribute the signals. But they should do it.
If they cannot come to an end, then one way to do it would be perhaps to adopt something like the best ball rule. You both give me your best offer and I'll pick one of the two. It therefore puts both of them under a real obligation to come up with a realistic number.