Of course you're right. Cable TV has a content component because we get to package, we get to price, we get to pick the channel they're on. Even telecommunications has a content component now, because people are using the telephone networks, the wireless networks, to download videos.
I guess our view at Rogers is that there's a trade-off. If you allow the pipes to be foreign-owned, you get the big benefit that those very capital-intensive businesses get access to foreign capital. You don't lose that much in the way of control over your cultural destiny, because those are primarily pipe businesses, and in the case of cable TV they're heavily regulated pipe businesses.
On the other hand, if you look at television producers, it's not a very capital-intensive business. They don't have a big need for foreign capital, yet they are far more important from a cultural perspective than the pipes.
So when you look at those two factors--capital requirements and the importance of the broadcasting to the cultural sector--we think it makes sense to allow foreign ownership for the pipes and not for the content.