Thank you for that excellent question.
I feel a bit of paternity for APTN because I was general counsel at the CRTC when I came up with the idea that we could use paragraph 9(1)(h) to give birth to APTN, because before then paragraph 9(1)(h) was not being used. It was just an article in the statute, which then allowed the financing that created APTN and others that don't normally make it as well because they are more niche but are still important to citizenship in this country, like people with other kinds of disabilities—hearing and so forth.
With respect to APTN, I'm tremendously proud that I was part of its creation from a regulatory perspective.
You're correct. As people completely disconnect from cable or satellite, there is a revenue threat potentially to APTN, but as you know, when we defined the entry-level basic package, it was a compulsory part of the basic service, so even though some may go to the “skinny basic” package, they will still be contributing to APTN. Maybe somebody who is slimming their cable package can make that decision because it makes sense for their particular household. They will continue to contribute to the great programming APTN has, including some really high-quality investigative journalism that very few other news outlets have.