We've had several people talk about the fund model. Quite frankly, the fund model is not the same as some of those existing funds. Those existing funds that we've already heard about are quite positive and they've had a positive effect, which is why you've seen over the last couple of years a balance, essentially, between new start-ups and entities that have been closing.
However, a fund model here would require the Facebooks and Googles to contribute. It could be on the basis of the revenues they are generating or it could be from general tax revenues. There are a number of ways that you can try to do that and remove the whole series of issues, because now you're funding journalism. You'll get rid of these eligibility criteria questions, because anybody is eligible to apply, as long as what they're doing is actively engaged in journalism.
You'll get rid of some of the other questions about why all this money is going to broadcasters. If broadcasters are producing the stuff and putting in applications to a fund, then they'll be able to get it. It levels the playing field for who has access, removes the questions around the lack of transparency on these deals and removes the influence that some of these companies have over those issues.
I think, frankly, it's a far better model that gets rid of many of the concerns that have been raised in this context, and it gets to the heart of what I hear the government is saying it wants to achieve, which is to support more journalism. The fund could help do that without some of the negative externalities that are coming out of this particular bill.