The technology that we provide is already in use by Bell and Telus. We're in pilot with a couple of the banks. We hope to have that launched very soon. I think you'll find in Canada that there will be a lot of announcements over the next number of months. We're all very excited about it.
We have made it very clear right from the beginning that our model is in effect a utility, that it is beneficial to all of the players to have it available to all of the players. On the mobile network side, any mobile network operator in Canada is free to come to EnStream and say they'd like to participate. In fact, for the most part our business model has been a cost recovery one to date, partly because we all benefit from the increase to the ecosystem.
It might be useful to use an example of what's happening that's very different in the United States. The entity in the United States that is similar to EnStream—it's not the same—is an entity called Isis. It's owned by T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T. It is actually a closed shop. They've set it up very much as a money-making entity, to provide service, when they are able to, through very expensive licensing to other carriers. It's a bit different in the States because there are way more carriers— there are a lot of smaller ones—and there are way more financial institutions.
In Canada, we've seen the benefits, with past technologies, of that kind of ubiquitous approach, that we all benefit from the increase in the ecosystem. However, when you talk about the competitive piece, the other part that's very important is to understand that Rogers gets no benefit by saying, “We're the only ones who can offer this, so we're going to get RBC, or this bank, instead of the rest of you”. There might be a slight advantage timewise, but one third of RBC's customers are on Rogers, one third are on Bell, and one third are on Telus. Then, of course, there are others in other parts of the country. That's in terms of market share. They all want to have all of the players participating.