What we've requested would result in increased investment in urban areas, obviously, to meet demand, extend networks into areas that don't currently have service, and improve poor or substandard service in rural areas.
I don't know exactly how a trade-off would work in a situation like this, where it's a tax writeoff. I don't know how it would be structured.
The other issue is, I represent a variety of members, some of whom are still building networks in urban areas to catch up to the companies they are competing with that have had networks for a lot longer. Certainly they want to be able benefit in urban areas. But as you've seen from the data, all our members need to enhance these networks to meet the demand everywhere.
From what we've heard today, a rural strategy is certainly very appealing and makes a lot of sense. We've heard from other members that are doing similar things: bringing people together, identifying the gaps, and trying to work with the industry to build out.
I think that what we've requested, the accelerated capital cost allowance, will certainly help. It will free up capital for that. I don't know if it is the solution to a rural issue.