We have included a report that is a fairly detailed analysis, in retrospect, of what's happened in the U.S. in particular with regard to a fairly substantial modification of the regulatory regime as it relates to wholesale access in particular.
What's really important is that we sort of tunnel down through the 10,000-foot view of some of the high-level objectives--you know, if you really want to get access to some of these customers, then why don't you build, why don't you just invest the capital, raise the capital to do it, and so on.
Also, the whole premise that all companies could invest in facilities, by virtue of the fact that some companies actually do invest in facilities, has resulted in an environment that I believe, ultimately, is going to minimize--and is minimizing--competition and competitive entry, particularly for enterprise customers in the U.S.
The environment is a little different when you talk about consumers, because we now have additional facilities-based players with cable entry in particular that have been able to offer additional choice. At least we have two fundamental providers in that regard.
Of course, the other folks, like Ted and his company, continue to fight the good fight in terms of offering a non-facilities-based access arrangement for customers as well.
The bottom line is that in the U.S., some very simple and what on the surface appear to be fairly logical arguments have led to a diminishment of competition. I would be very concerned that if you fast-forward in Canada to have the CRTC implement some of the proposals or the policy framework that's included here, it would result in the same thing. I think that having fewer competitive options is not a good thing for the competitiveness of Canadian business, let alone for the participants who are actually providing those competitive services to those customers.