I can't give you an answer, but I'll give you two answers. I'll try to make it short.
One point of view--from a rural operator who has 4,000 to 12,000 customers and competes with Telus, SaskTel, Bell Canada, or Aliant--is why would I invest to bring my network and organization up to the capacity where I can offer voice-over-Internet protocol when, under the minister's proposed order in council, Bell Canada, Aliant, or SaskTel, my incumbent competitor, is immediately forborne and can immediately compete, targeting my customers? He'll know exactly when someone leaves his network, and he'll phone that person and make an offer. His financial capacity and his organizational capacity are hugely larger than mine, so why would I even try, under those circumstances? That's what you're going to hear from the small cable companies.
My second answer is inspired by a certain notion that the business is going to packages. You're not going to survive with a single stand-alone communications offering. You'll need to have, at a minimum, high-speed Internet, television, and telecom. These companies will need to have that or they will not succeed in the marketplace, because the television companies are going to roll out their television products.
If these companies find themselves at a sub-economic scale where they don't have the organizational wherewithal to meet the challenge of a multi-product offering, they should probably make the rational decision to be consolidated into a larger company.
So those are the two answers. Where you sit on it depends a lot on your feelings and your notion on the role of the state.
Mr. Chairman is telling me my two answers are long enough. Thank you.