First of all, I should explain the comment regarding simply price matching. If you look at the products that have been brought to market by the cable companies, it would seem they have almost intentionally been structured to exactly, or very closely, match the products that are already on the market from the telephone companies. So you simply buy a local access service and then you pay on a permanent basis, or you bundle for a block of long distance minutes and so forth.
There has not been, in our estimation, any significant innovation in terms of the way those products are brought to market, the way they're priced and packaged, and in fact, in the value that's baked into those. As an example, if you look at a Vonage service, it is essentially packaged to eliminate the concept of local versus long distance; you buy a service that provides you access across North America. It's that kind of innovation that we feel will only be brought to market by smaller players because it is not in the business interests of the cable companies or the telephone companies to change the structure. They are simply in a battle for market share, which will ultimately--hopefully, in their perspective--result in the highest possible prices and the highest possible returns for their business, whereas with smaller companies like Vonage, we must innovate or we die. If we don't come to market with something different, we don't have a business to bring.
To go forward with the policy as it's espoused could essentially result in a market structure that results in no significant change in the product that's brought to market, with no significant across-the-board improvements in pricing or competitiveness of the players that are left in the market.