I could respond to that. There's a lot of talk about protecting competitors. I think people forget that an explicit goal of our regulatory framework since competition was opened up, since 1992, has been to keep the incumbents whole. So actually the policy, since competition, has been to protect the incumbents from the consequences of competition, to make sure that their rate of return has remained at least what it was when it was guaranteed. In fact the rate of return of all incumbents since competition opened up, after 100 years of monopoly, has been better than or above what it was when that rate of return was regulated.
The policy of the government is to invite Canadians--only Canadians--to invest in competing network facilities that were built at no risk by the incumbents. So Canadians are being asked to invest completely at risk. As Ken Engelhart mentioned, what happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s--to my company included, which was AT&T Canada then--was that all of those investors lost their money because the incumbents were kept whole but none of the competitors were. So competitors don't come before this committee or the government today asking for protection. They ask that if the government's going to have a policy of competition, it pursue competitive market forces, not market forces that favour monopolies.