Well, Ms. Davies, I don't think the two recommendations we made are at all inconsistent. We recommended that in the introduction of new services, the pricing of those services, and the marketing of those services, the regulator should withdraw from involvement in the day-to-day activities. What technologies come to the market, how they're introduced, and that sort of thing should be something that is left to the marketplace.
When it comes to protection of consumers, we agree with your concern entirely. A significant chapter of our report, chapter 6 on social regulation, recognized that there were some concerns about vulnerable consumers, particularly in a less regulated, more competitive marketplace, and we made a number of specific recommendations to protect vulnerable consumers in those areas. We would encourage the government to implement them.
They include the establishment of this ombudsman office, which we called a telecom consumer agency, to deal with the problems. This is a model that's worked quite well in both Australia and the United Kingdom, where essentially it's an industry-funded body, but supervised by the CRTC so that you have the regulator ultimately supervising it.
What it does is put the onus where it should be, on the industry, to clean up its own act. There have been some abusive telemarketing practices, there have been some real problems with comprehensibility of bills—they've become very complex—and the comprehensibility of some of the packages, and some of it has bordered on the misleading. That's why we thought the TCA, the telecommunications consumer agency, could provide a very useful role protecting vulnerable consumers.