It would absolutely put us at a disadvantage. We're going through a process today where I'm sure a number of my fellow colleagues here have submitted their business plans, as well as the current communities that they're serving, with broadband service. I think we're very clearly on record as saying yes, that's an issue.
I think the bigger issue, though, is for the broad category called rural Canada. Because if you look at those proposals, and I guess probably the largest, those hundreds of millions of dollars I think in the case of Bell Canada's submission, and I hope I'm correct in this...$455 million will advance rural broadband by 2.5%.
That still leaves a significant swath of rural Canada to benefit from rural broadband. If you're going to create that kind of market distortion that impacts the ability of players around the table to invest, the question is this: who's going to get to the last 10%, 15% and 20%? Because you're going to be causing a lot of consternation in the investment market, causing distortion. Do players like Telesat and Barrett go and invest in satellites? Do we invest in wireless? Do some of the other players invest?
It's the distortion factor that's problematic for rural Canadians. We'll be creative, we'll adapt, we'll figure things out as long as there's a fair and effective process. We're going through that process today. As long as it's fair and effective, we'll have to accommodate, we'll have to innovate, we don't have a choice. The real question is whether rural Canadians will be disadvantaged.