Well, our submissions, particularly before the CRTC in this forbearance decision, were based upon the expert advice that was furnished to us by witnesses who were skilled in both competition and in the telecommunications industry, that effectively what you needed to have was probably three to four different competitors, all having at least 35% to 40% market share, before the market could be workably competitive. The CRTC attempted to whittle that down to some extent by allowing it to be a duopoly and allowing it to be a 25% share.
What we thought the CRTC arrived at was a pretty liberal test, or at least liberal towards the incumbent telephone companies, and we were fairly taken aback with the intensity of their opposition to this particular decision. It just doesn't accord with the views expressed by the experts we have consulted in relation to competition matters in telecommunications and what is required to have a generally competitive market.
What they have done is look at particularly the experience in such things as the wireless market or the long distance market or the broadband market in the United States and come to conclusions on when you see price discounts.
When do you see the appropriate kinds of measures that would constitute competition? You don't see them in duopolies. Duopolies don't compete in a very effective way. Eventually they settle into a pattern of conscious or unconscious parallelism. Well, to a large extent, that's what we're headed for here.