This matter of an attempt to define LFRs was a matter that occupied a considerable amount of time and head-scratching in the original proceeding. It's frankly not so much a matter of science, but belief, in terms of how this thing should be crafted. There are opinions on both sides of the map.
The difficulty is, of course, if you make the region too small, it would mean that effectively deregulation will only occur in a small core of perhaps an urban area, and the rest of the regions may effectively be subject to regulation for endless amounts of time because the deregulated core is not included with that larger amount. If you make the size too large, then, effectively, some of the rural areas may be included by the fact that their population is less than the urban areas and be automatically deregulated in circumstances where that may not be something that is in keeping with their interests.
There are ways in which the local forbearance region can be constructed either smaller or larger that may in fact either benefit or hurt the interests of the incumbent telephone companies or benefit or hurt the interests of the customers it's attempting to serve. The CRTC took the position of effectively trying to look at a community of interest, in particular the economic community of interest, to come to some resolution on that scale.
And it's not perfect. Let's face it. I's not. You can find exceptions in this country and how it's applied where it's not perfect, but I think, by and large, it would have been preferable to leave that in place and try to individually fix the exceptional regions where their particular plan didn't work.