I have to look to the wireless example in Canada, where effectively we attempted to start off the digital networks by licensing Microcell and Clearnet and had them end up being gobbled by the same providers they were supposed to compete with.
It is a big problem, because, in effect, the test on mergers is in fact efficiency. Many times they are able to show that there will be cost savings associated with efficiency--not necessarily associated with consumer welfare, but associated with shareholder welfare. I think there is a problem, not so much in terms of re-monopolization but in terms of the reduction to a duopoly or an oligopoly of companies that is extremely comfortable with their position and is not competing hard with each other.
I was at a conference last month where the president of the largest phone company in India was telling me how hard it was to compete in the wireless market in India where competitors are out offering $20 a month wireless access for life. This is hand-to-hand combat that's taking place among the wireless companies. You're not seeing that here. You're not seeing the same level of competition between wireless companies and broadband that exists in other parts of the world. We will eventually evolve a cozy little duopoly where, effectively, both the cable companies and the telephone companies will be happy with their market share and their performance with the shareholders.