I do have two quibbles with the minister's order. If your model is based on the world that you're going to have these two competing networks and that these two competing networks have these very low costs--they have high sunk costs, they have low costs--it's a winner-take-all kind of competition, where you're moving to a world where you've got two broadband pipes. If I can convince you to get access on my broadband pipe, then I get to provide you with everything that goes down that pipe: television, high-speed Internet, digital telephony; you name it, it's going down my pipe. That's another reason, coming back to the Honourable Member Dan McTeague's point, which was that this is a different kind of industry, why you have a winner-take-all at each geographic location. You're going to have strong competition to be that provider of those services in that bundled competition.
Coming back to the nature of the question, I worry about what “throughout the geographic area” means. That's not very well defined.
The other thing that bothers me is that on those quality-of-service indicators, some of them are still related to the old hybrid model, which we know is not very effective. They're worried about unbundling loops and how quickly you unbundle loops and all that. The cable company doesn't need the unbundled loop to compete.