Let me shift gears. You've mentioned two other things.
Your first point is that you saw cellular phones as an alternative to...and you cited 5%. I would argue that that is not an alternative, and I suspect that the other 95%, many of whom might have cellphones, are using both, not the same.... So there's complementarity as opposed to substitution, which is an important rule that has clearly been thrown out by this particular decision, but I'm not surprised.
On your second point, as to the question of rolling out in rural areas--the question of essential facilities--as you know, the proceedings have not been completed, as they relate to DSL and Ethernet tariffs. Wouldn't it be better, in your view, to be consistent on the policy direction, to wait for the final decision before proceeding with forbearance, before this important study, this important order, takes place? It sounds like we're putting the cart before the horse, and you're advocating that, I take it.