Yes. Ultimately what matters the most for consumers is not the exact number of competitors at any given point in time; it's the ability of new competitors to come in and give them new opportunities through innovation, through new services, through new businesses.
The problem we've had for the last number of years is that there have been three players. They are roughly equal, frankly, as everyone understands. They operate like a nice simple oligopoly, and there has been no opportunity for new entrants of any kind to come in. It was in that environment, by the way, with its Canadian ownership and control requirements--and they've all been fully Canadian-owned--that they have, to put it quite bluntly, taken advantage of the chance to screw the consumer. That is what happens when you have an environment where you don't have that freedom.
What you're going to have now are a series of new entrants coming in. We don't know how each individual one will evolve; they may consolidate down. The answer is that over a period of time, you may get to a smaller number of players than initially entered. There are still a whole series of provisions in terms of competition law that protect you from consolidating back to a pure monopoly, although they were allowed to get down to that three-player situation that we have had for the last little while.
What's important at that point and over a long period of time is having an environment that allows other new investors to come in, that allows the creation of other new entrants over time, and that ultimately keeps that dynamism in the market. It's that dynamism in the market that drives the change that ultimately gives the protection Mr. Masse was alluding to for consumers.