Yes, I'd like that on the record.
So we go back to the Adam Smith thing, that there are butchers and there are bakers and this little model village that is economic theory. But the butchers can't get their stuff at the independent grocers because they can't get shelf space because it's controlled by a few large giants. If you run a little milk company, you're going to get put out of business pretty quickly. If you set up a small cattle operation, Cargill can sit on 10,000 head of cattle and they can drop the price just like that. So we don't have competition unless it's sometimes regulated. Sometimes we have to make competition in the marketplace. I think this is one of the things we have to start to look at.
We have a few very large players in our market, and they don't tend to give us very good service. I pay extremely high rates for my cable, and my daughter said she got better wi-fi service in Rwanda than she did in downtown Ottawa, so obviously we have a problem.
But the question is, is simply opening this market going to bring in a lot of competition, or are we going to see what's being speculated in The New York Times right now, that we're looking at a whole new wave of major buyouts, where we've created these two, or three, or four very large entities that are actually fairly small on the global scale, but they could then simply be picked up by somebody much bigger? So we then don't end up with any more competition; we just end up with a much bigger player controlling our market from someplace else. How do we actually ensure competition?