My view is that the dominant position that the incumbents have had when it comes to dealing with the CRTC has really not changed very much over the last 20 years. I think part of the bottleneck has to be with the way the CRTC is dealing with these issues as they arise.
There's been a consistent tendency to be more receptive to the points of view of the incumbents. And even when there are purported compromises in the decision of the CRTC, they're not real compromises; they're really cutting the baby in half and giving both parts to one side.