Okay. I'll take a try at the first one.
Of course, it's very difficult to say with any kind of confidence, if you change the rules of the game, what's going to happen. It's certainly true that to the extent that there are economies of scale, rural areas are going to have higher costs for suppliers, who are going to want to recover those costs. That's been an issue, as you're saying, in Canada for many years. The economist's answer would be to provide a direct subsidy for disadvantaged users, but let's hold that aside, because it's a separate issue.
There are many parts of the world today, particularly in the developing world, in which rural areas are getting state-of-the-art telecommunications service because new suppliers are bringing in new models and new communications technology—wireless, short-range wireless. In fact, my sense would be that if anything, to really change the way the job is done in higher-cost rural areas would particularly benefit opening up the market to new entrants who are not wedded to old technologies, who are not building out old technologies that may not be suitable for low-density, low-scale areas.
You can go to places in Africa and Asia that are very much low-population areas and get wireless and satellite. Not everyone has it, but it's certainly an improvement over what was there before, which was one village telephone that was extremely expensive. It seems to me that this concern in fact augments an argument for opening up the market to new sources of competition, rather than saying that nothing is going to change, so that maybe it will just get worse.