One idea, going back to Mr. McTeague's question of the industry officials last week, is that if there is indeed a threat that an 800-pound gorilla is going to be created through a merger, maybe in anticipation of this rather than after the fact the government might consider what an appropriate maximum share of market for any one provider might be—40%, 50%, 30%, something like that—in order to head off the unintended consequence. That would be one practical suggestion.
I move to the cable side of things—what your constituents would think of as cable, not as BDU. There would be all kinds of ways. Mr. Paradis' comment about profitability is completely accurate, right to the decimal point—I notice he said 25.1% profit before interest and taxes for the cable industry in the year ending August 31, 2009. When you look at something like that, from the point of view of customers it could be thought of as perhaps an excessive profit. From our research we have found that more than half of cable customers do not feel that they have a choice. I myself live in a building in downtown Toronto, Mr. Braid, where the orientation of my apartment would not enable me to use satellite service, and the condo rules would not permit me to have an antenna, so I am a captive of Rogers.
Your constituents would be aware of the continuous increases in their rates. The CRTC used to control the rates for basic cable, and companies had to ask for increases and justify them. In the year 2002 they stopped doing that. Guess what? The consumer price index since 2002 has gone up 14%, and the rates that Rogers charges for basic cable in the Toronto and Ottawa markets, where we have researched the question, have gone up by 85%. Now, that's not really in the interest of consumers. It's a territorial monopoly for a majority of people, and yet its rates aren't regulated.
So there is a whole range of activities that could be done, within the power of government, to give people a better deal in this country.