That's an excellent question. Of course, as I said, the construction of networks is expensive. We are moving away, in many countries, from the copper network to a fibre network, and it is even more expensive to put in fibre networks.
Nevertheless, I believe that what competition does is that, first, it forces the incumbent to improve service, and obviously it reduces prices, but then it clearly puts pressure on them to reach out. Because they do have coverage in the urban areas, but they want to extend coverage. They want to get a bigger part of the pie, if you wish, and they do tend to extend coverage.
The same goes for any new entrants that have networks. If they want to compete, they need the capital to compete. Therefore, they need capital from overseas, in many cases,to compete. They may need know-how from other national telecom operators if they're moving, for example, to a fibre network. I think the key point here is how investment creates better competitive conditions in the country.
Let's look at the mobile sector in many European countries. Granted, a country such as France is about 500,000 square metres in size, so there are at least 10 Frances in Canada; for example, I believe two Frances could fit into Ontario. Obviously the size of Canada is a factor, but there is virtually 100% coverage in the mobile sector in France. You have very few of what I would call “white spots” where you get no signal. That comes from having three operators and a number of virtual network operators, so competition is a key factor.