The best option, I think, is as much competition.... We welcome competition. And less regulation--we are far too highly regulated in telecom and broadcasting today. The amount of regulation we have in this country and the regulatory fees and charges that are imposed on us constitute a major drag on additional investment, notwithstanding the $6 billion that we've done in the last two years. If we had fewer of these fees imposed on us, we'd do even more.
All we're saying is, number one, if you're going to liberalize the foreign ownership rules, make it symmetrical. We all should have the opportunity to get cheaper access to capital. What we tried to put forward is a proposal. We're dealing with the facts on the ground, frankly. Let's put a proposal forward that liberalizes foreign ownership but is realistic and can be implemented. You have to balance the issue of access to foreign capital, Canadian jobs, rural deployment of broadband, cultural concerns, and we have to deal with the minister's indication that the Broadcasting Act won't be touched. So we put together a model that addresses those issues. It's realistic, 49%. By the way, that can be done without amending the Broadcasting Act.
So we put a pragmatic proposal forward: new entrants will have greater access to foreign capital in that way; we'll have greater access to foreign capital in that way. Competition.... We have a lot of carriers coming in on the wireless side.
And the last final point is that on the wireline side that Mr. Peirce is actually focusing on, I would urge you all to read the FCC's national broadband plan in the U.S. Here's what they said: the wireline business is a high-fixed-cost, high-sunk-cost business. Let's be realistic, and let's not expect that we're going to have a multitude of wireline providers coming in and offering services. It's just too expensive. But wireless offers great hope for additional competition, and in Canada we'll have eight and nine carriers. We're in pretty good shape.