I'm going to pick up on that with one other point, and that's to say that we pay not just for that but also in terms of the spam we receive. I would disagree with respect to Mr. Messer's point that somehow it's the telecom providers or the ISPs that bear the cost. No. We bear the cost, and we all know about the problems we have with affordability of Internet access and the kinds of data charges we face. When we looked at this, we saw that ISPs were up front, and they could give a per-customer cost in terms of what they were paying for the technology, the bandwidth, and the equipment they needed to deal with these issues. We pay that cost in the very high fees we face. As for the idea that somehow it's just the Rogers of the world, I'm sorry, but it's not.
In terms of the enforcement, you're absolutely right. From my perspective, it is very difficult to understand why there was a tool in the tool box that would have effectively outsourced some of this enforcement. We recognize that it would be very effective, given how nervous people are about the prospect that people would actually try to engage in this sort of enforcement, and yet we took it away and left it solely to an agency that hasn't done a good enough job, with the costs being borne by the public and the taxpayer.