Sure. To address your last point first, that's what happens when you invest in a technology and then the technology goes past, but you don't have the capital dollars recovered from the technology to be able to invest back into the technology to give the service. I will spare the federal government any rants on the Alberta SuperNet, and we'll just move on from there.
There has been discussion, and it has been acknowledged that high-speed Internet connectivity is a utility as opposed to a service. When we use terms like “utility” or “private company”, we say that a utility is a group of people that acknowledges that this is a fundamental service in order to exist, co-operate, or participate within the economy of the area. The government acknowledges that and then says, “Okay, private industry might not be able to afford it, and that's where we step in.”
Why I think counties are a good place to start for the investment of these capital dollars is what we've seen in the United States, with the threat to net neutrality, with the inability to have privacy and your private information. At what level do you want to have that privacy, that control of the network, and that infrastructure in the hands of the people? In the remote communities, my view is that if you want to successfully transfer all of those economic benefits to rural ridings, that rural riding itself—the county, whatever it is—has to be in control of the technology, with the support of the government agencies, both federal and provincial.