The Governor in Council's decision did not overturn the rates. I want to acknowledge that. They said that this is already before the CRTC and they should take care of it. In that sense, that's a good thing, but it also made a comment that the rates may not in all cases have achieved the right balance between investment and affordability.
That was a real concern to us and to the competitive industry as a whole because it signalled that the government doesn't seem to have recognized or acknowledged that competitors—when we get those lower rates and when we get the refunds for the money that we've overpaid all of these years—will invest that money in the economy, including in facilities and in our networks.
To arrive at a conclusion that low rates necessarily mean low investment basically requires that you also believe that only the incumbents are going to invest. Yes, the incumbents get lower revenues from wholesale rates than they do from a captured retail market where they can charge whatever they want. Of course, that's the idea of competition. When competitors are healthy and participating in that economy and their revenue is not tied up in incumbents, then competitors can also take that money and invest it in facilities and in their communities in different ways.
That was our concern about that statement from the government. It reflected this idea that there's this balance or trade-off between investment and competition.