Right, but what the decision spoke to, though, were the rates in competition in urban and suburban areas. This is conflating that to rural and remote areas. How is that justified in terms of a preamble like that and confusing the market? It led to some alterations. Then it related to suburban and urban capacity. Now it's being attempted to be bridged to rural and remote. I don't see the benefit to consumers in terms of competition and affordability.
On November 24th, 2020. See this statement in context.