To answer your question, I'll quickly summarize the history of the introduction of competition in wireless.
At the time, the late Jim Prentice was Minister of Industry when there was an auction process in which we participated. He ensured that spectrum licences were reserved so that competition could be introduced. There were also other conditions, including infrastructure sharing. Indeed, why would we build three towers next to each other—one for Bell, one for Telus and one for Rogers—plus another for a new player entering the industry, when we'd be able to set up shop on the same tower?
In the United States, this is actually a business model. Towers are no longer owned by operators, but by tower companies, known as “towercos”. It is noteworthy that on these towers, there are radios from all the companies.
Here in Canada, we decided to do things differently. We were forced, for the most part, to build towers or install radios on buildings. It is certainly not ideal.
Then came mandatory roaming. In effect, when you left one territory, you had to be able to access another territory. We negotiated this with Rogers. Freedom Mobile, on the other hand, didn't have that privilege, if I can put it that way. Every time you changed territories, you lost your connection and had to call back. It was an extremely bad customer experience.
However, all that has evolved. Conditions have contributed to this. I think the CRTC understood the challenges. Sometimes you have to get into the details, and there's a lot at stake. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Things evolve as this explanation unfolds. Now, the CRTC and the Department of Industry are well aware of these challenges and are committed to their resolution.
On the other hand, we always face the same problems: relentless delays, legal challenges, regulatory challenges. We're forced to take legal action. For example, Quebecor had to sue Bell.