No, I don't. We have a set-up in this country where the premise—and it's a faulty premise—is that we have sufficient competition and that the marketplace will deliver the goods. In the past, when we've had even less competition before the transition to competition, there was a greater premium put on network reliability. Now we have this illusion that we have enough competition in place that the regulator and policy-makers can basically take their hands off the wheel and leave industry alone.
I think we've fallen between the legs of the stool and have neither a monopoly, as we had in the past, nor competition today. That's why I referred to a tight oligopoly. The problem, however, is that we don't have a policy or regulatory framework set-up in place to ensure regulators are going to deal honestly and candidly with the reality that this market will never be fully competitive. Companies' feet need to be held to the fire to ensure that essential public services are reliable, affordable and universally accessible so we can try to push competition as far as possible. However, right now we have regulators expressing undue deference to the industry, an extraordinary reluctance to actually regulate the industry, which has the kind of gatekeeper and market power that these companies have in this country, and a minister who is leaning on this mother-may-I approach versus reaching into the legislative tool kit he has, applying it and asking sharp questions about what more is needed.