I'll answer part of the question.
From a legal perspective, any time you put a list in legislation, despite the fact that the heading may be open or closed.... If it's closed, it's obviously what's in the list. If it's open, if you put in language such as, “Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, this is the stuff that seems to be included within the broader concept”, any time you do it you indirectly get to shrinking down what that big bubble at the top means. The longer the list is, the more courts are likely to look at the greater concept as comprising only matters that are limited to what is “described below”. There's always a risk, from a legal perspective, to putting a list in legislation.
The question is, do you need the list? Why would you put the list in? If you look at the precedent that has been established by the transportation agency through the years, the issue before the agency is rarely whether or not something that a shipper wants is captured by the concept. The question is whether the shipper is entitled to get it in the circumstance. It's never a question whether a switch is captured by “level of service”? It's clearly captured. The question is: in the circumstance, is this shipper entitled to whatever it is that they want?
I'm not aware of a lot of cases before the agency in which the agency came out with a ruling and simply confirmed that something a shipper wanted from the list of the elements we've seen is not captured by the concept of common carriers; it is. The question is always: what is just and reasonable in the circumstance, and is this shipper in the circumstance entitled to get what they're actually getting?
From my perspective, it's a false debate to get into the question of whether these things in the list are covered or not. In my view, they are covered, if we're talking about the same list—switches and all the things we've seen or discussed in the past, other than the two elements that Annette referred to earlier. The question has always been: are the shippers in the circumstance entitled to get what they want?