Okay.
In general, I think ultimately when you have market-based mechanisms allowing supply and demand to dictate the price, there will be a cost and there will be a return on invested capital calculated in. When we have regulated rates entirely, we have to ensure that those regulated rates are compensatory.
We made our recommendation that, for instance, for interswitching rates, the system in which they're set should be examined to ensure that they are compensatory. One of the things we're not in the business of, I think, is government regulation forcing economic circumstance on a commercial entity that is not actually compensatory. From that perspective, we do want to incent the service providers within the chain to do that.
That being said, there have to be certain checks and balances. We have to remember that even with the maximum revenue entitlement not being there, you still have things like final offer arbitration. You have regulated rates. You have the dispute resolution mechanisms of the agency. All kinds of mechanisms are built in to address the market imbalance that exists. I think the compensatory rate structure setting....
You know, Kelly, the reason they can't consider the commercial rates in their determination is that those are confidential. They don't actually have access to those rates. They're contractually confidential today. But I think that a cost and a reasonable return on investment capital for compensatory interswitching, and not to be excluded from a maximum revenue entitlement.... If we want interswitching, the railways should not be penalized for doing it, and that may be to the benefit of producers.