Industry committee  I do absolutely, because deregulation will allow all the players in the marketplace to really fight tooth and nail with one another for customers' loyalty. That's really what competition is all about, fundamentally, and the sooner we can get to that situation where everyone has to sharpen their pencils as much as they possibly can, the more consumers win.

Industry committee  I think the point is that by the proposal the minister has put forward we would deregulate in rural areas only where the competitors and competition are present. Where the competitors are not present, regulation will remain to protect consumers. That's why I spoke earlier about the benefits of going to smaller areas.

Industry committee  Again, I'll make the point I made before about not focusing on market share in these cases. I think what's key is the presence of competitors who can quickly respond to any pricing action by any other competitor. It sounds simplistic, but it's true that if, suppose, the Halifax market were deregulated, and if any one player—be it the incumbent ILEC or any other player—attempted to raise prices, I can switch to someone else by the weekend.

Industry committee  No, I don't. The deregulation, by the test proposed, occurs when there are competing service providers in the area already. Re-monopolization would require the incumbent to drive the competitors out of the marketplace. These cable companies are big boys, not little mom and pop shops.

Industry committee  Thank you, and I apologize for the difficulty with the language. Yes, we support the smallest possible area that you could look at as the basis for these deregulation decisions because it allows you the most precision. It also allows you to avoid the potential problems that could occur in either making or not making a regulatory decision in a larger area.

Industry committee  Yes, the new test speaks of either the LIRs or the exchanges, and in particular we think the exchanges are a very useful area to have on the table.

Industry committee  I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing the issue of the institutional structure going forward, but from what I understand from both the testimony you've had here recently from Ms. Scott from the commission and from Mr. Intven, one of the authors of the report, they believe moving to that kind of penalty just described, in the future, would be appropriate, although I note as well that Mr.

Industry committee  I don't have any specific studies that would fill that exact bill. I understand there may be measures that would show increased concentration in the U.S. I don't know that I've heard anyone saying that the deregulatory actions have been problematic and that consumers are worse off.

Industry committee  I think the three competitors are sufficient, and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think it's wrong to focus too much on market share in this instance. The real test is whether the competitors have the ability to quickly and fully respond to any kind of a price increase that an incumbent might attempt to put in place.

Industry committee  Thank you, sir. I had understood three minutes, so my remarks may be brief. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. As you may know, in January my institute submitted comments to Industry Canada in response to the Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15. If I could, I'll briefly summarize our response here.