Mr. Jeremy Godfrey:

I was involved in the sharing of the early thinking. We certainly do not see any reason regulators should insist that parallel copper and fibre networks remain in place and that the consumer would have to bear the expense of having two networks in place. We want to make sure there are no regulatory barriers to the retirement of copper. In our early thinking, one of the things we said was that the universal service obligation is technology-neutral. It is an obligation to provide the connection and the voice service. If that can be provided over fibre rather than copper, whoever is the universal service provider should certainly have the right to choose the most cost effective technology. The cost savings from retirement of copper ought to be achieved for the benefit-----