 in the question of wireless. Again, you can have a more or less competitive structure. You're beginning to see in the US with the new announcements from the chairman of the FCC of putting open internet on the mobile as well, again, for the same reason of concerns of insufficient competitiveness. The proprietary solution potentially, instead of public investment, may be open wireless networks. If we have them here, and here, there are some interesting potentials and possibilities, obviously. Let me not get into these details. I can come to that if people are interested later. Let's talk about devices. We have essentially two evolutionary paths. We have the open, standards-based systems. And we have the proprietary systems that run through the operators. And both of them have their own traditions. One, that was more generative and open. The other, that was more closed. And one of the major questions as we move to ubiquity is how this remains, or not remains, how this becomes open. The path of least resistance in terms of the organizational pathway and stability, what the habits are, what the contracts are, who controls in terms of the relationships with the operators, the pathway is towards a more closed system. That means you don't have the same level of control. That's why Android is such a strategic intervention, assuming that all things considered, it'll actually work in that way as opposed to be more controlled. Will the iPad that's being sold as one of these, but is a passive reading device, make the difference? I don't know. The handle evolutionary path is so critical because of ubiquity, because of ubiquitous computation, and comes from the owned and controlled historical path. And here we have the question, right? So at one level, App Store, hundreds of thousands of applications, easy, et cetera, everything, but a controlled system, as opposed to not. That's a critical question, whether what we'll see is market adoption that we'll drive if we're looking to a point at which the core question that drove the change, which is to say radically distributed capital capabilities to innovate over a system that allows it to innovate or not. Do we need behavioral regulation? Do we need to just wait to see what happens in the market? Hard to tell, but this is one critical new thing that is potentially moving us away from a system of open innovation. I won't get into the standards, and everybody's spoken about this, but this is obviously critical for all of the reasons that were stated. We also have the interest of content owners pushing regulation down into the regular.