The good news is that, even before the Supreme Court agreed to review the 8th Circuit's decision, most of the states considered the same economic principles that we had. And, for the most part, they reached the same conclusion we did about the importance of sending correct economic signals. Most states saw the potential harm to competition of discouraging efficient investment or encouraging inefficient investment. There's a long road ahead, in the courts and in the state commissions, before final prices are set for interconnection, for UNEs, and for resold services. But there is a much higher awareness than in the past of the importance of addressing these issues in an economically rational manner.
Similar considerations apply in the case of universal service subsidies.
That's not sustainable in a competitive marketplace. One of the top priorities at the FCC and at the state commissions will be to devise a new system of support for high-cost areas, making the subsidies explicit, sustainable, predictable, and competitively neutral. Once again, in devising this system, we will need to make sure it's calculated to send correct economic signals, and that it doesn't deter efficient investment. We want to stimulate investment that is justified by the business case, not by distortions of legacy regulation. I want to take a moment now to acknowledge that one major deterrent to investment is risk.