And in all of these countries exactly the same.
But I suppose I just think there's something different about accepting that perhaps at the end of the day somebody will leave the regulatory field, but if there are real and material consequences to that -- for example for a larger provider, if the public interest test in terms of their wider media ownership were to take into account whether other aspects of their media delivery were part of the regulatory fold, that's a huge incentive, value -- whatever you want to call it -- to regulation.
So yes, you're right. Of course it's sort of semantic in that, I think, as Hugh Tomlinson put it, you would be crazy not to be a member. That's the idea. But I think ultimately, if you're pushed to the extreme, you have to accept somebody might sit outside. And then it's for the public to make choices, and advertisers to make choices, about whether to engage with them, and different consequences to come into play in terms of ownership and plurality, and those fears that we have in terms of power and influence.