Laurent Therivel
Management
Thanks, Sergey. So let's start with towers. The near-term objective is continued revenue expansion at the rate or faster than we've been doing it. How are we going to accomplish that? Increased colocation rates, decreased cycle times, marketing these towers to potential co-locators and being more aggressive on how we run that business. We've seen really good success thus far, and I expect that to continue. Longer term, I think the big opportunity, frankly, not to be simplistic, but it's more towers, building more towers to support our wireless business, putting those towers in place to improve our expense profile, whether it's moving out of high-rent areas, whether it's reducing our roaming exposure, whether it's improving coverage, right? So we put those towers in place and then we're going to put those towers in places where we also think that we can market them to the AT&T's, Verizon's, T-Mobile's and DISH in the world. And then the final, I think, attractive growth opportunity to get more towers goes back to what I was talking about with the right? If we have - if we get the economics to put a tower in place, if we can make those more attractive by putting an infrastructure component in that, - it means I can take a planned build of 100 towers and make it 300 towers or 500 towers. So improving both the effectiveness of that business as well as just the total volume of the scale of that business is where we're going with it. In terms of overlap with TDS, I absolutely think there's an opportunity, but it completely depends on how the grant programs are structured. So if the grant - if there's a grant program that's structured from a state as, hey, here's the geography that I want you to cover. And I want you to cover it with fiber and whatever you can't cover with fiber, I want you to cover with something else, and our something else is fixed wireless, and we think it's a tremendous service. We absolutely will work with TDS Telecom and those opportunities where we have that footprint opportunity. We'll also work with other players. And so we would absolutely take a partnership approach to serving that. There's an alternative approach where a state could say, Look, I'm going to allocate a certain amount of dollars to fiber, and I'm going to allocate another amount of dollars to other technologies like fixed wireless. For something like that, we would obviously bid independently, and there's not as much opportunity to work together. So I think we have a huge benefit in terms of bidding because we have a fiber partner like TDS Telecom. And I would argue they have a similar opportunity by having a fixed wireless provider that can fill in gaps in their footprint when they decide to bid for those brands as well. So I think we're absolutely more powerful together. .