From the investor day. One of the questions we've been getting from investors after those presentations is people were wondering about the margin growth. I think what you said is that you're expecting a resumption of growth on the EBITDA side over the next three years. We're not necessarily expecting margin improvement over that period of time. The question is, is this a matter of revenue mix shift, or should we be maybe expecting some growth on the Canadian telecom side? Great. Again, thanks for having me. Hopefully, folks attended or at least watched the stream. I know there is a lot of information and new information transparency we have provided. If there are other questions, beyond this one, we will take the time to unpack it. In terms of the EBITDA question, which ultimately is, I would say a few things. One, the shift over 2025 to 2028 in terms of where our financial profile is being driven, revenue and EBITDA. You are right, Jerome. In terms of there are growth avenues, there are headwinds. Our financial profile does change over time, though, where more of our revenue and EBITDA is coming from growth areas. Think wireless, think internet, think AI-powered solutions, and Ziply Fiber, and less of the legacy services. To your point and your more specific question, over this time period where we're driving 15% free cash flow growth, we're deleveraging. We are funding newer businesses. That funding of new businesses is not just CapEx, it's also OpEx. On the AI-powered solution side, whether it's cyber, whether it's AI Fabric or TechCo, we are funding OpEx there also. They are newer businesses. They are growing. I mean, the margins will continue to expand. Overall, EBITDA dollar growth, free cash flow growth, and percent margins are relatively stable across the period. Yeah, difficult to have the same margins as landline, but it doesn't mean it's a bad investment, right? I like the landline margins as well. Yeah. I want to start the rest of the conversation on Black Friday. We had TELUS presenting this morning. Eager to see if you're going to have the same answer there. What are we seeing so far in terms of Black Friday? Are we seeing sort of a continuation of the easing of the competitive intensity we've been seeing in the last couple of months? If I go back in time, I'd say historically the Canadian market has been more rational and reasonable than other markets. I think over the last couple of years, perhaps the US has seemed more reasonable and rational pricing-wise than Canada. It feels like we're getting back to kind of the normal interaction, whereas the US might seem a little bit more aggressive. We're moving back into a strong value, still competitive, but not overly frothy in terms of customer offers. There is still, obviously, at certain times of the year, it's why we're talking about Black Friday. It's why we talked about back-to-school boxing week. There are certainly more active promotional times during the year. Overall, it feels like the same level of competitive activity promotions, but off of a higher starting RPU base. I said on the call, our kind of monthly rates are up year over year. They're up quarter over quarter. New-in rates are higher than our base, which means every new sub that we pick up in the market, it's actually increasing our RPU, which hasn't happened over the last couple of years. Ultimately, it feels like a much healthier competitive environment. Front book coming in higher than the back book, it sounds like. The next obvious question is, when should we be expecting RPU growth? Because we're seeing in terms of second derivative, we're seeing the improvement on that front. It could still be a catalyst that when we're seeing the actual number being higher than zero coming, that could be positive for the industry. Maybe when should we be expecting that? It doesn't seem like we're any different from the rest of the industry. I mean, it feels like everyone's kind of come out and said, back end of 2026, things turn around. In terms of blended basis, I would say we gave a three-year guidance. Next year, 2026 would be the softest relative to 2027, 2028, because we're still working our way through contracts that we signed nine months ago, 12 months ago, 14 months ago. That's kind of just math. We know how that's working out. The good news for the rest of the period is, again, the contracts we're signing now are actually at a higher RPU, a higher monthly recurring charge. We can play out that math over the next 24 months-30 months. It certainly is trending in the right direction, but a little bit more time that we got to muddle through before it increases. Yeah, makes sense. On the net add side, you've been trailing a little bit in terms of market share over the last couple of quarters. Maybe you can comment if this is by design or not, but we're heading in a world of convergence. You have a fairly large fixed footprint. What should that mean for your future market share of net adds? Yeah, it means a few things. I mean, you pointed it out. In a world where we're trying to attract subscribers and sell our services, we do have a few advantages. In a converged world, as you say, we have wireline across 75% of the country. Not only is it broadband, but it's actually fiber. The world of potential subscribers that will pay for the superior broadband product leads to subscribers overlaps, subscribers that want to pay for the Bell-branded product. Two quarters ago, we were ahead of everybody in gross and nets. Last quarter, a little bit softer. It's ultimately up to us. I mean, we could sell more and drive more gross adds, but we want to actually drive gross adds that are profitable. The incremental, the final 2,000-3,000-5,000 loads at the end of the quarter, if they're not profitable, we're not going to chase them. There is going to be a little bit of variability. The good news for us is heavier and heavier loading on the Bell brand, which means bundled with Bell Fiber, bundled with Bell Mobility, and increasingly bundled with direct-to-consumer content. Think Crave, think TSN, and Quebec would be RDS. Ultimately, the subscriber profile is more heavily weighted to the Bell brand, lower churn, higher RPU. Yeah, makes sense. Let's go to the US. I want to talk about it for a little bit there. I want to discuss your build targets. You have an 8 million homes pass target in terms of fiber down the road. The question we often get is there's a land grab dynamic in the US right now among several well-funded players. How confident are you that you can meet that objective? Why can't AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile all build faster, essentially? There are a few things to unpack there. Let me remind me if I missed anything. I'd say one, we're a well-funded competitor. Our partnership with PSP, so our network fiber co, means that we're a strategic building in the US because we bring Canadian scale and expertise, but we also have a funding partner and the ability to fund using debt, using leverage. Our cash cost is quite limited in terms of the overall funding need. Our ability to grow isn't limited by our ability to finance. It's really permits, blocking, and tackling. We've located, and when I say we, the team in the US, because it's not me saying, "Oh, here's where you should build in Montana." There's an expert team in the US that knows the markets within the four states, outside the four states. They've identified target markets. It is really just up to us to continue to build, get permits, shovels in the ground, and build out. In terms of the AT&T point, it is a bit of a good news story where the US market is catching up and realizing fiber beats cable. The more fiber you have, the more you win in the market. We have been there in Canada for just a longer period of time. That is kind of the norm here. They are just further behind in the US. Their numbers that they have to build are staggering. I mean, AT&T has to build another 30 million fiber locations. They will absolutely build fiber. They will absolutely take share. We do not compete against AT&T's fiber. Our theory, and I think it is the right one, is build fiber, compete against cable, do not overbuild somebody else's fiber. Because the goal for us is going from 0% up to 40% over a handful of years because you're taking share from cable. You're not competing against fiber. Harold would say we're first fiber. We're the only fiber in the market. You do not actually have to compete against AT&T or Verizon. You compete against cable. Right. I want to ask a question longer term, probably too longer term, too much longer term, but in terms of the value creation algorithm, we kind of see that you're paying maybe CAD 1,000 or maybe a little bit more for the construction. And some of the transactions we've been seeing for fiber assets were a much higher value per homes passed. So we can see the value creation algorithm there. But over the longer term, is this an asset you intend to operate once the build phase is complete? Essentially, do you still see yourself as having a competitive advantage while operating this asset longer term? Yes. Yeah, it's a fantastic asset. It's right down the middle of what we do. Now, you're also asking, and I'll answer it a different way. Yeah, there's a ton of value in these types of infrastructure assets. Fiber is a long-lived asset. The multiples of pure play fiber, which simply are quite high, there's a lot of value there. Yes, we're going to create value. Yes, there's a long runway of growth and value capture. Yes, it does create a lot of option value, but our base case is operate it, build fiber. It's really quite simple. Build fiber, load subs onto the network, build more fiber, load more subs, capture free cash flow. If in X years, somebody thinks there's a ridiculous value on the table, yeah, it's a good news story. It's a very valuable asset, but we're happy to just continue running this and operating this. Yeah, makes sense. In the meantime, you didn't shut the door on additional M&A necessarily in the US. At the same time, we're seeing that you can build probably for cheaper than you can buy, but there's different considerations in terms of footprint you want to address. Now that you have a platform to build upon in the US, what would be the key factors influencing your decision on further M&A in the US? Yeah, it's a fair question. Look, it's option value. We have an organic path to build to 8 million homes. I mean, Harold and team have located more than that or identified more than that. We realize they're not all going to be available when we're looking to build them at that time. We're not going to overbuild the AT&T and Verizons of the world. We realize that that's part of the plan. Whether it's US fiber or any other opportunity, if there's an opportunity to further our capital markets goal and drive shareholder value, we have to look at it. We just have to look at it. That's our job as management. In the US, is it possible that there are smaller acquisitions that probably unlock an ability to build more? If it's an acquisition that, obviously, I say it, I'm the CFO, so I kind of have to repeat it, that lives within our capital markets positioning, that doesn't impact our ability to delever, but accelerates our ability to capture growth, then for sure we have to look at it. Your leverage objective is paramount, probably. Absolutely. We all stood on stage a month and a half ago and told everyone, "This is our story. This is our strategy. We are going to make that happen." If there is a way to accelerate growth within those parameters, then we will look to accelerate growth. Yeah, makes sense. I want to step back in Canada. For the last two quarters, I think the management team was more excited about the B2B opportunity. I think a lot of investors still see B2B as being a legacy business for you guys that's been affecting the growth profile of the company. It seems it's improving there. We will touch on the AI stuff a bit later. On the legacy B2B, do you think that we're getting closer to maybe a harder core of your businesses that will be eroding maybe slower? Yeah, you're right to point it out. Shame on us, we haven't been highlighting it as much. Frankly, it has been outperforming other enterprise businesses globally and especially across North America. I think it speaks to the relationships we have with government, with enterprise, the products that we have. You're right, there is a kind of turnover from legacy products, even in the core side of the business, leaving the AI-powered solutions to the side for a second. Even in the core business, leveraging technology and more technology solutions and moving away from legacy kind of circuits and sales, it's still a little bit of a tailwind, but pretty close to breaking even. It's been very, very good performance from that team. Improving on that front. Maybe the other initiatives don't have to work as well. We'll take both. Yeah, we'll take both. Obviously. On the AI Fabric, you can maybe just unpack a bit the business model here because there's an infinite amount of strategies you could be using there. You don't want to become a hyperscaler from our understanding, but what's the model here and where does Bell create value in the ecosystem? Sure. I'll adjust. No, we don't want to be a hyperscaler. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone in the room, but just to clarify, since it was a direct question, ultimately what we're doing is doing the same thing that we've done for 145 years, just with different technology. We provide solutions to our customers, whether they're government customers or enterprise customers. We provide solutions. The easier we can make the capture of value and the solution for our customers, the better. We're not going to play in every single step along the way. We're not going to be a hyperscaler. We're not going to be a large language model. We partner with them. Twenty-five years ago, we would partner with HP and IBM. In this day and age, you're partnering with hyperscalers and you're partnering with the congregators of the world. Ultimately, though, we're still delivering a solution to our customer base. Yes, on the AI space and power, we'll generate revenue there. Our advantages will wrap in cybersecurity on top of that. We already built out the fiber, so we'll get connectivity revenue. A techco is an important piece of the puzzle, whether it's hyperscaler or kind of the ServiceNow, Salesforce platforms of the world. The Canadian economy, and we're part of it as a company, we are going to be spending money, and we need to capture value for the money that we're spending on the platforms. There is going to be a demand for AI-driven efficiencies. A techco is the company. They're helping us capture these synergies and move to the cloud and leverage AI. It is the same product that we are consuming internally that we actually turn around and sell to the rest of our customers. Practically, that just means it is easier to provide end-to-end solutions for our customers. Again, we do not have to play in every single kind of layer of that AI cake. We are not looking to determine which AI application is actually the winner. To put it in a simple analogy, going back to the internet time, whether Facebook or MySpace win, it does not really matter to us. I mean, we are the compute, we are the ecosystem of it. We are facilitating AI use cases and AI services. We are not actually choosing which one wins. Bringing back data in Canada is probably going to be topical for a little while there, but there's costs related to that too. You're making investments at this point. If you can maybe unpack a bit, what are the direct investments you're doing? What's included in your guidance? Maybe touch on the return profile specifically for those investments. Sure. What we said, over the next two, three years, call it CAD 300 million in CapEx, largely just the traditional data center, so cooling and gen sets. We've not purchased on the compute side of the world. That's an option to us if that's a better use of capital than other investments. Again, any investment we make across the company, we do look at it as a consolidated bucket. It's going to fit within our envelope. We said it's CAD 3.7 billion, 15% in 2025, same dollar amount in 2028. Really, if there's a better investment, it's just going to displace something else within our CDI envelope. We're not looking to spend incremental CapEx. We just provided three-year guidance. For me, if there are better and better opportunities, fantastic. That just means we're going to get a higher rate of return on our capital and displace other spend that we otherwise would have spent. So far, your plan is only for 73 megawatts of what you've been allocated. I think you have potentially access to 500 megawatts. How good of a line of sight do you have to monetizing this additional power too? You can imagine there's certainly a lot of demand, but we don't want to get out in front of ourselves. As Mirko said, if I said, the goal for us is to capture the opportunity, but not to be out in front of it. I mean, this is not an AI gold rush in a way. I mean, when we have line of sight into contracts, we'll sign the contracts, we'll build facilities, we'll spend the CapEx. We don't want to get out in front of it, but we do have access to power, which does seem like a limiting factor for the opportunity. We've kind of checked that box, so to speak. All the pieces are in place. We're just trying to time the investment with the timing of the return. Clearly, the demand is there, and we'll keep making announcements as they happen. It's a little bit lumpy on the AI Fabric side of the world. It's a little bit more stable on the cyber side of the world in a TechCo, but AI Fabric will be lumpy, and we'll just continue to sign contracts. Sounds like the opposite of build it and they will come at this point for AI. It's not who we are. It is in the industry, but fundamentally, AI use cases will help drive the economy. Again, we don't need to, we're not dependent on individual winners. It's more that the economy writ large wants to leverage technology to improve our overall efficiency and drive GDP growth, which seems like a pretty straightforward hypothesis. Yeah, industry is going there. I want to go back to Canadian telecom for a minute here. You've been building fiber very quickly over the last few years. Wondering where you are in terms of your roadmap, in terms of adding the market share, where you are right now, where you think you can get, where are we? It's a bit of a loaded question because I don't see really any reason to cap our fiber penetration. It's a superior product, and it will be over the foreseeable roadmap. I think the question is, how much more market share can you continue to increase while actually being focused on free cash flow growth? Because we could drive more gross adds, more net adds, more market share, but ultimately, we're trying to drive free cash flow. Service-driven free cash flow. As market share increases, the behaviors in market are a little bit different if the goal is to drive free cash flow for us, which it is. Ultimately, the longer the horizon you look at, the more market share we should have. I'm not trying to cap it, but you do have places in your footprint where you've had fiber for a longer time, and at some point, you probably see it kind of naturally plateau at a certain level. Are we still far away from that level? Oh, two different things. Yeah. It should be north of 50%. And two, you're right to remind me, we have 3 million odd locations that aren't fiber subscribers. There's a real opportunity for us, not only core networks, kind of Bell Nevers, but also hot homes that we've already built out. There's a real opportunity to go after both of those because it's a sunk cost at this point. We've already built out the fiber. If there used to be a subscriber there who's moved, we've already done the drop. It's actually quite efficient for us if they become new subscribers again because that house itself was a subscriber. Quite efficient for us there. You're totally right. We've spent the capital. It's a superior product. Time to load the network in that regard while managing our RPU. Now, on capital allocation, I want to come back to a comment you have made at a recent investor conference in terms of having a higher bar for capital investments. If you can maybe unpack a bit, what do you mean exactly by that? Does that mean that you have more attractive projects or that you want to be more careful on the balance sheet? What does that mean? It's the former. Ultimately, two things are happening. CAD 3.7 billion in 2025 in CapEx, assume it's about the same number in 2028. Two things are happening. One, as we drive efficiencies, as we leverage our digital transformation technology, the amount of spend that we need to spend to just keep the lights on, kind of run the business, drops over time. Kind of standard run the business CDI will come down, which means within that CAD 3.7 billion bucket of spend, more of it can be allocated towards growth initiatives or other strategic investments. That's one, the CapEx profile changes. Two, given the investment kind of potential we have in front of us, whether it's on the AI-powered solutions, whether it's fiber in the US, whether it's fiber in Canada, or frankly, continued digital transformation in Canada and our operations, which I love as investments because I can reach out and touch and see the efficiencies and track the efficiencies, improvements in customer experience, and savings for us. It has to be better than one of those three buckets of opportunity that are all really strong returns of investment. Yeah, we call it the CapEx Olympics. I mean, the bar is just higher. There's no simpler way to put it. It's tougher to get your ideas funded because we have pretty good places to invest money. Great. I want to wrap it up, maybe typical sell-side question there, trying to get guidance in advance. You have been providing guidance for the next three years. We will be expecting Bell to be back to positive growth and free cash flow growth in 2026. Yes. Excellent. We've got pretty straightforward. We've got three-year numbers out there. As Mirko said, it's time to just execute the plan. I think the strategy at this point is fairly straightforward and prioritized. The capital allocation is clear internally. Hopefully, it's being clarified externally as well. Now it's over to us, just deliver in the market, build fiber in the US, drive penetration, drive bundled subs, lower churn. I mean, our roadmap is fairly clear. We just need to go do it. Yeah, telecom investors love blocking and tackling. There's a lot of blocking and tackling to do, and hopefully, that comes with a lot of free cash flow capture as well. All right. That's all the time we had, Curtis. Thank you very much. Thanks very much.