Okay. Sounds like we're ready to go. Everybody, thanks very much for being here with us today. For anybody who doesn't know me, I'm Vince Valentini, the telecom and media analyst here at TD Cowen. We're thrilled to have, I think they call it our 28th annual, and probably about the 24th conference for me at TD. And as always, try to enlighten you with the latest trends in telecom industry with the senior leaders in the space. We'll start with the biggest in BCE, and thrilled to have Curtis Millen here with us, the Executive VP and CFO, who I'm sure most of you know. Curtis, thanks very much for being here today. Thanks for having me. Great. We, maybe not surprising to you, given all the focus on the call last week and in other meetings you've had with investors, but let's start with the Bell AI Fabric. Great. Fantastic topic Let's start with the good news. Maybe just remind us, I mean, you've clearly had some really good success so far, including that 300 MW facility in Saskatchewan that you're developing. Remind us what are the key factors here that allow Bell to win in this space? I think when you started, a lot of us were like, "This seems a little off track for them, and how do you compete with Microsoft and Amazon in this kind of space." What is it that's allowing Bell to win and allow them to keep winning? Yeah. The good news is we're not gonna compete with them. Ultimately, this is what we've done for nearly 150 years, right? I mean, we provide end-to-end solutions for governments, for enterprises. We bring along that full value chain, certain parts of it is our own expertise, like the data center side, cybersecurity side, the MSPs integrated, kind of the easy button. Like 30 years ago, 50 years ago, we'd partner with the IBMs and HPs of the world, now we're gonna partner with the Cohere of the world. We're not gonna build a large language model. That's not our expertise. Our expertise is in delivering certain parts where it's our expertise. The other expertise is being able to deliver end-to-end solution and kind of provide an easy button for our customers. That's what we're doing here. It's just a different technology. It's a different service. Like, the definition of cutting edge technology has changed fairly dramatically over 150 years, but what we deliver is ultimately consistent. In this case, that's helping us get access to the partnerships that we've put together, which makes our AI ecosystem that much stronger, and B, that's helped us secure access to the power itself. I mean, ultimately, in North America, access and time to power, is probably the most important thing out there right now. We've been able to secure power, and now we're having the conversations to monetize that power. How about the sovereign aspect of it? Which, when you first announced it, Mirko talked about that, you know, almost as if it was the main reason to do it, and you seem to talk a little less about it. Is being sovereign still a big factor in your ability to win? I think it's a huge factor, and I think it's hugely important, right? I mean, if I wrap myself up in a Canadian flag for a second, I do think it's important that we have sovereign compute, and broadly, sovereign access to infrastructure, digital infrastructure that we can provide, but other infrastructure also. I mean, we want to know as an economy and companies like ours and yours, that our data is safe and it remains in Canada if that's part of the regulations, and frankly, just important to know where our data is. We can provide that solution. Not all use cases are gonna require that level of sovereignty, but for sure that capability is critical. Our facility in Saskatchewan kind of allows us to hopefully play our role here, of being the digital backbone in an AI world, AI infrastructure for Canada, and kind of hopefully slows down the chicken and egg conundrum of infrastructure versus use cases. We are getting paid, we're generating revenue on 100% of the sites, but we are, we did bake in contractually the right and the ability to claw back some of that power and compute for sovereign AI use cases. Hopefully that helps us get into a virtuous cycle of there is infrastructure, now let's get the use cases going and kind of get the Canadian economy going, if we can, if I'm kind of dreaming a little bigger. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think you've alluded to this before, if you do claw some back and sell it to a sovereign, a customer who needs sovereign requirements, you should be able to do even better in terms of the revenue and margins versus w hat the original contracts are? Correct. There's the data center business, and then there's everything else that we'll wrap around it. You know, our Bell Cyber, obviously the cybersecurity, the connectivity is upside for us. Ateko is our managed service, professional service integrator. Yes, we'll be able to sell GPUs as well. All of that is incremental. It's not factored into our base case, but it's all incremental and kind of the virtuous cycle. Excellent. I hate to get into a modeling question so early in our session, but I think it's confused people. Let's do it anyway. Let's do it anyway. People have been a bit confused by the revenue recognition. I mean, the first two facilities seem like all the revenue is booked immediately. It's something to do with finance leases versus operating leases that maybe you can elaborate on. I'm not worried, sorry, more interested in what should we expect going forward? Is the next facility in Winnipeg and then the big one in Saskatchewan, is it the same type of thing, or is the revenue cadence gonna be different? No, fair question. Ultimately, free cash flow is the most important to me. The revenue EBITDA accounting doesn't change the free cash flow. We capture free cash flow across the life of the contract. Going forward, like in Winnipeg and Saskatchewan operating lease, that just means we recognize revenue EBITDA free cash flow over the life of the contracts. I think that's gonna be simpler for folks to understand. Again, for me, it's how do you drive free cash flow? Now that we have 800 MW line of sight of power, how do we go out there and practically the next 50% of contracts and drive free cash flow. When, you know, in Q1 it was about CAD 100 million of revenue all in one shot. When Winnipeg goes online in Q3 or something, it's not gonna be a big bang, CAD 100 billion. It'd be a much smaller. Correct. Free cash flow EBITDA over time. The target, 800 MW, obviously already upsized from 500 MW at your Investor Day last year 'cause of the Saskatchewan facility. Do you have irons in the fire to suggest that that 800 MW could get even bigger, and you just don't wanna talk about it until it's secured? Frankly, we have to walk a fine line here. We only announced AI Fabric was a thing a year ago, and we did that after we actually had contractual revenue. You know, we announced Saskatchewan when we had contracts signed for the revenue, and it was already full. You know, we talked about, at our Investor Day, 73 MW, and we're 40% of the way there on that. I mean, that's not a cap. I just split it into kind of the 73 MW and then the bigger ones to get us to the 800 MW. You know, the 73 MW, and hopefully it'll be more than that, I, we're continuing to focus on just ripping out costs. Frankly, internally, the more we can rip out costs and drive efficiency on run the business or legacy spend, the more capital we have to deploy to these growth opportunities, whether U.S. fiber, AI Fabric, digital transformation. It's really focused the conversation internally 'cause the opportunity is so clear. We're looking to grow that 73 MW, assume we just fund that. Yeah, of course we're hunting 100 MW and 150 MW opportunities. Again, from my seat, the risk profile is we'll announce it when we're 100% done, 'cause you're kind of binary on that front. We're hunting them. We expect to land some of these contracts, we're gonna come out and announce it when we actually have guaranteed revenue as well. Again, we're not looking to speculate. Great. I would say, I mean, you know, 800 MW is not a target. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I didn't mean to characterize it like that, but like that's what we have line of sight into. There's no reason why that's a cap. We just need to continue to grow the business and get access to customers and power. If we just stick with the 800 MW for now, because it is the public number you've put out. That's right. With the 373 MW in your, if I call that the official plan, it seems like that's gonna generate close to CAD 550 million of EBITDA on a recurring basis in 2028 and beyond. If you get to 800 MW, is it just simply you do the math on that it becomes CAD 1.1 billion of EBITDA, or are these early contracts particularly good and you may not be able to replicate it? I mean, more details to come as we sign these contracts. Directionally, you're right. I mean, whether it's CAD 900 million or CAD 1.2 billion or CAD 1.5 billion, I think clearly there's a lot of value being created. I mean, we know what the precedent transactions are and what these comps trade at. You know, they're significantly higher multiples than what we trade at now. Look, the opportunity is there. We think we're in a pretty good position to actually go out and capture it as we've been demonstrating. For us, we're in the right spots. We have the ecosystem of partnerships. Now it's just a matter of signing contracts and executing. Excellent. I have one last question on the data centers. In my mind, it's a big one, although, granted it may be tough to answer at this stage, is a lot of people talk about the recontracting risk. These seem to be great solid counterparties and long-term contracts, you know, let's say it's roughly 10 years. What happens after that? For us in the financial community to say we're gonna put a big terminal value on this business, we kind of have to know it's sustainable beyond that first contract. Is there anything you can say that would give us hard evidence to say it is a sustainable business that can not only be maintained at that CAD 900 million, CAD 1.1 billion, whatever level, that you're already guide, seemingly guiding to, or even grow from that level? Sure. I actually think it's an easy answer. I don't think it's that complicated. I put it in two buckets. The first is these are contractual revenue, right? These are contracts, so it's relatively low risk in terms of a risk reward. The compute is there. Ultimately, where there's any technology, I think the risk is actually the steepness of the curve of adoption. If the further you get out, I'm more and more confident that the adoption rate has been higher and higher. I think the value actually only goes up. Why I think this is an easy question and answer is I don't have to walk through in detail terminal value and is it year 11 or 12 when there's a refresh cycle. There are plenty of transactions happening right now, right? In the, you know, there was an announcement yesterday, there was an announcement a few weeks ago. These assets are very valuable and frankly, I trust the private marketplace who are actually buying these assets, trading them and buying them, at, you know, 18x, 19x multiples. I don't have to do the guesswork. The smart folks of infrastructure and private equity are providing us pretty good data points. You have a sense of that Goldman Sachs announcement yesterday, was in the, like 18x, 19x range? Oh, I don't have specific info on that one, but I've seen several transactions over the last year that are all in pretty high teens multiples. When you say that you don't have a lot of EBITDA in your base yet from data centers, when they're doing those valuations, is that on what is already in the ground being built and contracted as opposed to just what's in the trailing? They look at it both ways. It's EBITDA, but also booked it but not built. Right. Again, it's a contract, you can run out the free cash flow, you can value it based on that. Cool. Ultimately, again, whether it's CAD 900 million, CAD 1.1 billion, CAD 1.3 billion, I do think, in terms of free cash flow and capital allocation, it's a pretty good allocation of capital for us. We are driving strong returns, and it's a pretty good opportunity for us. I mean, relatively calm here, but I think it's a great opportunity. Yeah. I don't think anybody can disagree with that. It's been a very successful project to date, and seems like a great use of your capital. I'm gonna go to the audience in a little while, just so you know, in case you have questions. Great. Let me switch gears to Ziply, where I'll be quite honest, I have a little bit more concern about the allocation of capital versus the data center money you're spending. I mean, and we'll go back to what we said in data centers. You have a bit of a first mover advantage in the access to the power. You already have enterprise relationships. You're Canadian, so for sovereign business, you can differentiate on that front. When I turn to Ziply, I struggle with where is the competitive advantage? You certainly don't have a scale advantage in fiber over AT&T and Verizon. You don't really have a first mover advantage other than maybe the Pacific Northwest, where Ziply had homes connected already, and being Canadian doesn't matter and, you know, maybe even in some cases is a, is a negative, depending on the political winds, blowing in the States. Why is Ziply as attractive as a use of capital versus the data centers? Sure. I really like the first part of that question. I should steal some of your talking points around AI Fabric. I actually disagree, in that we do have a first mover advantage anywhere we go in the U.S. with fiber. I mean, we are a fiber first fiber strategy in the U.S. I mean, we're not looking to overbuild fiber. We're not looking to compete with fiber operators or the telcos there, and that's not what we do. What we actually do is we bring fiber to a market first and compete against cable. We've done it, others have done it, basically in every jurisdiction, but especially in the U.S., and have all seen similar results. I mean, you build fiber and your penetration curve ramps up fairly consistently. I mean, there's pent-up demand for the fiber product. I mean, we think we're pretty good operators of fiber, but other operators, many other operators, have seen really good results competing against cable when they're the first fiber option in that market. I absolutely would say we are the first mover advantage because we are first to fiber. What about the competitive environment? It seems like ever since you've acquired Ziply, we've seen nothing but negative headlines on fixed wireless competition, cable companies now fighting back a little harder on price, and now Starlink and Amazon Leo making headlines. Not so much in Canada yet, but in the U.S., I can tell you, a lot of investors are getting more and more concerned about that new competitive threat. You still seem like you're pretty confident in both the market share gains and the pricing power that Ziply has. Yeah, none of that is a surprise. I mean, fixed wireless has been in Ziply markets before we acquired that asset. I mean, look, we launched fixed wireless in Canada in 2018, CAD 1.1 million households. It's a great product when you're competing against kind of remote area, level cable. It's not really taking share from fiber. If you look at all the share of net adds in the U.S., ultimately fixed wireless is picking up share, fiber is picking up a lot of share, and cable is giving away the share. I don't see the fixed wireless has a home. It's a product that has a life cycle to it. It's not really competing with fiber to the extent it's gonna compete with cable, and it's gonna compete in remote areas. Technology-wise, without being cavalier, I mean, it's not a substitute, although it has a home in the marketplace. Where we're building out with Ziply is not in dense urban areas, 'cause again, first to fiber, but it's not in the far remote areas either, that either fixed wireless or Leo tend to outperform it. Ultimately, not a surprise. Cable reacting is, can't be a surprise. I mean, fiber has just been taking share. Again, it's why we bought a fiber business, and it's why our focus this year, next year, and the year after, is going to be building out our fiber footprint and ramping up our build engine so that we can be first to fiber and continue to capture share that's currently with cable and make them all fiber homes. Those are all valid points, Curtis. I think there's always a perception and a reality that financial professionals and CFOs have to deal with of, you could be extremely confident that your fiber is gonna hold up well and be the best in class versus Leo versus fixed wireless, the perception angle can impact valuations. Does anybody around the table, you know, yourselves, PSP, the management at Ziply, say, "Hey, maybe we should wait and pause a little bit and just see how much noise Starlink makes over the next six months. Maybe they will be so noisy and do things that are not sustainable, but scare the market, bring valuations down so that maybe we'll be able to buy some of these fiber passings a year or two from now much cheaper than actually building them"? Yeah. The plan is to build, right? I mean, we have an asset, we have a management team, we have a build engine. The most effective way for us to drive value is to build fiber. I mean, if in couple of years valuations come down, 'cause again, look, we're building a long-term asset, long-lived asset, and long-term value of customers. If valuations come down and there are opportunities to, you know, acquire, tuck in to facilitate or expand our footprint. Ultimately for us, build fiber, ramp up the build engine, 'cause as soon as we have fiber, and we've seen it in hundreds of markets, as soon as you build fiber, the ramp-up curve of penetration is fairly consistent. The most important thing for us is continue to drive that build engine. Great. Keep building for now, maybe there'll be an opportunity to buy in the future. If we're building for now, can you level set us on where we're at for this year's targets, both within the 100% owned BCE Ziply, as well as within the PSP Network FiberCo? Sure. We don't have one-year targets. I mean, we're shooting to get to 3 million by the end of 2028, and I'd say a couple of things. Yes, we are building within the four states, but we're also building outside of those four states because Ziply has core network, like core fiber network that runs way I mean, look, it runs all the way to Chicago. We're not gonna build Chicago urban, but anywhere along that line or south, they have a north-south line also, anywhere along that fiber backhaul, fiber core network winds up being an edge out for us. The economics are pretty good and ultimately it's a, you know, where along that fiber backbone is the best place to drive long-term value. I would say that kind of leads to most of the spend going forward as you get to 2027, 2028, as Fiber Network Co. has time to get more and more permits, I expect the growth to largely be out of Fiber Network Co. For this year it's more 50/50 split? This year call it more even split as a lot of the I mean, if you think of the permits that we have, a lot of them are still within consolidated Ziply. Just operationally, in terms of the subscribers. We see being loaded on that network, it seems every quarter, like, there's a nice step forward on fiber. Almost an equal step back on legacy copper subs. There's about 70,000 DSL copper subs left within Ziply. Does that disappear by the end of this year, go away fast so that it stops being a headwind to the reported numbers, or is it more of a slow melt? No, I would assume it's a consistent headwind that becomes a smaller and smaller relative headwind as we go from 1.4 million to 3 million fiber homes. Okay. I have two more on Ziply and then I will turn to the audience just so people can get ready for it. The build costs. We had talked about roughly CAD 1,000 per home as the CapEx per passing. I think that was the most recent number that yourselves and Ziply management have been talking about. Is that changing meaningfully these days? We hear a lot about supply issues, especially on the raw materials, and fiber costs I think are up 75% year-over-year. Is that CAD 1,000 creeping higher? I'd say a couple of things. On the cost, obviously we're tracking that too, right? I mean, you assume there's a lot of fiber. The good news is we actually bring scale to Ziply, given our fiber build in Canada. We haven't seen much of an increase on raw costs. I think where you'll see, you know, an increase in cost per LP is as we start building outside the four states, we've pivoted to not solely focus on cost per LP, but where can we drive the most free cash flow over time and the greatest long-term value. Instead of avoiding a street because it went above 1,000 per LP, roll the whole neighborhood, which is what we've done in Canada, which is what most operators have done in the U.S. and around the world, and you wind up driving your efficiency. It's not the sole metric we're looking at. Ultimately, it's more important for me long-term value and free cash flow. It's not the sole metric we're looking at this point. Okay. Last one is just the enterprise market. There's a fair amount of excitement about all of the data center capacity in the U.S., and all of them need, obviously, fiber connectivity. Is Ziply seeing some decent trends on enterprise and enterprise fiber revenue? It's interesting 'cause their enterprise and their wholesale business are fiber driven, right. I think we talked about this before, but it's about 25% of their, of their overall revenue. Relatively flat with a growth opportunity. I mean, I still think the consumer fiber is the best growth driver for us and the biggest revenue growth opportunity, but clearly we have an ability to build fiber, if the opportunity is there, we'll go after it. There will be a microphone if anybody in the audience has a question, if you don't mind just waiting for it. There's one to Craig in the middle there. Put your hand up a little higher, Craig. There you go. Hi there. This may be a softball question, but does new leadership at one of your telco peers give BCE the opportunity to change the rhetoric around competitive intensity in Canada? I like how you characterize that as softball. I'm not sure I'm in the best position to answer that question. Ultimately, you know, we can't really control what our competitors are going to do in the marketplace. You know, it's a competitive marketplace. I do think there's room, given the sheer value we provide for our customers, there's probably room to increase on the ARPU side. You know, telco, you tend to see spikes in competitiveness across the year and then flattens out from there. In terms of, you know, new management change and how that's going to impact the industry, honestly, this room is probably further up the curve in terms of opinions on that than I could provide. Softball question. Anybody else? Any other softballs? Okay. Thanks for the segue. I'm gonna pivot to Canada now and the sort of core wireline and wireless operations. Let's start with wireline. When you hear, like, Ziply talk or you talk about Ziply, it just seems like fiber just crushes cable. You've no issues on pricing, competition and, you know, the penetration curves are very predictable. I'm not sure I see that in Canada. Is there something different here that doesn't allow you to get premium pricing and premium ARPU on fiber and if so, why not? I mean, ultimately, you know, we started building fiber 15 years ago and ramped up and, you know, in certain markets we're north of 50% share of market. I think ultimately, again, net adds is an interesting KPI, but the ability to drive free cash flow is the most important KPI. You know, there's no blue ribbon at the end of the day for net adds. It's how do you drive value for shareholders and how do you drive free cash flow? There are many different levers along the way. I mean, price increases are certainly there and as well as, you know, I know I'm wearing the blue jersey, but ultimately if you look at share of net adds in the internet space, the vast majority have gone to fiber. I think that's a trend that continues. Does the curve slow down and flatten a little bit once, you know, you get to 50%? Yeah, probably. Versus where we were from getting from 30% to 50%. Ultimately, fiber has won in Canada, it's winning in the U.S., it's winning in just about every jurisdiction. It's just a better ultimate technology. You have put through some rate increases, I think recently in Ontario and Quebec. Maybe just your thoughts on how those are being responded to by customers and maybe segue that into just the overall level of competitive intensity between Bell and the various cable companies that you're seeing today. Is it better or worse or the same as 6, 12 months ago? I'd say it feels slightly better. I mean, it's obviously Look, everything is competitive and we're in an integrated bundled world as well. You know, we are selling a bundle of products. It improves our churn profile and, you know, again, long-term value of our customers. But overall competitive intensity, you know, feels slightly better than it would've been a year ago. Again, we continue to see our customers move up the curve in terms of speeds and kind of offering that they want to actually consume, and that leads to higher ARPU just that way as well. In terms of the rate increases, and let me pad the question a bit more. Apologies if you haven't seen it yet, Quebecor reporte t his morning they had, you know, over 3% growth in internet revenue. It's the best they've done in three years. Seems like the price increase they put through in December finally. Actually showed up in their numbers, which we didn't see last year. Are you seeing the same thing with your recent rate increases so that Q2 might see a little step up, boost? Yeah, I think that's the long-term trend. Again, quarter to quarter, but I mean, the long-term trend, internet revenue has been fairly healthy and internet price increases have seemingly stuck in market. Again, competitive market, but lots of value being provided. I would say it feels like that internet is becoming more and more important as the buying decision, right, of bundled households. I mean, fiber is driving the bundle decision. Okay. TPIA, nasty four-letter word for a lot of people in the industry. Your thoughts on, happy to hear if you have anything new, on what your resale market looks like in Ontario and Quebec, but more interested in your views on Alberta and BC. With the final rates from the CRTC now being set, has that changed what you and Mirko think at all about getting more aggressive using that system to bundle outside of your footprint? No, I don't think anything's changed. I think our opinion of the overall policy remains unchanged. Our view of the opportunity remains unchanged. I mean, this was not going to be a broad mass market resale opportunity for us. If there's an opportunity, I think there is, to bundle wholesale, I guess resale in that case, fiber to reduce churn of our most attractive wireless subs, then great. I mean, we're looking to reduce churn of our wireless base. I mean, obviously Q1 stopped a three-quarter sequential improvement in churn, we are looking to improve churn and whether that's by bundling with fiber or bundling with our Crave content, our streaming bundles. If it helps customers stay with us for a longer term, then obviously we'll pursue. You mentioned the streaming bundles, obviously a bit of a pivot in how you're reporting video subscribers, including the streaming, as long as at least one Bell service is included in the package. Is that actually supposed to be a profit driver on a standalone basis, given the wholesale fees you may have to pay to Netflix, Disney+ and so forth? Or is this purely a bundling tactic to make the internet business work better? It's all of the above. I mean, the one you didn't mention there was Crave. We're selling Crave, and we can distribute Netflix or Disney, right? But we only count it as a sub if it actually has a Bell product, so it has Crave. Obviously the margins for us on Crave, given we own Bell Media, are pretty good. Yes, it's a good retention tool, it's a good acquisition tool, but it actually drives margin as well. Okay. It's good that it's profitable and drives margin. To be clear, I mean, a traditional Bell video subscriber, we'd think of as CAD 70, CAD 80 of ARPU and, you know, 50% gross margins. The streaming packages are not delivering that absolute dollar of EBITDA, I assume. No, that's correct. Ultimately, we're catching up to where the eyeballs are. I don't think, you know, it's revolutionary. Not everybody has a TV subscription, and that's not a new trend. The ability to sell, yes, a traditional TV bundle and TV package within kind of our Fibe world is interesting. We still do that, but there are folks who have cut the traditional TV cord. To sell them, who still consume content, a streaming bundle makes all the sense in the world for me. Our reporting is kind of catching up to actual consumer behavior. Honestly, I'm happy that we have one of the streaming platforms to actually participate in that bundle at a very cost-effective basis for us, given we own the asset. Okay. Excellent. One last question on broadband before I turn to wireless. For the audience, I will ask about wireless. I know it does exist. People are probably shocked we're 30 minutes in and haven't even mentioned it. Last on broadband. I think it's a good news story that we have so many other opportunities to talk about. There you go. The CapEx has obviously been brought down a lot in Canada. Sure. As Mirko said last week, CAD 5.1 billion down to under CAD 3 billion. Has fiber to the home builds in Canada, like, gotten to zero, or are you still actively doing some? No, we're still building out fiber to the home. You know, look, there are MDUs, there are black holes, there are adjacent regions where we're still building out fiber in Canada. Ultimately though, maintenance costs and OpEx as well as CapEx, as you have more and more of a fiber concentrated footprint, all of the costs are become more efficient. Ultimately, again, we're looking at driving free cash flow, allocating capital. The more capital that we can take away from the kind of former budget of legacy, kind of network legacy product and run the business, the more capital we can allocate within that envelope to fiber, whether in Canada or the U.S., digital transformation, digital media transformation, or AI Fabric. You know, the digital transformation spend we've been kinda implementing over the last three, four, five years is bearing fruit now. Our, that's why we talked about less than CAD 3 billion with frankly more efficiencies to find over the next two, three, four, five years. Can you unpack what the footprint looks like then today of your total passings? How many are fiber in urban areas? How many are copper in urban areas? How many would be rural that copper? Sure. You know, 12 million total ILEC, just over 8 million fiber. Think, it's not 100% like this, but think the more urban you are, the more likely you are to have been covered with fiber. Okay. The fixed wireless is still. Plus the, you know, 1 million fixed wireless locations. Yeah, is part of the 12. Part of the 12, correct. Right. Excellent. Okay. Wireless. Let's start with the competitive intensity. I think everybody acknowledges something went wrong in the first quarter, especially in March of some pretty wacky promotions that were going on. You know, Mirko was pretty politically correct and didn't wanna point any fingers at anybody on the call last week. Is there anything you can point to as to what went wrong so we can maybe understand what, how to avoid that in the future? Another softball. Yeah. Well, that one's fairly easy to answer. No, I don't really have anything further to add other than what my bosses has already commented on. Is it fair to say you guys were not happy with what happened? You'd like to not see that type of trading. No. I think it's disappointing for the entire industry. I mean, ultimately, you know, our ARPU is an important driver of free cash flow. You know, we're driving a service that is valuable, and it's over to us to capture the value of the service we're actually providing to our customers. How does Q2 look so far? It seems from where we sit, I mean, we're not as in the weeds as you guys are. Seems like it's been much more disciplined in the 1.5 month of Q2. I mean, April seems more constructive as an industry. Again, we're managing our business as if one month isn't a trend. Look, we need to manage costs, and we need to manage our business. Again, I'm on the risk profile side of the world. I'm not, you know, assuming that one month is the full year. I mean, it should be. We have to manage our business to drive EBITDA and free cash flow growth. I can't take that assumption for granted. Okay. A nuance on the question you asked before. In terms of how do we avoid this happening again, are there ever debates internally between senior management and maybe some of the more marketing or store staff as to what actually you're offering? It actually seemed to us like Bell was reasonably aggressive, you know, in February with some of your in-store offers and some of your EPP offers. Is that stuff where you look back and go, "Whoa, what were you guys doing?" Like, why were you so aggressive? Did you guys actually know it was happening and thought it was a good strategy? Yeah. I think there are different tactics along the way. I mean, ultimately, we are trying to sell at a, what we would think a fair value, probably a higher ARPU is obviously beneficial. Look, ultimately, it's a competitive marketplace, and yes, you can sit on the sidelines while others have offers in the market that you don't love, but eventually, at some point, you need to grow the business. Look, different tactics along the way. Ultimately, we focus on how do we reduce churn, how do we increase penetration of our Bell brand. I mean, Bell brand, you know, vast majority of our loads in quarter. Again, you can't control end market pricing. You can try to have an influence, but you can influence where the loads are coming from. If we have to lose out on low end of post-paid or even pre-paid so that we can have more Bell branded and more bundled subs, that's what we'll try to focus on, right? I'd say bundled subs, whether mobility and internet or mobility, internet, and content increase. Again, it lets us focus on Bell brand bundled and product intensity, 'cause you can't control every factor. Okay. Some people seem to think that there's a magic bullet to fix the industry and make pricing discipline stick forever of just stop reporting wireless subs. Some people say get rid of some brands, maybe some of these flanker brands, like in your case maybe Virgin, get rid of them, you don't need them anymore. Is there anything you see on any front that could be coming on disclosure or brand strategy? Do you think those are really that big of a deal? I'm not sure that there's a silver bullet. I do think that how we are operating and the decisions we're making are fairly clear. Look, I mean, free cash flow and reduction in net debt are the two metrics that actually drive management incentive and management compensation. I think, you know, if we keep a focus on that internally, it drives us to make decisions. I'm not sure everyone has the same incentives across the industry, but for us it's fairly straightforward. Does a decision we're about to make drive free cash flow and strengthen our balance sheet? If it doesn't, then what are the other alternatives? It really does simplify our focus in that regard. Again, yeah, look, I'd like to see higher ARPU. Okay. Last one on wireless for me is the ancillary revenue, everything outside of the monthly recurring rate plan. One factor seems to be connected devices, and one of your competitors seems to be getting a pretty big tailwind from that these days. To be fair, you both disclose connected devices, and they have had a bit of a bigger volume over the past year. I have two-prong question. One, is that starting to become bigger, and will we see more evidence of it in Bell's numbers in the future? Secondarily, just so you have them both up front, is there any way you can sort of package for us what the total bucket of all that other stuff is, of connection fees and roaming and long distance fees or anything that wouldn't be part of MRR? No, that's the laundry list. That's a pretty good laundry list. Yeah, I do think it continues to be an opportunity. I don't think it's the biggest driver of ARPU, but again, if you can round up along the way, you know, we're not gonna turn it down. Roaming and overage remains a headwind, but in Q1 it was much less of a headwind than it had been year-over-year. Again, too early to tell whether or not this is kind of the new world flat line of roaming. Overage probably a bit longer headwind, but again, it's a relatively small impact here quarter-to-quarter. Can you tell us, Curtis, if the IoT connected devices line is growing, the other stuff is declining, and activation fees now probably gonna have to start declining as well, is the net of all those still slightly positive, or is it negative? Slightly negative to a declining headwind. Okay. Let's switch gears to asset sales. I think everybody acknowledges you've had some pretty good success on MLSE and the Land Mobile radio business, and the security business is a little smaller, but still nice to see that get done. As you know, we always ask what's next, what are you gonna do for us lately. What should we expect more this year on the asset sale files, and are you willing to sort of unpack where priorities might be? I mean, people talk about towers, people talk about the Montreal Canadiens stake, and so forth. Is there anything you can identify for us? Look, I'm not surprised with the question. Ultimately, we came out and we talked about going back a year and a bit, CAD 7 billion in asset sales. We've announced CAD 6.6 billion. I think fundamentally we're just executing on the plan that we announced publicly. Nearly all of the way there. Are there other assets? You know, it's a bit of a broad answer, but fundamentally, if it drives free cash flow, it improves net debt, and it's a better allocation of capital, then we're going to review it, right? We did the same thing with MLSE, same thing with AI Fabric. Like, if we can reallocate our CapEx budget, OpEx budget, and assets, then we have to look into it. On towers specifically, I mean, look, obviously we know what's happened around the world and in Canada specifically, so, look, there's a lot of value in our assets. We'll review that, and again, if it drives value for our shareholders, drives free cash flow, improves our balance sheet, then it's something we'll have to consider. Am I right in interpreting your answer as there's no real urgency, though? We've already done most of what we said we were gonna do, so now it's just opportunistic, or are you in a bit more of a hurry to say, "Yeah, we still, we don't wanna stop just 'cause we've hit that CAD 7 billion"? No, I always think it's opportunistic, right. I mean, hitting CAD 7 billion, just because we said we're gonna sell CAD 7 billion in assets doesn't become the most important KPI. The most important KPI is, are we driving free cash flow? Are we improving our balance sheet? Is this the right allocation of capital? Yes, I think it's opportunistic. I think we have a de-leveraging plan we have, but we do have opportunities to use capital either to de-lever or to drive more free cash flow growth. Over to us to drive value for shareholders. If I can sell an asset and repurpose that capital in a better area, then that's what we should be doing. Okay. You've talked about managing capital and debt, a few times. Let me just hit debt straight on with a question. I honestly am confused as to where is the target of where we need to be before we can say, "Okay, balance sheet's now safe, and we can think about allocating more to shareholders," whether that's buybacks or dividend growth. Given all of the hybrids that don't get treated 100%. If you get to 3x on the way you report debt to EBITDA, is that good enough, or do you look at it as the CFO and say, "No, we need to be lower than that because if you include the hybrids, we're back at 3.5x"? Oh, I don't think there's a magic number of, oh, you hit this leverage number, all of a sudden 100% share buybacks. I still think it's a capital allocation discussion and decision that you make at that time. It's a good news problem if we generate so much value and we sell so many assets and drive so much free cash flow that we're sitting around the allocation table thinking about, well, is it a dividend increase? Is it a share buyback, or is it let's continue to fund AI Fabric because the opportunity remains enormous. I don't think there's a magic leverage number that allows that conversation. For us, it's continue to drive free cash flow. It's certainly below 3.5x, which we'll hit by 2027. We'll be sub 3.5x 2028. Sometime thereafter we probably have a bit more flexibility around that conversation. I don't think it's kind of to the 3x decimal points specific as to when we can nuance allocation of capital. Would buying back the hybrids be part of that conversation when you think about buybacks? I mean, it's cost of capital and what's the best use of capital. Everything's on the table in that regard. Let's end in the last 30 seconds with the regulatory question, 'cause I know Mirko would need a lot more than 30 seconds, but you can probably answer it quick. Is there anything, like everybody's upset with the regulatory environment, but is there one or two particular things that Bell would call out just so we can think about if that for some reason changed, it may change your thoughts about capital investment. Is it the MVNO regime? Is it TPIA? Is it just the overall, you know, need to have four wireless carriers, or is there some Do you have a pecking order internally of which ones you dislike the most? We just timed out, but I'll answer anyway. Thank you. No, look, we're not emotional about the operating environment. I mean, we like certainty so that we can make our capital allocation decisions. You know, would we prefer different decisions? Probably, so would everybody else in this room, right? I mean, that's not ultimately our role. Our role is to, within the operating environment we operate in, drive free cash flow, drive shareholder value. You know, these rules are set, we're gonna make decisions based on those rules. We're not looking to change the rules. We're looking to drive free cash flow. Good answer. Thanks, Curtis. As always, very insightful. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.