Okay, welcome back everyone. We'll start with our next session. We're here with Patrice Ouimet from Cogeco. He's the Chief Financial Officer there. Welcome, Patrice. Thank you for having me. Let's start with a big picture question, and maybe just talk about the priorities for Cogeco over the next, you know, two or three years. What are the main priority items from a strategic perspective for the company? Sure. So we started a few years ago to do a lot of network expansions in both countries, but they're a bit different as well. So in Canada, what we're doing is we're partnering with the government that subsidizes a portion of the bill. So we're going in rural areas where there's no high-speed internet. This is all fiber to the home, the build. So, when these programs are available, you have to be at the table 'cause they don't come back after. So this is something we've just finished Quebec, or very close to it, and we're doing Ontario right now. And in the U.S., we're edging out from where we are into small cities, so there's a lot of construction. So that's one thing. We are looking to launch a mobile offering in Canada. We're not fully done yet. We still have some negotiations to complete. You might have some questions on that later. We're also constantly trying to improve our products and services, so whether it's faster speeds on internet, improving the network, introducing a IPTV product, which keeps evolving, so this is ongoing. There's a lot going on in the background as well to optimize our costs and the way we service the customer, whether it's through AI or other types of services. So there's a lot to do, there, and, that's in our DNA to improve, operations. And lastly, on acquisitions, we've done quite a bit in the past 10 years. I would say in the current dynamic, we continue to look for acquisitions, but at a smaller scale, as the competitive landscape is changing rapidly, and we have still a lot on our agenda. I mean, the other thing you've done is you've raised the dividend every year. You've kind of, you're investing in the core business, you've done M&A, you've raised the dividend. We're now in an environment, obviously, where in terest rates are elevated. Is that influencing any of these sort of priority items on how you're approaching them? How is the interest rate environment affecting your strategy? Yeah, so in terms of interest, so we have hedged or fixed basically two-thirds of our interest rates, so served us well in the past few years to have a portion that's unhedged. Now, it's a bit higher, although our average cost of debt at the last quarter was 5.1%, so it's a manageable number. So I wouldn't say it has changed that much in how we approach it, but in terms of shareholder distributions, we always try to strike a balance between growth in the business and returning capital and maintaining a reasonable leverage level. So we've been raising the dividend by 10% in the last few years. Normally, we do the raise in Q4, so when we're going to release our results, so we'll see what we do at that point, but that's the history. We have a buyback program as well. This one is more discretionary, so we've been sometimes buying a lot, sometimes little, so it depends on where the capital is going in the business. Right. And you mentioned it maybe just as a segue, remind everyone where you are in leverage and what kind, how you're thinking about the balance sheet management going forward. Sure. In our last quarter, we went 3.44 turns on the consolidated level. Our target is about three turns, so we're a bit higher, but not in a major fashion. Have you set any timetables as when you'd like to get back to that level? No, 'cause we're still... I would say the low threes is still a comfortable number. Given all the network expansions we're doing, it's consuming capital, so we're decreasing our leverage at a lower pace than we used to, but this is all growth capital as we're expanding the network. Normally, before we were doing this, we were able to decrease leverage by 0.3 turns per year, so it can go quick, if we're not investing in these areas. Okay. Okay. Why don't we talk about operations? We'll start in the U.S., and maybe just give us an update on what you're seeing in terms of competitive dynamics in U.S. cable. Sure. So it varies a lot 'cause we're in 13 states. So, if I start with Florida, Florida is more of a bulk business, so we sign 7- to 10-year deals with condo towers, so very much like infrastructure. There, there's a lot of competitors, but it's also a growing area and, and again, very stable once you have the business. Outside Florida, we're still facing DSL, which is very slow-speed internet, in 45% of the network. And, fiber to the home competition is about 15%, so not a large number. Now, there are pockets of fixed wireless access in different places, mainly in Ohio, but we have it in other places. And, obviously, you might have some questions on this as well. I often get some. It's a technology that's quite different, obviously, using the mobile infrastructure to service the houses. It 's basically done at the node level, basically when there's extra capacity. So in terms of speeds, and stability, it's very different than a wireline offering, but it does work for a portion of the population. There's been this expectation that fixed wireless access, FWA, will be almost a transitional competitive threat because eventually, the wireless operator would wanna use that spectrum for the mobile side of the house 'cause the pricing is so much better, the economics are so much better. Are you starting to see any evidence of that, or do you think that the FWA competitive footprint is still increasing? To your point, the household consume about 50 times more bandwidth than a cellphone, and it's the same spectrum and same infrastructure, so the price per gig is quite low. So, all I can say is, I'm sure you- it's the same information you have. It's looking at the two main players in the U.S. They're still adding quite a bit of subscribers, but the pace of growth has either stabilized or decelerated. I can't speak about their plans for the future. In our areas, we don't see them across the board. It's mainly Ohio and small pockets in the, in different places. When you go in the very rural areas, typically, the spectrum and also the equipment is not set up to, to do this. So in the more regional and urban areas, you can see more of it. So, we'll have to see, but again, the technology, the good news, the silver lining for us, is the technology has its limits in terms of what it provides currently to customers, especially at peak time during the day. And long term, or medium term, as you say, there's a question of spectrum usage versus the mobile customers they need to protect. So what kind of consumers are attracted to FWA? Is this sort of a single person in an apartment, or is it value-conscious homes? Or who are you losing subs to in that? Yeah. So most of our customer base, except in maybe Florida and in Ohio, is made of houses where there's more than one person. What we're typically seeing is, at least for our customer base, is the entry-level services because these services are promoted at a fairly low price. But at the same time, it's lower speeds, and it's it's not as reliable in terms of speed you're gonna get throughout the day versus what we or other wireline offerings are out there. So, so that's what we're seeing. So the difference for us is we see that our current customer base, in terms of tenure, is increasing generally. What we see is the entry level, that is, rotates often between different players as there's promotions to be a new customer with the providers. Right. Right. And how about, you know, you've had a, I guess a, broadband first kind of strategy throughout the U.S., but as you said, you're in 13 states, different competitors in each of your markets. Like, how is your go-to-market and bundling strategy evolving, across the footprint? Yeah, a few years ago, I think it was about two years ago, we decided to move a bit away from the bundling mainly with video and also home phone, and move towards focusing on the internet product, selling the right speed. There's devices in the house as well, and repeaters, and then add the other products. In the end, we're selling similar products, but it's the go-to-market that's different. So rather than discount the video product, if people want the video product, then they choose the package, and they pay what's required. We decided to do this because, y ou saw what happened last week with in the States with some other players going dark on some channels. We always have some tense discussions with some of these programmers. We've never gone dark, actually, but we regularly prune the number of channels we have in the U.S., and by using this strategy as well, we can ensure that we still have a profitable video product. It is not the same thing we're doing in Canada. Canada is more about there's a lot more bundling and less cord-cutting on video. Right. Okay. One of the markets that I think is a little different, in certainly in terms of density, would be Cleveland. And, you know, you've done some rebranding there and whatnot, and it's kind of impacted some of your subscriber KPIs, although the overall numbers still remain good. How is the Cleveland market evolving as you've went through the rebranding, and does that change your perspective on the U.S. initiative in any way? Yeah. So we've been in the U.S. for 11 years, and I would say most of the acquisitions were successful in terms of integration and growth, so we've been able to attain the growth prospects. W e do very detailed due diligence when we look at acquisitions, whether it's the demographics, which is the only thing you cannot change, the network composition, market share, cost, go-to-market approach, synergies. The competitive landscape is always something we look at, but right now, especially with FWA, it's changing fast, so it's a little harder to predict where it's gonna be one year and two years from now. So I would say in terms of strategy, and given our leverage I was talking about, we're targeting smaller transaction at this point rather than than larger ones. Ohio has been more difficult because when we started integrating it, FWA started to be present, and actually, the two players are there. So we went from a three-player to a five-player market, changing the name because it's a carve-out business, so that's a lot of noise for customers, plus changing the systems as well, which didn't go too bad. There was a bit of hiccup, but not too bad, but it's the combination of all these things that made it more difficult. But to be clear, you, in terms of those transitional issues that you've addressed, you're through that, and now it's more, I guess, for lack of a better term, blocking and tackling in terms of sales execution and whatnot? Yes, yes. Yeah, so we, we did have a service agreement with the seller of the network, and that's over now. So we're completely on our own. We also, when we made the acquisition, we said we'd densify the network. A gig offering is already in the market there, but we needed to upgrade a lot of the backbone to make sure it was very stable. So a lot of it has been done already. We've introduced the IPTV product to. And And we're proactively swapping the TV product that was out there, which was an older generation. So I would say we're executing on time with what our plan was, initially. Okay. I want to circle back to an item you mentioned, which was the carriage dispute between Disney and Charter. Since resolved, but, you know, in reading the terms that they agreed to, it seems that, you know, both parties got something out of it. How does Breezeline think about, which is your U.S. operation, how do you think about the video bundle going forward, and in particular, how you're going to hopefully monetize maybe the reformation of a streaming bundle? Yeah. How are you thinking about those objectives? Yeah, it's a, it's a tough question for all operators. So, there are some that decided to let video slide completely. There are some that want to retain video for a long time. We're in the middle. So we decided to invest in the technology, provide. We have a very nice IPTV platform, voice-activated, and it integrates a lot of over-the-top applications on it. It's very, very modern. So we do go through the trouble of doing this. Obviously, the solutions are developed by suppliers, not by us directly. So we have a good product to offer to customers who want it. Because for those who want, whether it's a small or a very large video package, if you don't have it, you're not going to have that customer for the internet piece as well. At the same time, the profitability of the product has declined over time, given the price increases from the programmers. So that's how we're managing it. We negotiate hard with the programmers. Some of it we do on our own, some of it, w e're the ninth-largest cable player in the U.S., so we're not that small, and some of it we do through an association. And every year, there are specific channels that we're able to remove 'cause they're not part of a large package. And we do some A/B testing, and we make a decision whether we're going to keep it or not. So those are non-performing channels. The most expensive ones being regional sports, where sometimes you carry a team from an adjacent city that's not very much watched in the city you're covering. That's a refined process we go through every year. On Disney, in particular, our contract runs for another two years, so it's not, it's not like we have to make decisions like what you saw in the U.S. From what we as investors can see in terms of the model that's being pursued in the new Disney Charter, is that something that you would consider, or is that premature to talk about that? Yes. So I think, when you get into, revenue sharing on other platforms, this is something we've done to a small scale with, with one service in the past. It's, it's possible we'll do more, and we're looking into it. There's a question of time and effort on our case as well, 'cause obviously, given our size versus some larger players, sometimes it just doesn't make sense. Right. I must say, I don't have all the full details as well on what was decided, but that definitely, when these things happen, it provides ideas on how to go about it. Again, the goal is to make sure we have a good product, and especially protect the internet product with our customers, which is the primary product. Right. And is wireless on Breezeline's roadmap at all? Is that something you'll, you know, potentially invest in going forward? Yeah, so we haven't announced anything on this, but the market has definitely moved very recently, in the past 2-3 years, from being non-integrated wireless wireline to now most, a lot of players are doing it. So I must say, given also that there's willing parties to enter into a commercial MVNO, and you have parties as well that can do all the back office and the IT infrastructure, so much easier than what we have to do in Canada, that's something we're looking at right now. So- So, would you approach it from a defensive sort of retention tool within the portfolio, or how would you think about wireless in that? Yeah, in the U.S. with a full MVNO, it would be a bit more defensive than what we're looking at in Canada, where you can make larger margins. In the U.S. also, we're a bit more scattered, being in 13 states. In Canada, we're just in two provinces, so it's a little different. Okay. A bit more defensive. Right. Okay, and last one on, on the U.S. is, you know, there's the BEAD program in terms of availing yourself to government subsidies to expand the footprint. You mentioned you've been successful at that in Canada. Maybe just frame the differences for investors on, on how that network expansion program in the U.S. could play out. Sure. Well, the base is the same. Basically, the government provides subsidies to be able to go in rural areas where economically it just doesn't work for us on our own, and the size of the subsidies varies. You actually bid on it, and the lowest bidder wins, so very similar. Now, it's much bigger. So it's $43 billion in the U.S., and it got allocated through the states, depending on maps of unserved areas. So that's now out there. It got released maybe a month ago. Now, every state is gonna go through their own process, and it might. There's gonna be different flavors of it. So we're gonna be bidding in the next, probably the next two years, and once you win an area, you have four years to build it. So I would say this is more the medium term in terms of bidding and building as well, and the CapEx can be spread over time, but it provides a good area for growth in the mid to long term. Now, obviously, I don't know what will win, so it will be highly based on our own decisions. And when, as we've done in Canada, when areas are too competitive and we don't like the level of subsidy returns, then we just drop out. Okay. So we'll get a better idea by the end of next fiscal, I suppose, on how that's gonna play out? Yeah, I think we'll probably be done with some of the bidding. There's also tranches of releases of houses. So it will be a bit complex. We have a full team built on this, 'cause the luxury we have is being in 13 states, we're going to be able to choose the areas that suit our needs, 'cause we can't go everywhere in terms of capital deployment. Let's switch up north of the border now. What's the state of affairs on the Canadian operations? Well, so we're in a quiet period right now, so I can't talk about our upcoming Q4, but from what we've done in the past year, we've had good results. We're still facing same competitors, one major one in 93% of our network. So Canada's always been competitive, but there, you don't have the FWA dynamic you have in the States. And so yeah, and given our approach also, which is more regional and rural, the way we go to market is a bit different. Our customer service is local as well. So we have a different feel and to how we approach the market in the cities we serve. I mean, would you rather have a fiber competitor or an FWA competitor? We have, right now, a largely fiberized competitor at about 60% of the market, and it's been growing. A few years ago, it was, like, 45, and it's been growing over time, but we've been able to maneuver through that. FWA adds another competitor, so it's... In Canada, you do have other competitors coming from the TPIA regime, which does not exist in the U.S., so that's the difference in Canada. So there is a good level of competition from those TPIAs, and then you have two wireline players. Yeah. It's different. Yeah. Yeah. Now, you've acquired Oxio, which gives you a different kind of perspective. Maybe, for people who don't know, just explain what Oxio is, and how is that influencing your product portfolio? Sure. So Oxio is a TPIA, actually, so they were basically marketing their products on other people's network as part of the regulatory framework. So we did buy them. The main reason is we only had one brand in Canada, so that was a good way for us to add a second brand. It's also one that's growing, 'cause they're not all growing, but this one was growing fast, which we liked. It's only digital, which is something we liked as well. You actually cannot call an agent there. Very simple product suite, and it serves a younger demographics, which we couldn't do as much with our Cogeco brand. So we're very happy with it. The way it's go to market right now between Cogeco and Oxio, it's completely different. But at the same time, I think the Cogeco teams are also looking at some things that are done very simply at Oxio, that it provides ideas on how to better serve the customer or reduce costs as well by doing so. Well, let's get at it with wireless. You're in negotiations, so I don't expect you to negotiate publicly, but you know, what should investors think? What's a reasonable expectation for investors in terms of a wireless launch? Sure. So we're planning to launch wireless using the MVNO regime, so that's capital light. That being said, we did buy spectrum in the past, 'cause you need to buy it to qualify. In the long term, at the end of the program, you need to operate on your own with spectrum. So we did buy CAD 400 million, so far, of spectrum in and out of footprint. That covers 95% of our customers in our footprint right now, so we'll be able to use the MVNO regime to cover that 95%. We've also launched a small commercial operation several months ago. That was another qualifier to use the MVNO regime. And now we're in these negotiations. So, I cannot say exactly how long it will take. If it doesn't work, we'll go through arbitration. And there's a few things we're doing on the IT side as well in the systems that we started a while ago, but there's certain activities we wanted to wait until we were more advanced to be on the accelerator. So we're more advanced now. So this remains to be completEed. Once again, I know you can't talk about terms or pricing, certainly, but what are you, what are you looking for in terms of an MVNO partner? What, you know, from a big picture perspective what are you hoping they provide? Well, the mandatory requirements are quite simple. It's basically a price per gig, and you have a cost for voice and text. B asically, the owners of the infrastructure have to provide, basically, leasing their infrastructure for the price you're gonna negotiate. So there's not a ton in the mandate. That being said, there's a lot of other things we could do, which could be a win-win, that would allow us to not have to do on our own, and that could leverage others' platforms. I don't know if we'll do anything on that front, but that's certainly a possibility. If you look at our wireline business, we actually have some of that. There are certain parts of our business that actually we don't do on our own. Most of it is, but there's portions that we decided to do a deal. It's a wholesale deal. It's a win-win. We've done that for decades, for a portion of our services. Right. Let me put you on the spot. Do you think you'll launch in this calendar year? We just started our calendar year on September 1st. We'll have to see. You're putting me on the spot. I don't think it would be the early part of the calendar year, but the later part of the calendar year, I think it's possible. The fiscal, you mean? Uh, yes. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, fiscal. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Yes. All right. Well, we'll hold you to that then. Yeah, not calendar. Any questions from the floor? I don't see any on the app. So we got one here. Hang on, Mike. Yeah. I was just wondering, do you have any excess real estate in Canada or the U.S. that you could monetize? Not really. I would say we've reduced some areas where we're leasing. In terms of real estate, we do own some real estate, well, small pieces of real estate that house equipment, so that's not... I would say unless we did the lease back, but there's cost to that as well. When you look at the bigger pieces where we have our call centers, we do have owned real estate, but we actually need some of that as well. So we started, I would say, leasing some of our floors that we're not using anymore, as our agents largely work from home now. So I'd say something we've looked at in details, but I would not expect anything big as we're leasing quite a bit of our equipment of areas. Thank you. Maybe I'll sneak one last one in. Anything to say on the radio portfolio? Radio portfolio, pardon me, in terms of buying or selling, any advanced thoughts there? Probably more stability. I would say, we're a large presence in Quebec. We have all our stations, we have 23 stations. One is in Ontario, but very close to Quebec. And the rules are changing now, where you can add more stations per city, but I don't think it will change anything for us. And we're not also sellers of radio. Got it. More stability. We're investing in the digital platforms in radio, 'cause you can actually monetize a portion of your content digitally, and it's an area we haven't invested in the past, and we're, I think we're making a good progress there. Excellent. I think we'll leave it there. We're right out of time. Great. Thanks a lot, Patrice. Thank you. Cheers. That was great. Thank you so much. Gordon? Hi, good to see you. Hey, good to see you. Hey, Ellis. How are you? Come on up. There's stairs over here. Okay, welcome back. We're going on with our next session. We have two gentlemen from Cineplex here, who I think most of you know. Ellis Jacob, to my left, the CEO, and my far left, Gordon Nelson, the CFO. We're thankful to have Ellis here because, as you know, TIFF is ongoing tonight with all the beautiful people. Thanks for joining us, Ellis. Maybe just an update, what's the vibe like at TIFF? Any new themes or anything coming out? I'm sure you've spoken to a number of industry players this weekend. Yes, and it's quite exciting. And you know, even though we don't have you know, a lot of the big stars, the movies have been great, and the sessions have been incredible. And you know, I think there's gonna be a lot of momentum as a result of TIFF from a movie perspective, and there's been a lot of great films to see. A lot of them international and some of the independents you know, which are doing well. Like, the opening night was The Boy and the Heron, and you know, Dumb Money was quite well-received. So it's been you know, pretty good. Dumb Money is a film on the meme stocks. The meme stocks, yeah. Sorry, you all know-