Welcome to Tucows Question and Answer Dialogue for Q4 2024. Elliot Noss, President and Chief Executive Officer, will be responding to your questions. For your convenience, this audio file is also available as a transcript in the Investor section of our website, along with our Q4 2024 financial results and updated reports. I would also like to remind investors that if you would like to receive our quarterly results and Q&A via email, please make the request to ir@tucows.com. Please note that the following discussion may include forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. These risk factors are described in detail in the company's documents filed with the SEC, specifically the most recent reports on the Forms 10-Q and 10-K. The company urges you to read its security filings for a full description of the risk factors applicable to its business. Today's commentary includes responses to questions submitted to us following the prerecorded management remarks regarding the quarter and outlook for the company. We are grouping similar questions into categories that we feel are addressing common queries. If your questions reach a certain threshold or volume, we may ask you to schedule a call instead to ensure we can address the full body of your questions. If you feel that the recorded questions and/or any direct email you may receive do not address the full scope of your questions, please let us know. Go ahead, Elliot. Thank you, Monica. Welcome to our Q&A for our fourth quarter 2024 financial results. The bulk of our questions this quarter pertain to Ting. First, an investor asks for more color on the recent Wavelo and EchoStar contract renewal, including how to think about its impact on adjusted EBITDA. Over four years ago, we did a complicated business deal that essentially stood up new business units for both Tucows and EchoStar. Given the circumstances, the deal was quite prescient. We have made small changes that smooth things for both sides and reflect the current realities. We get a little more certainty, and they capture a little more of the upside. Most importantly, it reflects the strong relationship between the parties and shows that it is possible for a telecom to actually like their back office partner. Another related note that we had a question about was my comment about pricing the Verizon contract into the original deal. What I meant was that we calculated what the worst outcome could be and asked ourself, if it came to pass, would we still do the deal? The answer was a clear yes. I note this overage is not the worst outcome, as the tail has outperformed, and we intend to get marketing benefit from it in any event. We had a couple of questions on ARPU for Ting. One related to adding a lower tier. The single biggest reason for our well above industry average ARPU is offering only a single SKU. Multiple SKUs in a utility like fiber make no sense, just as it would make no sense with water or electricity. It confuses customers on checkout and is really just old telecom treating it like television. In terms of growing ARPU, we believe that the relationship between an ISP and its customers can and should be deeper than is currently the case. If you don't like your ISP, why would you do more business with them? If you do, almost everyone, but the very geekiest of us, would benefit from a trusted technology partner in their lives. As for specific offerings for 2025, that will mostly be mobile. In 2026 and beyond, we have a lot of dreams. We also had a question about how quickly our partner markets would get built. Each of Memphis and Colorado Springs will come in roughly evenly over the next four to five years based on our partner's current plans. Finally, an investor asks why we believe that Ting's common equity has value, or more pointedly, why not just turn it over to lenders and stop having it as a drag on the stock price. While we agree, and I have been clear, that we believe the stock would significantly appreciate in the short term if we were to not have Ting, we also deeply believe that it is just another example of stock market inefficiency for small public companies. When evaluating the value of common equity and Ting, the first step is to consider the net debt, which is approximately $410 million. Next, we compare that to our organic addresses. At roughly $2,800 an address, the debt is satisfied. What is the current market? The T-Mobile deals with EQT and KKR were in the mid to high $3,000s or low $4,000s per address, depending on how additional assets were valued. The Bell Canada, Ziply deal, meanwhile, was in the above $4,000 range. Given these benchmarks, we believe that the $2,800 floor is quite conservative. Beyond this floor, we can analyze the value of a fiber home using the standard formula: penetration times ARPU times net margin divided by churn. Examining these components, Ting performs favorably. Our ARPU is above the industry average. Our churn is lower, and our penetration is higher. All these factors suggest that our homes should be valued above the industry average. Moreover, this base valuation excludes several key assets. It assigns zero value to existing partner network customers, the future value of partner customers in Memphis and Colorado Springs, additional assets within Ting, such as the fixed wireless business in and around Tucson, and other assets, including dealing with incomplete footprints, excess inventory, and fleet, all as a result of ceasing construction of new addresses. In summary, given these factors, we confidently believe that Ting's common e quity is worth well more than zero. We also believe that market inefficiencies create opportunities, and we look forward to taking advantage of them. Thank you for listening to our Q&A, and a reminder that if you feel that the recorded answers or any direct email you receive do not address your question, please follow up with us at ir@tucows.com.