Yeah, it's the well, the USF really, it's funny back in the day, and by back in the day, I mean, you know, 100 years ago, universal service meant that the telephone service should have the same look and feel so is universal service in this in the sense that your iPhone doesn't act differently in Atlanta than it does in Chicago, right? The idea was that you should have consistency of you know, dial tone of the way that routing and long distance work, all that somehow, the term went through sea change. And now when we talk about universal service, we're talking about getting service to everyone. And I think, pointing out that distinction. You said, I'm a little bit of a nerd here. So I'm going to nerd out just a little bit. I mean, every report the so people who are people who were there for it or who just studied, it will recall that the the Bell system prior to breakup was based on cross subsidies, it was it was based on it was based on frankly, very often having pricing tiers of service that were rather disconnected from the underlying costs or provision in order to ensure that you could have the you could subsidize things in various ways. So you know, if you had a long line with with light traffic that was not transparent to the consumer, you were charging on a distance basis, and it was 18 t's problem to get that line fully utilized. Or, likewise, the same technical service provided to business and to a household were built on a differential basis that the business was paying for the household. And likewise, between urban and rural, because obviously an urban you have, you have infrastructure, advantages to skill that you don't have in rural. So the whole system was built on huge numbers of behind the scenes subsidies, and those, those were substantially weakened by by the breakup. First of all, they were weakened again, and 89. And by the time you get to 96, there's there's not much left of that. So you wind up with the idea of a fund to get to universality of service. 1996 Let's recall that was that was the era when, when you had pop up, pop up long distance providers, I still remember dialing 1010 321 You know, that kind of thing. Right. And it was it was a time when when landline phone service was a huge business. And the USF was built around this idea, you know that we would probably never have to raise the USF percentage around contribution factor over over about 5%. And now it's routinely over 30%. It's hard to plan for in advance to because you don't know what it's going to be quarter to quarter. I mean, you can guesstimate, but if you're a bulk buyer of service, your bill might be 10 million bucks off where you thought it would be upward down and that's the error bars are just painful. So So looking at the USF now we've got we've got a long history at this point. So some entities have been dependent on USF money and have built their budgets around it and they're training around it and they're specialized people who just work with USF issues who've been doing this for 27 years. And there's there's a huge amount of dependence there that you can't just remove overnight. At the same time the base for USF funding is dwindling and dwindling. I mean, I I've got a landline in my house but it's not connected to surface and you know, a lot of new builds don't have a landline at all. And personally I've I I've been primarily on my cell phone since 2010 or there abouts. Just I was I was at the time I was a lawyer in private practice so I wasn't at home any way, and you might as well get my calls when they're alive instead of on an answering machine when I get home at 11:30pm. Right. So. So I guess what I'm saying is you look at the at the USF programs, and there's there's a huge amount of dependency there that's based on path dependence from how we go from 96. To today. And yet, it seems massively unsustainable. And I guess I would say, Look, if you look at a social network, what adds value to a social network? Not individual nodes, but the size of the network itself, right, this is this is well understood. And if you are a company that relies on having a large user base, and that large user base is enabled by telecommunications infrastructure to which you are structurally a non contributor, then I guess you have to ask yourself the question, do we even want to be non contributors to this? Like, do we even want to place the burden of maintaining the infrastructure that our business depends on on parties that are not beholden to us and are going to try and disintermediate us if they can, and maybe you'll say, Yeah, you know, I'm a pirate, always the Black Flag, I'm not afraid of being disintermediated, because I'm just better and faster and tougher. But, but it's, it strikes me that, increasingly, when you look at the benefit of the network effects, if an ISP as a new customer, that's just a customer to that ISP, you know, they may or may not be a particularly profitable customer is one customer. But the creation of that ISP customer probably also creates a Google customer, and a Microsoft customer, and an Amazon customer, quite possibly a Netflix customer. And, of course, customers for all of the ancillary services, even if they don't directly have an Amazon account, odds are that they touch AWS in some way, that sort of thing. And so if we were to, if we were to look back at Bill and say, you know, monopoly era bill and say, Bill has to establish universal service, because its network is too valuable for people to be left off of, and they can't be full participants in American life. That's sort of what we're saying about the high quash programs and other things that are subsidized by USF today. And therefore, we have to ask ourselves, who's the logical? What's the logical contribution base for this? And if the answer is obvious, but there's no regulatory framework for it, and there's no regulatory framework for it, because there's no legal framework for it? Well, then I guess we understand the challenge before us. But at this point, the USF charges are, I guess, the other thing is, they're so high that anyone who doesn't have to pay them has found a way to run around them. And the basis is already down by about two thirds from what it was at its peak, it's just gonna get smaller and smaller. So no future in it. As it lies, we got to revise it.