They become more profitable because you’ve now sort of gotten close enough that you can finish out a build. So those numbers are actually kind of interesting. And that sits both inside and outside of our footprint. So where you have near adjacency, you gain sort of marketing, distribution, service and reputation advantages. It allows you to move quickly in terms of the speed of build and how quickly you can scale operations. So, all of this is open for discussion. The question about how it might be funded is something we won’t answer today, but we are certainly open to the notion of partnerships, joint ventures and the like to go there for both availability of fundings plus the speed with which it can be executed, so more to come on all of this as the situation continues to evolve and develop.
But for today, that’s kind of where we’re seeing it.
Philip Cusick: Thanks, John. Scott, if I can follow-up one thing. I didn’t quite understand your ARPU comment. Should we be looking at ARPU growth at the end of the year? Is that the target now?
Scott Beasley: That’s right. Even by Q2, we should be growing sequentially again. So again, Q1, we expect to be flattish with where we ended Q4. But with the results of the pricing actions we’ve taken the, like I said, rationalized use of gift cards by Q2, we should be growing again sequentially.
Philip Cusick: Thanks very much.
Spencer Kurn: Thanks, Phil. Operator, we are ready for next question.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Michael Rollins of Citi. Michael, please go ahead now.
Michael Rollins: Thanks and good morning. Two questions. First, just curious if you could provide more detail on the broadband operating environment. And you did earlier in the discussion in your slides show how you’re doing on market share, particularly in some of the vintage fiber market. I’m just curious what you’re seeing on a go-forward basis on the opportunity to take share relative to what’s happening with move rates possible cable reactions and any impact you are seeing on wireless, particularly on the copper side? And then secondly, as I look at the breakdown of fiber EBITDA versus copper EBITDA, it looks like there may have been a step-up in fiber and step down in copper. I am just curious if you could talk about some of the contributing factors. And if there are additional step changes in profitability between these two segments as you look out into the future beyond just what you might get from the operating leverage of growing fiber revenue. Thanks.
Nick Jeffery: Yes. Thanks Michael, Nick here. Look, on the broadband operating environment, as we have said in previous calls, fiber broadband and broadband in general, in the U.S., of course, is a highly competitive market. At the same time in I think 86% of our footprint, we have one or fewer competitors. But as we transition this company to being a fiber-oriented, growth-oriented digital infrastructure company, it’s true that we are taking market share in the majority of our markets as we head towards our terminal penetration of 45%, which we discussed on previous calls. Now, just to remind everybody, why do we believe 45% is doable, well, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, that historically, many of our markets were at or above that level of penetration.
