You've really thrown me a big fat football. It's hard to give you a comprehensive answer, but I think you began to hit on some of the most important elements of such a review.
Personally, I believe that the review has to be comprehensive. One of the most difficult aspects of broadcasting is how elements interrelate, one with the other. If you're not in commercials, then perhaps you're not in sports programming.
I'm not sure whether a mandated review should get into specific types of programming, but it should get into questions like regional programming, local programming, and national programming. The act does talk about that, but at this point, the funds available in some ways limit our ability to do all things on top of all of our services.
The other reality is that the technology is changing so dramatically and so drastically. There are people who believe that IPTV, Internet protocol television, is the future. People will be able to chose the service they want, when and how they want it, and choose the program they want. We already have a situation in the United States where programs are shown, and then literally the next day, for 99¢, you can buy access to a program on your own. So you can see it when you want.
The whole concept we grew up with and that we wrote the 1968 and 1991 acts in, which was basically linear services--radio and television, and English, French, and aboriginal languages—is and must be up for discussion. In doing so, I think we have to look and ask, what is the role of the public broadcaster within this context? What is the best way to finance the role of the public broadcaster?
My personal feeling is that there should be a mandated review on a regular basis, as there is in the United Kingdom. As the government defines the mandated review—which is sort of a contract with Canadians—the review also defines the extent to which the government is willing to finance the services it wants its public broadcaster to undertake.
I don't want to skate around, because I think your questions are extremely important. They are the right questions. And as I said before, we can go beyond these into the question of regional versus local. Then there's the question of whether we can do it in all our services. We believe that all the services where Canadians want programming—whether it's news, current affairs, drama, and other programs—have to be available to Canadians. We feel we must be there because Canadians are going to choose, and everybody is going to choose different ways of doing it.
I'm sorry I'm going on a bit, but it's such an important question.
The iPod story is very interesting. Our audience for radio skews old, to about 50-plus years of age. But as we've been accused sometimes, we don't have to dumb down to capture a young audience. On the contrary, a young audience—my kids—would be insulted if you told them that you have to dumb down to get them. What we're finding with iPods is that young people are discovering some of our more complex radio programs, such as Quirks & Quarks and Ideas. These are the programs they are downloading from us.
They can download their music from Radio Three, but they can download music from other places.
But to us, we're creating a new market of 18- to 35-year-olds and giving them access to programs, so they don't have to listen to Quirks & Quarks at noon. They can listen to it when they want, how they want.
It's all these issues that must come together when you do a mandated review.