With respect to over-the-air, when we talked to the CRTC we were very cognizant of the fact that we have 650 transmitting towers for television alone, plus radio as a separate item, and that these towers are aging. They were built mainly in the 1970s, and they were built to serve all communities of 500 or more. It was a government policy called the accelerated coverage plan. We knew that this was a system that was perhaps designed for a different era, an era when the bulk of people got their television over the air.
The fact is that now, basically 90% of Canadians, give or take a couple of percentage points and depending on who's doing the calculation on any one day, choose to pay to get their television via satellite or via cable, primarily, and very shortly we'll have more delivery by the telephone companies. In the process a very unique thing has happened. The regions that were les régions défavorisées, the regions that were underserved in terms of television and maybe only had one channel, are now the ones that are getting the multitude of channels via ExpressVu or Star Choice. Where people choose still to get their television off air, the bulk of them are in urban communities. They are in urban communities and it's a conscious decision, or a financial decision, on their part—conscious because maybe they don't watch TV, maybe because getting over-the-air CBC and CTV is more than enough for them because of the amount they watch, maybe just news. But it's generally speaking a conscious decision to get their television over the air.
We had no suggestion from government, nor were we certain it was the correct policy, that all those 650 transmitters be replaced. It's a very expensive undertaking. With 42 transmitters, as we move to the digital era and move to HD, we can cover 80% of the population over the air, and the bulk of the people who have chosen not to take television by cable or satellite. So we're not depriving people by saying this is a rational business model. If the government wants us to go all the way, we're more than willing to do it.
If I were to be asked for advice, wearing my old bureaucrat's hat as a policy advisor, I would suggest that perhaps there are better ways to spend the money in broadcasting than to replicate an old system and again get tied up in transmission rather than in program production.
So when we went to the CRTC we went with what we thought was a responsible way to deliver HD over the air to 80% of the population. I must say, TQS said they were going to build one transmitter for HD, at most. In many ways, others are very concerned about the cost of that. So that was the essence of our presentation, trying to be reasonable and rational, given the economic situation within which we live, and given that our priority still is, and still will be, programming.
That gets me to the second part of your question, about how we reach out and educate people about the availability of CBC. In many ways that's exactly what the new technologies allow us to do. I jokingly say that sometimes CBC radio, in particular, is an acquired taste. If you're under 50, you're not going to acquire it. You'll acquire it with time. The fact is I'm wrong. I know it from my own kids and their friends. There are a lot of younger people who like and are attracted to CBC radio, and we're proving now with iPods and downloads that there are many ways to get to people, in English and in French, through the new technologies. I think that's what we have to do. We must be involved in all the new technologies. Some are going to fail, no question. Some are going to be overtaken by other technologies. But we must respond to Canadians and say you can get that program when you want to see it, not when I tell you to see it. I think in that way we will continue to build an audience for CBC in the long run.
If we're not in those technologies, we will lose. If somebody wants to watch an Olympic result on their little cell screen and they want it immediately, we have to be there. We were there in the last Olympics, and both the cellular provider and us were ecstatic at the number of new people who actually tuned in just to see the event, and then moved on or then saw it on a big screen.
What you say in terms of funding is the dream I have that we could, with all of you, define what you want from the public broadcaster, what the holes are in the Canadian system. I believe, for example, drama is a tremendous hole. Service to les communautés francophones hors Québec is an extremely important service that we must do, if we believe in how this country is going. But that is something to be defined beyond just the Broadcasting Act and to be defined in a regular manner, I say every ten years. That means that at the seventh year, you begin to evaluate us and go forward.
But a contract has two parts to it. Part one is what is expected, part two is how it's going to be paid for. The two must merge together. The only way I can see this happening in the long run is for all of us to do it together.
