Flint advises international businesses and investors on policy, politics, regulation and competition.
Flint advises international businesses and investors on policy, politics, regulation and competition.
Quick links
Sectors
Follow Us
The way TV is delivered into our homes is becoming an urgent policy question. With the Government’s widely anticipated Green Paper on the future of digital terrestrial television (DTT) expected in the coming weeks, ministers will soon need to decide whether the UK should begin preparing for a DTT switch-off in the mid-2030s. A managed transition could reduce the long-term costs of parallel DTT and IPTV distribution, create certainty for broadcasters, telecoms providers, radio operators and infrastructure owners, and free spectrum for other uses.
But it would also require difficult choices if Government wants to safeguard universal access to public service media/broadcasting, including addressing broadband affordability, reliability, accessibility and support for vulnerable audiences. The central challenge for Government will be to design a transition that is commercially credible for industry and politically deliverable, so no one is left behind.
Digital terrestrial television (DTT), usually known as Freeview, has been one of the great universal service infrastructures of the UK media landscape. It provides free-to-air access to public service media and commercial TV through a simple, familiar and resilient technology.
In recent years, though, viewing habits have changed fundamentally with audiences increasingly watching internet-delivered TV. At some stage, DTT may cease to be viable.
The current legislative commitment to DTT runs until 2034. With that deadline in mind, Government has been reviewing the future of TV distribution, with a particular focus on the services that underpin universal access to public service media, including DTT (Freeview) and Freesat.
A managed mid-2030s switch-off may well be the best outcome, if the right safeguards are in place to ensure universal access. It could avoid a prolonged and expensive period of parallel DTT and IPTV distribution that diverts funding away from public service programming, create certainty for broadcasters and infrastructure investors, and free up valuable spectrum for other uses.
But the politics are difficult. Although the DTT switch-off debate is often framed as a technical shift, it is also deeply political and culturally sensitive given the importance of TV for the UK’s cultural landscape and democratic participation.
DTT switch-off is therefore not just a broadcasting decision. It is a national digital transition that will affect broadcasters, telecoms providers, commercial radio, infrastructure owners, spectrum users and, most importantly, the households least able to navigate an unsupported move online.
The commercial case for a managed transition rests on the fact that broadcasters must incur distribution costs on both DTT and IPTV – even as viewing on DTT continues to decline.
DTT distribution costs are largely fixed: DTT signals are broadcast from a network of over 1,100 transmitter masts and to maintain coverage that network must be maintained even as the number of viewers relying on it declines. For example, the BBC’s analysis suggests that even without inflation, the cost per DTT viewer hour in 2030 will be around four times higher than it is expected to be in the financial year 2023/24.[1] Broadcasters have therefore voiced concerns that maintaining the existing DTT infrastructure is unlikely to be commercially viable after the mid-2030s.
At the same time, broadcasters must continue investing in IPTV products, distribution capacity and user experience to serve audiences who have already moved online. As viewing continues to shift online, this need for investment will continue, even if unit costs for IP delivery fall with technological improvements. Taken together, this imposes significant parallel distribution costs on broadcasters, putting greater pressure on their financial sustainability and diverting funding away from UK content creation.
But the uncertainty also matters for the wider value chain: infrastructure providers need clarity on the future of transmission assets and long-term contracts, telecoms providers need to understand the scale and timing of additional broadband demand, and radio operators need to know whether changes to shared broadcast infrastructure could affect their own cost base. In particular, broadcasters’ contracts with Arqiva for the DTT network expire around 2034, making the next few years an important window for decisions across the ecosystem.
However, it’s not all about the economics. DTT’s value is not measured by viewing share alone. It is also a universal access mechanism for UK public service media/broadcasting. For many households, it is simple, reliable and already paid for. Replacing that with an internet-based model that safeguards universal access would require households to have broadband, a connected TV or suitable device, and the confidence to troubleshoot when something goes wrong.
The last households to move are unlikely to be the easiest or cheapest to support. Ofcom has noted that households relying solely on DTT tend to include people who are older, less affluent or disabled. That is why the Government is rightly viewing DTT switch-off as a transition programme, not a switch-flicking exercise.
The most obvious precondition for switch-off is broadband coverage. Households need a reliable broadband service capable of supporting television viewing.
Here the current stats on broadband coverage are encouraging: as of 2026, gigabit-capable broadband availability has increased to 89% of UK homes,[2] and is expected to reach 95% of homes by January 2029.[3] Superfast broadband – a connection that can provide download speeds of at least 30 Mbit/s – already covers 98% of the UK.[4] This is sufficient to deliver multiple HD video streams.[5]
But availability alone will not be enough. Households will also need to choose to take up these broadband packages. For example, take-up of gigabit-capable broadband sits at 56% of premises which have access to gigabit-capable broadband,[6] while around 6% of UK adults still do not have home internet access,[7] even though this has fallen from 11% following the Covid-19 pandemic.[8]
Government will therefore need to ask harder questions beyond the availability of broadband. Can households afford the service? Is the connection reliable enough for peak-time viewing? Does the household have a suitable device? Is the TV interface simple enough for people who are used to pressing one button for BBC One? How will support be provided to people who lack digital confidence, or who simply do not want to move online?
The policy debate must therefore look beyond national broadband coverage to focus on lived experience inside the home: a household can have access to broadband and still not be ready for IPTV.
Broadband affordability may become the most politically contentious part of the DTT debate. If television access becomes dependent on broadband, then broadband is no longer just a communications service. It becomes a gateway to universal public service media.
Existing social tariffs are part of the answer, but not a complete solution.[9] Ofcom’s latest pricing work shows that 532,000 customers were using a fixed or mobile broadband social tariff in June 2025. But awareness remains low: 70% of eligible households were unaware of social tariffs, and take-up was below 9%.[10]
That suggests relying on the current social tariff framework alone would be risky. Government has several options, none of them easy. For instance, it could require stronger promotion of existing social tariffs, mandate a minimum broadband social tariff, introduce targeted vouchers or direct subsidies for eligible households, or raise money through a levy on consumer bills.
Each option involves trade-offs between fairness, targeting, administrative complexity, fiscal cost and bill impact. In addition, a broader digital inclusion scheme covering broadband, devices, installation and skills will likely be required. This would require coordination across Government, broadcasters, telecoms providers and local support organisations (similar to the 2008-2012 Digital Switchover (DSO), when terrestrial TV broadcasting migrated from analogue to digital led by Digital UK).
For broadcasters, who have long supported a careful, managed transition and potential DTT switch-off in the mid-2030s, a managed switch-off could reduce the long-term costs of parallel distribution and provide greater planning certainty. But it would also create new obligations and risks. Broadcasters may be expected to help fund consumer communications, device support, accessibility features and simple user interfaces. They will also need to show that public service content remains universal and easy to find in an IPTV environment.
For telecoms providers, the transition could increase broadband adoption and demand for reliable fixed connectivity. It could also bring new expectations around affordability, resilience, installation, customer support and in-home connectivity.
For commercial radio, the risks are different. If DTT switch-off changes the economics of shared broadcast infrastructure, radio operators may face higher transmission costs or additional pressure to accelerate their own digital transition. Radio needs to be considered alongside, rather than after, television distribution, as the Government’s separate review of the future of FM radio recognises.
For infrastructure providers, a DTT switch-off would affect long-term revenues and could strand assets. For mobile operators and other spectrum users, a DTT switch-off could create opportunities. Some of the low-frequency spectrum currently used by DTT is valuable for mobile because of its coverage characteristics, particularly for rural and indoor connectivity
The forthcoming policy debate will need to be evidence-led, but it will also be political.
To make the case for a managed switch-off, broadcasters will need to demonstrate the costs of delay, the public value of a managed transition, and the safeguards required to protect universal access. Telecoms providers will need to show what is feasible on coverage and reliability. Meanwhile, commercial radio operators will need to evidence how changes to TV transmission infrastructure could affect their own economics, to ensure their interests are taken into account. Similarly, infrastructure providers will need to make the case for the continuing value of broadcast networks.
Most importantly, industry stakeholders will need to work with consumer groups and Government to ensure that affordability, accessibility and reliability are designed into the transition from the start.
The most compelling arguments will need to combine economic evidence, regulatory understanding, a consumer-focused lens, and political judgement.
A managed end to terrestrial TV may well be the right destination. But getting there will require a level of planning, coordination and political care that matches the scale of the change. The Flint Global team can help stakeholders assess the commercial impacts, build evidence for Government and regulators, and navigate what is likely to be one of the most politically sensitive digital infrastructure decisions of the next few years.
Flint Global advised The Connection Project on the costs and benefits of a cross-sector managed digital transition. The analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed in this blog post are those of the authors alone.
This blog post was written by Flint Partner Yih-Choung Teh, Flint Managing Partner Mark Caines, Flint Partner James Heath, and Flint Director Kah Loon Tham. Yih-Choung joined Flint from Ofcom bringing over 20 years of experience at the UK’s media and telecoms regulator, including seven years as Group Director of Strategy and Research. Mark has run Flint's Competition, Regulation and Economics team for the last eight years. He joined Flint from Ofcom where he was Director of Spectrum Policy with particular responsibility for mobile and broadcast spectrum. James was formerly the Chief Executive of the UK’s National Infrastructure Commission and Director for Digital Infrastructure in the UK government. Kah Loon is a regulatory and competition economist who advises clients on economic issues across various sectors, including telecoms and broadcasting.