Understanding the bigger picture on Freeview and internet TV | Letters

Letters: Jonathan Thompson, Helen Milner and Mathew Horsman on proposals to switch off digital terrestrial television

Christy Swords (Letters, 28 January) notes that millions of homes still use Freeview, but his case for retaining the terrestrial TV network would carry more weight were he not – as his letter makes clear – a consultant for Arqiva, the privately owned monopoly owner of the masts and transmitters that power Freeview.

Mr Swords claims that preserving Freeview into the 2040s carries “zero risk” for households reliant on digital terrestrial television. He is wrong. It would actually result in a two-tier system, leaving a minority of vulnerable homes with an inferior free TV service: fewer channels, fewer programmes and basic functionality.

By contrast, TV delivered online can offer a more consumer-friendly and accessible future, giving vulnerable audiences a familiar TV experience totally transformed by features only the internet can deliver, like voice control. TV delivered online is not the same as Freeview – it is better.

While access and affordability of broadband needs to be solved, access to reliable broadband will be higher than the coverage of Freeview by 2032. Around 95% of homes already pay for the internet, and most of the remainder already pay for a landline that will soon be converted to an internet-delivered line – at no extra cost to them – ready for TV.

We absolutely agree that no one should be left behind in terms of connectivity, usability and affordability, and there will be a minority who need support. And of course, any future transition in TV needs to be seen as part of a much wider plan for the UK to embrace the potential for a fully inclusive digital society, along with the wider societal and economic benefits it can deliver.

Extending terrestrial TV into the 2040s does little for viewers, but much for the company providing the infrastructure it relies on. Yes, we should have a proper policy debate about Freeview’s future, but let’s base it on facts, not vested interests.
Jonathan Thompson
CEO, Everyone TV – the organisation that runs free TV in the UK on behalf of public service broadcasters

• Re Christy Swords’ letter, we must look at the future of public service broadcasting not as a risk, but as a huge opportunity. Switching our public TV to be delivered over the internet does not have to exclude people. Instead, with proper planning and funding, this major change could be the driving force we need to finally close the digital divide across the UK.

New research shows that older viewers are enthusiastic about internet-delivered TV, with 93% finding its features useful, rising to 99% among those aged 70-plus, and that voice control has improved accessibility for older or disabled audiences.

Currently, there are 8 million people who lack the basic confidence and skills to be literate in using the internet and also over 1 million households who cannot afford a broadband service.

However, with public service broadcasters suggesting a switchover could happen in 2034, there is time to remedy these figures. It’s also not just television that people need the internet for – research shows that 31% of adults don’t engage with health services online, and a third of adults find it difficult to engage with government services online.

Imagine a society where a strategically planned approach to digitally including a nation was enacted. We could start with a focus on a switch to internet-delivered TV in the 2030s. This requires strong leadership from the government. Broadcasters must play their part in raising awareness, just as they did for the digital switchover from 2008 to 2012. Businesses are already investing, and more companies can come on board and thousands of community organisations who are ready and willing to help.

Let’s not be afraid of the future. Let’s not be naive and leave this to chance. Let’s plan strategically to give everyone the opportunity to benefit from a modern, digitally included society.
Helen Milner
Chief executive, Good Things Foundation

• While it is instructive to read the piece by Mark Sweney on the future of TV (As most TV viewers tune in via broadband, will 2034 signal the death of Freeview?, 29 January) and the Guardian is to be commended for giving this crucial subject extensive coverage, I fear there are two important issues that have failed to be properly addressed. Taken together, they suggest that we should not be rushing toward a premature closure of a TV service that millions of viewers continue to use and value.

The first is around what might happen to TV usage if the market is left to its own devices (ie if there is no planned switch-off of Freeview in 2034). Far from there being consensus on this point, there continues to be a healthy debate. In my recent work in this area, I project that more than 5m households will still be using digital terrestrial TV (DTT), branded as Freeview, as the primary means of watching linear (live) TV on main television sets in 2034.

The mistake made by some analysts is to equate technical availability of a broadband service capable of delivering TV with actual consumer behaviours and preferences. Moreover, the Freeview cohort is likely to be older and poorer than the national average, raising a number of concerns around fairness and equity.

The second issue is the lazy assumption in some quarters that a switch to internet protocol television (IPTV) from DTT is broadly the same as the programme in the 2000s to move from analogue to digital television. The two are not the same. When we swapped out analogue for digital there were some one-off costs, but no ongoing commitments. Freeview was what it said on the tin: free. To get reliable IPTV, you need a fast broadband connection and will have to pay for this year in, year out. Nor can it be assumed that viewers in a hybrid household already watching some streaming will be able, or want, to switch to watching all of their TV around the house in that way.

No one is arguing that live, linear TV is not declining (it is), that the transition to IPTV shouldn’t happen at some point (it probably should), or that a move to an all-IP future does not unlock real value for the UK (it probably does, although mobile alongside fixed-line IP plays a role here). It is primarily a question of when, how, and who should pay for the transition. A later switch-off brings real benefits and minimises the disbenefits. Why rush?
Mathew Horsman
Former managing director, Mediatique, and author of a October 2025 report on the future of TV commissioned by Arqiva