The United Kingdom is planning for a future in which television is increasingly delivered over the internet and terrestrial television may ultimately be switched off. Setting a target date can help drive that transition, but the timeline should not become the objective. The real test is whether any replacement for terrestrial transmission has demonstrated that it can maintain universal access, achieve significant consumer adoption, and provide a service at least as reliable and accessible as the one it replaces.
There is little doubt about the direction of travel. Online delivery offers many advantages, including on-demand access, personalisation, improved accessibility and potentially better picture and sound quality. The question is no longer whether internet delivery will play an increasing role in the future of television, but under what conditions it can become a complete replacement for terrestrial broadcasting.
That requires a shift from assumptions to evidence. Much of the debate about television distribution necessarily depends on projections about future broadband coverage, capacity, consumer behaviour and technology. At some point, however, expectations about what should be possible need to become evidence of what has actually been achieved.
A target date can be a valuable planning tool. It can concentrate minds, stimulate investment and establish a framework for contracts and infrastructure decisions. Yet there is a danger that the timetable itself becomes the measure of success. The objective should not be to switch off terrestrial television by a particular date. It should be to create a replacement good enough to make terrestrial transmission unnecessary.
That distinction matters because industry success is not necessarily the same as consumer success. Broadcasters may reasonably want to reduce distribution costs, simplify infrastructure and gain greater certainty about future investment. Consumers have a simpler test: does their television work and can they use it easily?
For viewers, readiness means more than theoretical broadband availability. They need to be able to receive the services they expect, find them easily, use equipment of their choice and rely on those services when they need them. Universal access has been one of the defining characteristics of television in the United Kingdom. Moving distribution to the internet should not quietly redefine what universal means.
Availability is only the beginning. Adoption matters too. If a replacement service is technically available to almost every household but substantial numbers of people are unwilling or unable to use it as their normal means of watching television, that is important evidence about its readiness.
Switching off terrestrial television should therefore follow significant adoption of its replacement, rather than be used as the means of forcing that adoption.
Reliability also needs to be tested at the extremes, not simply under normal operating conditions. Broadcast television has the unusual characteristic that serving another million viewers requires virtually no additional transmission capacity. Internet distribution works differently, even with highly efficient content delivery networks.
Major national events provide an obvious test. Imagine England reaching a World Cup football final in Saudi Arabia in 2034. While it may be presumptive to plan on that basis, it provides a practical proof point.
The question is not whether an internet television system could theoretically support tens of millions of simultaneous viewers. That is an engineering challenge. The practical policy question is whether the complete system, from the broadcaster through distribution and access networks to millions of homes, will have demonstrated that it can, before committing to removing existing delivery capability that can already demonstrably deliver.
There are less dramatic tests that matter just as much. No distribution system is completely reliable, so the frequency of failure is only one measure. Time to restore service is another. Internet television introduces dependencies on broadband providers, access networks, routers, home networking, software platforms, applications and other systems. A service that is normally highly reliable but can leave some consumers without television for days following a fault has a different reliability profile from the service it replaces.
The previous digital television switchover may offer some useful experience, but this transition is fundamentally different. Analogue terrestrial television was replaced by another terrestrial broadcast system that delivered evident benefits.
The dawn of digital television delivered more channels, widescreen pictures, and coincided with the introduction of flat screen displays. The prospect of switching off analogue transmissions provided an additional incentive for consumers to upgrade.
An online transition involves many more networks, platforms, devices, service providers and commercial interests. More than two thirds of homes already receive online video on their television through hybrid platforms. It cannot simply be assumed that the previous playbook can be repeated.
None of this is an argument against online television or for retaining terrestrial broadcasting indefinitely. It is a reason for defining what successful replacement actually means and establishing objective evidence by which it can be judged.
The United Kingdom needs targets for television transition, and an ambitious timetable can help drive progress. The ultimate decision should be a decision gate, not simply a date in the diary.
The future of television should not arrive because the calendar says it is time. It should arrive when we can demonstrate that it is ready.
A public consultation on the government green paper, Watch this space: a new strategic direction for UK media, is open until the end of August 2026.