While policy makers consider the future of digital terrestrial television transmission in the United Kingdom, the prime minister has addressed concerns expressed about the implications of turning off television services too soon. It seems the case for an early switch off is far from clear.
The consultations on the government green paper Watch this space: a new strategic direction for UK media recently closed. As the government web site points out in a banner disclaimer: “This was published under the 2024 to 2026 Starmer Labour government”.
Responding to questions from members of parliament, the recently appointed prime minister Andy Burnham was asked about the plans.
David Mundell, the Conservative member of parliament for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, raised the question.
“One measure that would not cost him anything and would be popular in the north, and across the whole of the UK, would be to rule out something that appeared in the previous Prime Minister’s Green Paper on the future of television: the suggestion that terrestrial free-to-view television could be switched off in 2034. That would mean that everyone would have to pay to watch television, which particularly affects the elderly, vulnerable and those who live in rural areas.”
The Prime Minister responded by saying he would give an honest answer: “I am concerned about those plans too. I know that some of my constituents in Makerfield rely on Freeview. There is perhaps an opportunity to look at that as part of the BBC charter renewal process. I cannot give him a final answer today, but I recognise that he has raised a genuine issue that is of concern to his constituents. Let me have a proper look at it.”
The Government is considering two options for the future of television transmissions. One would involve switching off digital terrestrial television in 2034, on the assumption that most people will have access to online television services by then. The alternative scenario would retain transmissions until 2044, using more efficient standards to provide a more gradual transition.
The question is really who will pay for that. Broadcasters are unsurprisingly not keen. However, the investment required to achieve equivalent reach and reliability has not been fully costed or taken into account.
Politicians, on the other hand, may be mindful of their constituents, some of whom may be less willing or able to pay for internet access to receive television services. They will also be concerned about the ability to maintain a system that allows them to reach a large proportion of the population reliably with existing resilient infrastructure.
While a roadmap is required to achieve any transition to online delivery, there is currently no coherent plan and 2034 is not far off. It is difficult to see why politicians would favour turning off television transmissions for millions of households sooner rather than later, given the costs involved in maintaining broadcasts are not that significant in fiscal terms.
As a number of analysts have observed, this is really tied to the future funding and purpose of the BBC, which is currently under review as its current charter period runs out at the end of 2027, which is a more pressing deadline.
The future of digital terrestrial transmission is likely to be linked to a renewed commitment by the BBC to ensuring a universal service and for accepting the cost of continuing to broadcast its television services.
In turn, the transmission network provider, Arqiva, will be able to build the business case for investing in more efficient transmission standards to ensure continuing national coverage of broadcast services.
One thing seems clear, this will be a political, as much as a technical or commercial consideration. The political cost will form part of the calculation.