Guidance

Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum: Minutes 2 - 24 February 2025

Published 23 June 2026

Minutes of a meeting held on 24 February 2025.

Attendees 

DCMS 

Chair: Stephanie Peacock MP, Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth
Robert Specterman-Green, Director, Media and International Policy
Mark Griffin, Deputy Director, TV Policy

DSIT

Holly Creek, Deputy Director, Wireless Infrastructure, Spectrum and Consumer Policy

Ofcom 

Yih-Choung Teh, Group Director for Strategy and Research

Working Group Chairs

TV Sector Working Group Chair: Gill Hind, Enders
Infrastructure Working Group Chair: Richard Lindsay-Davies, Digital TV Group
Audiences Working Group Chair: Professor Catherine Johnson, University of Leeds

Members

Laurie Patten, Arqiva
Kieran Clifton, BBC
Clive Carter, BT
Khalid Hayat, Channel 4
Adam Minns, Commercial On-Demand and Broadcasting Association
Nigel Dacre, Comux
Elizabeth Anderson, Digital Poverty Alliance
Emma Whitmore, Edgio
Jonathan Thompson, Everyone TV
Paddy Paddison, Independent Networks Cooperative Association
Magnus Brooke, ITV
  David Powell, Local TV Network
Hamish MacLeod, Mobile UK
Mitchell Simmons, Paramount
Kerry Booth, Rural Services Network
Mali Williams, S4C
Dennis Reed, Silver Voices
Emily Davidson, Sky
Bobby Hain, STV
Matthew Evans, Tech UK
Professor Simeon Yates, University of Liverpool
Professor Steven Barnett, University of Westminster
Andrew Wileman, VM02
Colin Browne, Voice of the Listener and Viewer

Apologies 

Thomas Eland, DSIT, Deputy Director, Broadband Regulation and Investment
Darren Baker, SES

Summary

The minister welcomed members to the second meeting of the forum. The minister acknowledged the opportunity to discuss three papers: a revenue streams paper submitted by the TV Sector Working Group; a nightlights paper submitted by the Infrastructure Working Group; and a universality paper submitted by the Audiences Working Group. The papers as submitted to the forum have been published on GOV.UK alongside these minutes.

The Chair of the TV Sector Working Group summarised the revenue streams paper, noting five core findings about IPTV compared to DTT: for advertisers, IPTV advertising offers much greater audience targeting capabilities, but not as much as other online video propositions such as YouTube; IPTV and DTT advertising are traded differently in that they use different outreach metrics and operate under different levels of regulation; the value chains for advertising is more complex on IPTV than DTT; that there are benefits to be derived from IPTV advertising, such as greater flexibility, but there are also challenges such as the presence of platform operators taking a greater share of the revenue on IPTV than DTT – often an industry standard of 30%; and that IPTV enables TV manufacturers to pursue new revenue models based on the lifetime advertising of the set. 

Discussion of the revenue streams paper was wide-ranging and covered varied topics including: the benefits and risks to audiences of increasingly targeted advertising; the impact of a move to IPTV on the quality of UK advertising content; the availability of ‘ad insertion’ on technologies other than IPTV, providing broadcasters with greater flexibility; and whether conceiving of revenue streams and broadcaster incentives as a driver for audience behaviour was the correct way to view the transition, and not the other way around. Concluding, the minister reflected that, difficult as it may be, the next step would be to attempt to forecast likely future DTT and IPTV revenue streams, to gauge the commercial viability of the options for broadcasters.

The Chair of the Infrastructure Working Group summarised the nightlights paper, the purpose of which was to start to define what a nightlight service could look like (as distinct from other options, such as investment in a continued DTT service, that were also under consideration). He noted that the definition of a nightlight was very specific, and conceived of nightlights as a residual broadcast service that would help audiences transition to IPTV. In the paper’s conception, a nightlight is transitional and has limited channel capacity. Its purpose would be to support households with barriers to IP adoption. The paper noted key considerations in evaluating options, including: potential spectrum allocation; the coverage; the longevity of infrastructure; the commercial impact on industry; and whether options would necessitate a ‘double transition’. The Chair of the Working Group set out the four nightlight options presented in the paper.

Some members indicated that they were concerned that the introduction of a paper on nightlights early in the stakeholder forum process indicated that DCMS had already committed to the nightlight option. DCMS clarified this was not the case, and that all options continue to be considered, including investment in a continued DTT service, which would be discussed at future meetings. The Chair of the Infrastructure Working Group reiterated that the paper did not take a policy position on a nightlight; it just specified some possible designs.

Members clarified whether a nightlight was likely to mean different or less content for consumers and this was confirmed to be an assumption of the paper. It was noted that it was important that a nightlight did not create a ‘two-tier’ system, and the challenge of separating public service content and non-public service content which could still be culturally important for audiences. It was noted that for a period of time during digital switchover consumers did have access to different services.   

Members also raised: the impacts of a nightlight on the radio and programme making and special events sectors; the weakness of commercial demand among broadcasters for DTT capacity, and whether that revenue would be sufficient to sustain the running costs of a nightlight; and whether spectrum would be reallocated efficiently under the nightlight scenarios proposed. Concluding, the minister reflected that the discussion of this paper by no means intends to narrow the discussion of potential options for the future, and instead aimed to expand an area with comparatively little pre-existing research. The minister emphasised the importance of information sharing to better conceptualise nightlight options.

The Chair of the Audiences Working Group, summarised the universality paper, noting four key considerations: firstly, the availability of infrastructure required to watch public service content via IPTV, considering factors such as the minimum broadband speed required and the reliability of the service; secondly, the affordability of broadband, as digital poverty precludes households from being able to afford broadband subscriptions; thirdly, the usability of technology and the corresponding digital skills which are necessary to use broadband and IP devices; and finally, the ‘public good’, which considers that all members of the UK population should be easily able to access a range of content that serves their civic needs. For universality to be achieved on IPTV, all four components of this definition would need to be met. The chair noted that the paper focused on the principles of universality and not on potential solutions, as those topics will constitute a future paper of the working group. 

Members discussed the paper’s core principles and put forward a range of views, including: that if universality as a concept would need to adapt, so would broadcasters to ensure that their services made a potential audience transition to IPTV more familiar, as with Sky Glass and Freely; that a move to IPTV should not solely serve as the driver of digital inclusion to get Britain connected, as wider digital inclusion investment was necessary before any IPTV transition to prepare audiences; and that IPTV can offer accessibility benefits that DTT cannot, including voice activation. There was also discussion among members of the most effective measurements of digital poverty, and how these figures would influence digital inclusion policy. 

Responding, DSIT noted that the government would soon be publishing a Digital Inclusion Action Plan and encouraged interested members to engage with the Department. Concluding, the minister stated that audiences were rightly at the centre of any discussion of the future of TV distribution, and mentioned that universality is a helpful lens through which options can be viewed. 

Drawing the meeting to a close, the minister thanked members for their contributions. The minister emphasised that DCMS was working proactively on its Future of TV Distribution project with DSIT, as well as on other, related programmes of work such as the ongoing implementation of the Media Act. DCMS stated that the next meeting of the forum in May intends to feature discussion of the following papers: the TV Sector Working Group on viewer and sector impact; the Infrastructure Working Group on innovation; and the Audiences Working Group on solutions. No decision had been taken and the forum would play an essential role in discussing these issues and improving the evidence-base.