Guidance

Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum: Minutes 5 - 14 October 2025

Published 23 June 2026

Minutes of a meeting held on 14 October 2025.

Attendees

DCMS 

Chair: Robert Specterman-Green, Director, Media and International
Mark Griffin, Deputy Director, TV and Broadcasting Policy

DSIT

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

Ofcom

Kate Davies, Ofcom, Group Director

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
Luke Davies, Sky
Helen Burrows, BBC
Shamil Jobanputra, BT
Jane Glastonbury, Channel 4
Adam Minns, Commercial On-Demand and Broadcasting Association
Nigel Dacre, Comux
Mali Williams, S4C
Morna MacArthur, STV
Emily Davidson, Sky
David Powell, Local TV Network
Yorik Moes, Everyone TV
Andrew Wileman, VM02
Darren Baker, SES
Sophie Greaves, Tech UK
Paddy Paddison, Independent Networks Cooperative Association
Emma Whitmore, Edgio
Magnus Brooke, ITV
Colin Browne, Voice of the Listener and Viewer
Dennis Reed, Silver Voices
Kerry Booth, Rural Services Network
Elizabeth Anderson, Digital Poverty Alliance
Fatima Diallo, Ofcom
Professor Steven Barnett, University of Westminster
Professor Simeon Yates, University of Liverpool
Helen Milner, Good Things Foundation
Professor Helen Wood, College of Experts

Apologies

Mitchell Simmons, Paramount
Hamish MacLeod, Mobile UK

Summary

The chair began by thanking attendees for their contribution to the Working Groups since the last meeting of the forum and for the time invested in producing the three papers to be discussed today. They explained that the new minister is getting up to speed so will not be chairing today’s session, however, the minister is very eager to engage and has agreed to chair the final forum and meet with all three working groups. The chair made it clear that no decisions have been made by the government at this stage. The chair encouraged all of the groups to think boldly and creatively in finding solutions that will best serve audiences. Discussion then moved to the papers submitted to the forum which had been sent to members in advance of the forum meeting.

The Chair of the Infrastructure Working Group, opened with an overview of the environmental impact paper, explaining that the paper consolidates evidence from multiple sources, including Ofcom (on models of future usage), the BBC (regarding video preparation, distribution, and consumption), Arqiva (on transmitter emissions and potential upgrades to DTT), and BT (focusing on the transition to digital voice/IP telephony by 2030). The primary objective of the paper was to determine whether environmental impact should be a decisive factor in future infrastructure decisions. The paper highlights that the environmental impact of devices far outweighs that of distribution or content preparation: television devices account for 93% of total energy consumption, distribution for 6%, and media preparation just 1%. The chair noted that Ofcom reached a similar conclusion - namely, that overall energy demand is likely to be comparable between DTT and IPTV. Even when considering future upgrades to both systems and consumer equipment, the environmental performance of DTT and IPTV remains broadly equivalent. However, operating both systems in parallel is significantly more costly. The Chair of the Infrastructure Working Group finished by acknowledging all the in depth research conducted and work put into the papers and concluded that whilst this doesn’t need to be revisited in the future environmental impact should still be brought into any decision.

The support official then turned to ask questions, firstly turning to the BBC and Ofcom to see whether they had any comments as the analysis draws from their two models. Ofcom first came in to clarify that they now have a disclosure release on their recent research and that DCMS will circulate the research to the forum attendees. The discussion turned to whether the lifecycle of a tv set is because of the software not the hardware, and what options there are to extend the life cycle of a tv set to mitigate upgrading costs. The conversation turned to discuss the energy implications of upgrading Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) which would produce around 40–44% of the associated energy. While changes like this will impact company sustainability targets, the effect is small as a whole since it relates to TV, and the focus should be in fact be on optimising the systems, striving for lower energy use under each model with the hope that in 10–15 years time, the way networks and content are optimised will be significantly improved.

The Chair of the Audience Working Group summarised the Audience Impacts paper, the aim of which was to provide a balanced, evidence-based assessment of the distribution options. The group noted that the impact on audiences, especially vulnerable groups (e.g., those with disabilities), depends entirely on how the options are implemented. The discussion reviewed the impacts of DTT and Nightlight. It was noted that this option offers greater continuity and choice for vulnerable audiences and doesn’t require upskilling. Furthermore, reliability standards are in place for DTT/Nightlight (which is not true for IPTV), and users know who to contact when things go wrong. However, the group acknowledged that a DTT upgrade could provide a more limited range of channels, and the associated costs made a DTT-only upgrade less attractive to some stakeholders. The cost of upgrading Nightlight remains unknown. The conversation then turned to IPTV. It was noted that this option could offer greater accessibility features but only with intervention. A transition to IPTV could potentially free up money for investment in content and avoids the double transition related to Nightlight. The key risk is that a full transition to IPTV could exacerbate disadvantages for some audiences. 

The Chair of the Audience Working Group began the discussion by testing the key principles outlined in the paper with the wider group. Attendees began by discussing concerns around the  economic sustainability of the PSB system and the need to consider regionality. The conversation then moved to discuss how the Universal Access principle is more generous than the current system and that shifting the delivery of Public Service Media (PSM) away from any segment of the population is equivalent to removing  any other British service or utility.. The conversation concluded that simply comparing the costs of two delivery systems and choosing to turn-off DTT could disenfranchise these audiences, and avoiding the issue now would only leave a greater problem for the future. The chair confirmed that DCMS and DSIT are working closely to understand these bigger questions.

The chair confirmed the audience’s perspective will remain important up until the decision and thereafter and encouraged all members to bring their perspectives into the next paper on a good outcome for DTT and IPTV and called upon the chairs to support this. The conversation then moved on to discuss the cost impacts on the wider sector if DTT were switched off; such as the radio network and critical national infrastructure like emergency services. The chair clarified that the paper’s focus remains solely on TV audience impact, despite the relevance of these wider sectoral points. He reassured the group radio and other users of DTT infrastructure would be addressed in another forum. 

The conversation returned to how the comparison of DTT and IPTV is not simple and should be carefully framed as IPTV or a hybrid model that includes enhanced DTT. It was discussed if enhanced DTT was made cost-effective while expanding IP this could offer significant benefits. However an attendee countered this with the fact it is not obvious that money would be saved by a DTT upgrade and that a cut-off would need to be decided on how low the DTT audience would need to be to determine a full switch-off is economically necessary. Another attendee responded that there is no fixed number; the switch-off point depends on high-speed fixed broadband availability and government subsidy policy. 

The discussion returned to the paper’s principles and audience protection. It was proposed that Principle 3 (Costs) should be broken down, focusing the consensus on ensuring vulnerable people do not bear additional costs. It was then raised that skills and usability research highlighted challenges with both options and that IP-only households should not be left out.

The Chair of the Audience Working Group clarified the intent regarding the PSM remit, stating the group’s key point is ensuring that PSB remits are met regardless of the platform, stressing they do not want an IPTV offer that fails to meet these remits. On the potential for PSBs to invest money saved, they acknowledged the broadcasters’ view but emphasised the need to protect audiences by ensuring any money is clearly invested in audiences and digital inclusion efforts.

The Chair of the Audience Working Group urged the group to read the final section of the paper on costs, highlighting vulnerable audiences and broadband benefits: acknowledging that broadband has wider benefits, but noted that almost 50% of audiences not connected are disabled and in low-income households and are not experiencing these wider benefits. They stressed that the group does not want a future where these people cannot access vital services like health care alongside TV, using this to reinforce the importance of the DTT-only minority (distinguishing this from hybrid homes) and noted the paper references usability research, which shows that channels (turning onto a channel) remain the most accessible way to view. The conversation was concluded on the point that if they design usability correctly no one would be left behind.

The discussion then moved to the TV Sector Working Group: Carriage Paper, with the Chair of the TV Sector Working Group opening the conversation by thanking the working group and stressing that audience access must remain at the heart of the discussion, noting that straightforward access and appropriate prominence are vital for a healthy ecosystem. The Chair of the TV Sector Working Group pointed out that the Media Act’s ‘must-carry’ regime for designated media does not apply to the carriage of linear IP channels. Since the new regulatory framework has not yet been enacted, the outcome remains unclear.

The Chair of the TV Sector Working Group noted that the group was right to highlight that appropriate deals are needed that work for audiences, but acknowledged that the paper presents different viewpoints but no recommendations. They briefly mentioned the contrasting value of DTT (limited spectrum) and the complexity of IPTV carriage, which involves different agreements across various platforms, concluding that “everything is negotiation” and no two deals will be alike. The discussion closed the section by noting a proposed open horizontal standard (DVB-I) but stated there was no consensus on this through the working group.

The discussion on the paper highlighted the intricate nature of carriage negotiations and their unresolved issues. Concerns were raised about how these commercial negotiations, especially with major manufacturers, would be resolved to ensure audiences are not disadvantaged. The importance of audiences and their desire to maintain the current level of service was emphasised. An omission was noted in the carriage paper, as it did not include the perspectives of all TV platforms. A fundamental question was posed about how to ensure all audiences, not just commercial ones, are met, given the difficulties people face with different remotes, opting out, regionality, and downloading apps. 

It was acknowledged that carriage-related questions are not new and are part of the broader IP discussion, representing a hybrid issue beyond the current policy choice. Attention was also drawn to vulnerable groups, including those with lower incomes, disabilities, and those who do not speak English as a first language, noting their reliance on TV for learning English and the potential for disadvantage if commercial carriage negotiations compromise prominence. A tension was also identified between channel and content identity, questioning whether technologies like Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) were adopted based on current realities rather than ideal future states. It was recognised that the situation is complex and challenging, with a risk that the policy objective of ensuring universal access to public service broadcasting linear services could be undermined. It was stressed that commercial realities must be faced, and that resolving these issues is a commercial, rather than a technical, problem that needs to be addressed outside the current forum. It was also emphasised that in a hybrid world of Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) and IP apps, the consistency of the Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) is crucial. 

Concerns were raised about a future unregulated EPG potentially placing channels next to inappropriate content, and about commercial conflicts among TV manufacturers affecting regionality and languages. Skepticism was expressed about ACR technology, with one participant noting the difficulty in opting out and questioning its general understanding.

The chair ended the meeting thanking the forum members for their considerable effort. He reaffirmed that the forum was set up to gather the broadest possible range of input to help ministers make a decision. He stated that the officials’ job is to use the “fullest, richest set of inputs” to move into the final stage focused on solutions. The chair confirmed that the list of contributors for the final two papers has been finalised to ensure broad and balanced stakeholders and would be circulated after the meeting. Minister Ian Murray will chair the next forum meeting (scheduled for November or early December), and there will be clarification on the comms process after the final forum. The chair concluded by acknowledging the difficulty of the final decision and the need for ministers to have the full, detailed perspective.