Guidance

Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum: Minutes Final plenary meeting - 15 December 2025

Published 23 June 2026

Minutes of a meeting held on 15 December 2025.

Attendees 

DCMS 

Chair: Ian Murray MP, Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts
Robert Specterman Green, Director, TV Policy
Mark Griffin, Deputy Director, TV Policy

DSIT

Thomas Eland, Deputy Director, Wireless Infrastructure, Spectrum and Consumer Policy

Ofcom

Emma Leech, Senior Strategy Manager

Working Group Chairs

Gill Hind, Enders, IPTV Drafting Group Co-Chair
Richard Lindsay-Davies, Digital TV Group, DTT Drafting Group Co-Chair
Professor Catherine Johnson, University of Leeds, Co-Chair of both the DTT and IPTV drafting groups

Members

Laurie Patten, Arqiva
Shamil Jobanputra, BT
Helen Burrows, BBC
Luke Boyd, Channel 4
Nigel Dacre, Comux
Elizabeth Anderson, Digital Poverty Alliance
Emma Whitmore, Edgio
Jonathan Thompson, Everyone TV
Hannah Whelan, Good Things Foundation
Paddy Paddison, Independent Networks Cooperative Association
Magnus Brooke, ITV
David Powell, Local TV Network
Mitchell Simmons, Paramount
Kerry Booth, Rural Services Network
Elin Morris, S4C
Darren Baker, SES
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

Summary

The chair opened the final meeting of the forum by thanking attendees for their commitment and acknowledging the vital work of the drafting groups in curating such detailed and complex papers. While noting that the formal forum process was drawing to a conclusion, the chair emphasised that the government’s engagement with members would continue, with a roadmap for next steps to be outlined in the closing remarks.

Reiterating that no final decision had yet been reached, the chair stated that the day’s objective was to review the distribution options holistically. The meeting served as a vital opportunity for members to provide overarching views, bridging the final papers with the cumulative evidence gathered since the forum’s inception. The core goal was to collaboratively address remaining barriers and seek mutually acceptable solutions to the strategic issues that have emerged.

It was reinforced by the chair that no consensus had been reached through the forum processes and accepted that stakeholders had produced positions. As a result, the forum papers did not represent the views of all members. Three papers and two annexes drafted by forum members were distributed to stakeholders for discussion at the final forum:

• Freeview TV 2035 – 2044 (DTT)
• Requirements for a full transition to IPTV
• Audience Impacts
• Annex A - International DTT and IP transition context
• Annex B - Technology Explainer

The DTT drafting group chair presented the findings on digital terrestrial television (DTT), characterising it as a system with heavy regulatory dependencies. The chair noted that planning for DTT post-2034 carried significant risk, highlighting, for example, that public service broadcasters (PSBs) might be forced to divert funding from content creation to maintain transmission for a diminishing, unconnected audience.

The paper focused on a three-multiplex proposal as the only “fully articulated” sustainable route currently available. The group concluded that any extension of DTT beyond 2034 must be evaluated against the dual factors of IP network readiness and the inclusion of scale.

Discussion on DTT focused on several key tensions:

• One member raised concerns regarding the roughly £100 million annual cost to maintain DTT, questioning the fairness of this burden without subsidy. They noted that “DVB-T1” (original digital) sets are often held by the most disadvantaged, making any migration complex and costly.
• One member challenged the “continuity” label, arguing that DTT remained a critical safety net. They corrected the assumption that digital poverty was shrinking, citing data that suggests it was actually increasing.
• One member argued that a full spectrum release by 2034 was unrealistic. They suggested that a DTT extension protected universality and unlocks commercial investment, avoiding a “rushed choice” that could trigger public backlash.
• Data was cited suggesting digital poverty might increase by 2034, contradicting the DTT paper’s assertion of a decrease.
• Members emphasised that local TV’s smaller footprint must not be overlooked in a “PSB-heavy” discussion. The DTT drafting group chair reassured the group that local services remain factored into spectrum planning.

The IPTV drafting group introduced the IPTV paper, which focused on a universal IP-based transition. While the group found that most of the UK will have fast broadband by 2034, they cautioned that “access” did not equate to “uptake.” Affordability and the “digital drop-off” among older populations remained the primary barriers.

Proposed mitigations included social tariffs and a national public information campaign, though the group noted that specific costs for these plans were currently beyond the paper’s scope. Significant sticking points remain regarding PSB prominence and the regulations required to protect viewers in an IP-only environment.

Discussion on IPTV highlighted a lack of consensus:

• Some members argued that while the DTT paper was detailed on costs, the IPTV paper failed to include the overall sum required for public subsidy. This risked biasing the decision on which approach to favour.
• Some members argued that market drift was outpacing policy, with younger audiences already migrated. They suggested digital inclusion should be addressed as a broader societal issue rather than just a television-specific one.
• The paper was criticised for only considering those on benefits for support. Members suggested that digital poverty was not going away and support would be needed in any transition. They argued that digital inclusion should be a choice, not a threat, and cutting people off in eight years would be unacceptable if they did not want to transition. Concerns were raised that 352,000 households would require support with skills, and that not all audiences, particularly those who rely on mobile-only broadband, were covered.
• The paper was criticised for lacking a transition timetable, while previous work suggesting a five-year transition would be necessary. Some expressed disappointment that the paper seemed to prioritise institutional over public interest, with overly optimistic assumptions about IPTV, instead arguing for an organic transition.
• Television manufacturers and operators did not support the direction of either paper but agreed on the need to improve broadband infrastructure, and committed to publishing their own paper with recommended government actions on carriage and ensuring universal access.
• Members discussed contingencies should commercial demand for DTT fail during an extension. However, other members remained skeptical, arguing that broadcasters would be in a weak position to drive “value for money” within long-term regulated contracts. They characterised the DTT path as unnecessarily risky compared to the 100% universality offered by an IP transition.

The chair acknowledged that the discussions highlighted the complexity of the issues being discussed and a current lack of consensus on both costs and timing. DCMS then confirmed the immediate roadmap:

• The formal working groups would now be disbanded to allow officials to focus on the preparation of a public consultation that reflected the Forum’s outputs.
• An independent study was underway to bridge the data gaps identified in the papers relating to spectrum release, as well as IPTV capacity and reliability.
• All members were reminded that these proceedings would remain confidential until the official government consultation was released.

DCMS highlighted that DCMS officials would maintain contact, as stakeholder input remained central to the work, and would reach out to clarify key evidence points.

The chair closed the meeting thanking everyone, and in particular the drafting group chairs, for their participation.