Research and analysis

Stakeholder Forum Papers: Infrastructure - The nightlight concept in future of TV distribution

Published 23 June 2026

A paper independently produced by the Infrastructure Working Group of the Future of TV Distribution Stakeholder Forum.

Introduction

As the UK transitions towards an internet protocol (IP)-centric television distribution landscape, the concept of a ‘nightlight’ emerges as a critical consideration within the DCMS Future of Television Distribution Forum. This paper, prepared under the auspices of the Infrastructure Working Group (InfraWG), aims to define what a nightlight is and is not, outline the key factors for consideration, and analyse its impact on different constituencies. It is focused solely on nightlight options and as such long-term digital terrestrial television (DTT) or satellite (DSAT) services are not in the scope of this paper.

After careful consideration of the scope and detailed analysis of a wide range of nightlight options through comprehensive submissions from the Infrastructure Working Group, only four options are considered in this paper. These options represent the approaches that may be viable based on technical, financial, and policy factors identified during the review process. The options have been developed to be representative of the choices available to government but all have very significant challenges associated.

Defining the nightlight: what it is and what it is not

What a nightlight is

A nightlight, in the context of television distribution, refers to a limited, residual broadcast service maintained beyond the primary transition period to IP-based platforms. Its purpose is to ensure continuity of access to essential television services, particularly public service content from the Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) and other broadcasters, such as local TV channels, for vulnerable or unconnected populations.

Key features include:

• Minimal service scope: Focused on delivering a simulcast of core linear PSB channels (including content such as news, listed events, regional and local programming, emergency broadcasts, and vital public information). The full scope of nightlight services has not yet been defined or agreed.

• Transitional function: Acts as a temporary bridge, facilitating a gradual transition rather than an abrupt cut-off. It is not a long-term option.

• Targeted reach: Designed primarily for households that remain unconnected to IP networks due to geographical, economic, or digital literacy barriers.

What a nightlight is not:

• A full-service replacement: It does not aim to replicate the breadth of current digital terrestrial television (DTT) or satellite (DSAT) services, either technical capability or channel choice.

• A long-term solution: It is intended as a ^{[footnote 1]}temporary measure, not a permanent fixture in the PSB distribution ecosystem.

• Although a ^{[footnote 2]}Universal Service (Coverage ≥ 98. 5%) its scope and content proposition are inherently limited, focusing on critical needs rather than a comprehensive offering.

Key factors for consideration

Several critical factors influence the viability and design of a nightlight service:

• Policy and regulatory framework: The 2034 legislative deadline and spectrum allocation decisions from WRC 2031 are pivotal. The nightlight would need to operate within these constraints e.g. international clearance of 600MHz.

• PSB policy: A nightlight is likely to represent a cost of PSB status, either diverting money from PSB content investment or requiring funding.

• Technological infrastructure: Consideration of the lifespan of existing infrastructure (e.g. transmitters, satellites) and the feasibility and cost of maintaining, upgrading or replacing them for nightlight services.

• OpEx (operating expenses) and CapEx (capital expenditure): Potential costs, confidence levels and the risk profile will need to be assessed in detail.

• Cost implications: Analysis of total cost of ownership (TCO), including maintenance of legacy systems versus investment in transitional technologies, also noting the OpEx and CapEx of a full transition to IP. Potential market revenues and P/Ls will need to be considered across the entire broadcast and IP ecosystem.

• Double transition undesirable: A single transition to a long-term solution will minimise financial and non-financial costs.

• Timing: For simplicity it is assumed that any nightlight would have been fully implemented before 2034. The strengths of an early transition to IP vs a nightlight should be considered on balance.

• Viewer impact: Of a reduced service and a limited range of channels.

• Competition impact: The reduced scope of a nightlight would inherently reduce market competition as there will be fewer services broadcast than are currently broadcast or available on IP.

• Spectrum release: A nightlight will result in spectrum release, although does not necessitate it. It is assumed here that associated clearance and network replanning costs will be funded by the spectrum beneficiary. Spectrum would also be released under a full transition to IP. It could also be released under options where DTT is retained longer-term within less spectrum than currently used, however this is not in scope of this paper.

• Internet protocol television (IPTV) adoption rates: With projections indicating more than 26.9 million IPTV households by 2035, the scale and necessity of a nightlight service will diminish over time. The cost benefit of a nightlight service should be compared with ongoing IP service costs. The life of any nightlight will be a trade-off between viewer support vs. ongoing cost and slowing down an IP transition.

• Economic impact on terrestrial and satellite operators: The consumer-driven transition to IP has, and will continue to have, an economic impact on both terrestrial TV and satellite operators. A temporary service may support these operators and also mitigate the impact on other users of the shared infrastructure (e.g. the radio sector), but this would only be for a limited period whilst the nightlight was in service.

Options for nightlight implementation

Four primary options considered for implementing a nightlight service in this paper are:

Option 1: DTT Nightlight Service\Basic Public Model (DVB-T, 98.5% Coverage, 2 years life)

• Strengths: Utilises existing^{[footnote 3]} DTT infrastructure, consumers’ roof-top and receiving equipment familiar to current viewers, and offers broad coverage.
• Weaknesses: It would represent a cost of PSB status unless directly publicly funded. High maintenance costs for ageing infrastructure, spectrum limitations post-WRC 2031. Loss of co-funding from commercial services due to capacity constraints. Short life of service will have an impact on radio and Programme Making and Special Events (PMSE).
• Spectrum impact: Assumes that the 600MHz spectrum will be cleared (resulting in a spectrum release dividend to the mobile sector and government) while leaving the less commercially valuable 500MHz spectrum for DTT and PMSE during the nightlight period. The cost benefit of clearing 600MHz two years earlier than the whole band should be considered. Any clearance of existing DTT spectrum will impact PMSE, but this could be managed if the 500MHz spectrum is maintained.
• Investment (publicly funded):
  • CapEx - Clearance, replacement of any remaining Internet of Things (IOT) or old solid-state transmitters not replaced as end of line (EOL) or as part of a return on investment (ROI) energy-saving programme within the existing contracts before 2034.
    • ^{[footnote 4]}OpEx – Operation of 1 Public Service Broadcasting Multiplex (PSB Mux)

Option 2a: DTT nightlight service: standard market model

(Digital video broadcasting – second generation terrestrial (DVB-T2), minimal transition support for DVB-T only TVHHs, 98.5% coverage, 6 years life)

• Strengths: Same as option 1. In that it utilises existing ^{[footnote 5]}DTT infrastructure, consumers’ roof-top and broad coverage, except DVB-T TVHHs would require new receiving equipment.
• Weaknesses: DVB-T ^{[footnote 6]}TVHHs would need a receiver upgrade and the proposed limited scope of support may not adequately address the needs of all DVB-T2 households. Relies on existing infrastructure, which may face sustainability challenges.
• Spectrum impact: Similar to Option 1, assumes the clearance of the 600MHz spectrum with a spectrum release dividend to the mobile sector and government, maintaining the 500MHz spectrum for DTT and programme making and special events (PMSE) to mitigate potential impacts on the PMSE sector.
• Commercial viability: Relies on the existence of a viable commercial operation on DTT to support ongoing service delivery. The sustainability of this option is contingent on maintaining sufficient commercial interest and revenue streams within the DTT platform.
• Investment (market funded):
  • CapEx - Clearance, replacement of any remaining IOT or old solid-state transmitters not replaced as EOL or as part of a ROI energy saving programme before 2034.
  • ^{[footnote 7]}OpEx– ^{[footnote 8]}Operating and ^{[footnote 9]}maintenance costs 1 PSB Mux
  • Transition – Digital video broadcasting- terrestrial (DVBT) to T2 Help Scheme and consumer costs

Option 2b: DTT Nightlight Service: reduced coverage market model

(DVB-T2, comprehensive transition support for DVB-T and out of coverage DTT TVHHs, 90% Coverage, 6 years life)

• Strengths: Provides more extensive support mechanisms for a smoother transition, particularly targeting vulnerable populations and regions with limited connectivity.
• Weaknesses: Reduced coverage would mean that not all DTT TVHHs would benefit from the nightlight and would need to transition to IP. Out of DTT coverage and broadband not-spots should be mapped and considered. It would require the coordination of comprehensive transition programmes, leading to higher overall costs and complex implementation logistics.
• Spectrum impact: Similar to Options 1 and 2a, assumes the clearance of the 600MHz spectrum with a spectrum release dividend to the mobile sector and government, maintaining the 500MHz spectrum for DTT and PMSE to mitigate potential impacts on the PMSE sector.
• Commercial viability: Like Option 2a, relies on a viable commercial operation on DTT. The success of this option depends on strong commercial partnerships and sustained audience engagement.
• Coverage: The key difference from Option 2a is the reduced number of transmitters, resulting in approximately 90% population coverage. This reduction helps to reduce costs but limits reach compared with Option 2a.
• Investment (market funded):
  • CapEx - Clearance, replacement of any remaining IOT or old solid-state transmitters not replaced as EOL or as part of a ROI energy saving programme before 2034.
  • ^{[footnote 10]}OpEx – ^{[footnote 11]}Operating and ^{[footnote 12]}maintenance costs 1 PSB Mux assuming that the core transmission network costs are borne by the market.
  • Transition – DVB-T to DVB-T2 ^{[footnote 13]}Help Scheme and consumer costs, and IP transition costs for out of coverage IP-only DTT TVHHs.

Option 3: DSAT-Only Nightlight Service

(DVB-S2, Nightlight for existing Freesat TVHHS only, No transition support, ≈100% coverage, 8 yers life)

• Strengths: Utilises DSAT infrastructure providing extensive geographic coverage.
• Weaknesses: Does not address the needs of Digital Terrestrial Television Households (DTTHHs), potentially leaving a significant portion of the population without access unless supported by a costly and comprehensive interim transition programme that would need to be repeated to achieve a final transition to IP. Requires ongoing satellite capability for UK TV beyond the lifespan of the current network.
• Spectrum Impact: Assumes that both the 600MHz and 500MHz spectrums will be cleared, resulting in a spectrum release dividend to the mobile sector and government. However, this will have a significant impact and cost to the PMSE sector, leaving them with only the shared aviation band. Releasing the 500MHz spectrum will be very challenging for the PMSE sector, and 500MHz is technically far less commercially attractive for mobile users, with no devices currently available that utilise it.
• Investment (^{[footnote 14]}publicly funded):
  • CapEx – Replacement satellite constellation
  • ^{[footnote 15]}OpEx – ^{[footnote 16]}Operating costs 1 PSB transponder
  • Transition – IP transition costs for all IP-only DTT TVHHs.

While a blended DTT and DSAT nightlight service could theoretically provide broad coverage, it is likely to introduce unnecessary complexity to the transition process and cause confusion for audiences.

Impact on key constituencies

The introduction of a nightlight service would have varied impacts across different groups:

Consumers:

• Vulnerable populations: Provides essential access to a limited service for those unable to transition to IP-based services.
• General public: Could provide a transitional service to full IP for some audiences, though with limited content.

Broadcasters (PSBs):

• Operational costs: High costs of maintaining dual distribution of linear channels (IP and nightlight) temporarily.
• Content prioritisation: Focus on essential simulcasting of some linear programming, potentially impacting advertising and revenue models.

Broadcast network operators:

• Infrastructure demands: Continued maintenance of legacy broadcast equipment may require operational changes. Infrastructure EOL in 2034 would need maintenance or replacement.
• Cost-sharing dynamics: Potential need for collaborative funding models involving public and viable market solutions from private stakeholders.
• Potential impact on non-TV users of the infrastructure if DTT is ended prematurely e.g. radio sector.

IP Network infrastructure operators:

• Increased demand: An increase in traffic on core, aggregation, and access networks, will require significant investment in network capacity, content caching, and backbone resilience. A nightlight would reduce the demand on IP networks compared to a full transition to IP.
• Investment and operational costs: Financial impact and cost distribution needs to be considered.

Government and regulators:

• Policy oversight: Requirement to ensure nightlight aligns with public service obligations.
• Cost-benefit analysis: Any nightlight solution will come at considerable cost, and potentially impact other policy areas (e.g. PSB funding). Balancing public interest with fiscal responsibility, particularly in light of long-term IP adoption trends.
• Consideration for digital inclusivity: Any comprehensive transition programme and associated funding could provide greater public value if designed to also drive digital inclusivity. This would deliver additional externality benefits, such as improved digital literacy, economic participation, and social connectivity.

Externalities and public value:

Transitioning to IP-based services, when coupled with targeted programmes to promote digital inclusion, can generate significant positive externalities. These externalities include:

• Improved digital literacy: Facilitating access to online resources, enhancing digital skills, and bridging the digital divide, particularly in underserved communities.
• Economic participation: Empowering individuals with digital tools can increase employability, support entrepreneurship, and stimulate economic growth.
• Social connectivity: Enhancing access to social networks, healthcare services, educational content, and government resources, thereby reducing social isolation and fostering community engagement.
• Resilience and adaptability: Building a more digitally resilient population capable of adapting to technological changes and benefiting from future innovations.

The government and audiences should consider these broader public value benefits when evaluating transition strategies. A transition that actively drives digital inclusion addresses all stakeholders’ ambitions and also delivers lasting societal and economic gains.

The negative externalities of transitioning to IP-based services and/or spectrum clearance on users of shared infrastructure e.g. radio and PMSE should also be considered.

These externalities would likely materialise through the transition to IP regardless of whether a nightlight is put in place. The challenges and considerations of replacing broadcast with IP delivery such as the differing resilience and reliability profiles, and the additional ‘cost’ of delivery (i.e. a broadband subscription) should be addressed.

Conclusion

The nightlight concept could safeguard public access to essential television services during the UK’s digital IP transition in the event that a full transition by 2034 proves undeliverable. While not a comprehensive solution and with some significant downsides, its role as a transitional solution could be helpful, particularly for vulnerable populations. The relevance of all nightlight solutions decline as IPTV adoption increases. If a nightlight option is pursued, careful consideration of policy, technological, and economic factors will be essential to its successful implementation, ensuring that no citizen is left behind in the shift to the future of television distribution.

Furthermore, careful consideration should be given to the timing of any decision regarding the need for a nightlight solution. This decision should be informed by the outcomes of future papers that will be brought forward to the forum from the working groups. These papers will provide critical insights into the evolving landscape and help shape an informed approach to the future of television distribution.

Additionally, although not in scope for this paper, it would be helpful to the Infrastructure Working Group to understand government policy on externalities such as fm/DAB infrastructure, digital inclusion, NIMux, USO for landlines (VoIP from 2027) and broadband, and the government’s strategic goals for the telecommunications sector.

1. An assumption for this paper. ↩

2. Option 2b is not universal, however it is included to provide an option in the case where a commercially viable DTT service is only viable with less transmitters, in which case non-IP DTT HHs out of coverage would need to transition to IP. ↩

3. Acknowledging that infrastructure not replaced or refreshed as BAU before 2034 will need some investment. ↩

4. For simplicity and given the nightlight’s short lifespan CapEx amortisation has been excluded.  ↩

5. Acknowledging that infrastructure not replaced or refreshed as BAU before 2034 will need some investment. ↩

6. Residual T2 only TVHHs numbers need to be robustly forecast. ↩

7. For simplicity and given the nightlight’s short lifespan CapEx amortisation has been excluded.  ↩

8. Commercial success of service cannot be underwritten by PSBs – see market failure case Boxer/SVT ↩

9. Spares harvested from retired muxes can be used to sustain the remaining network ↩

10. For simplicity and given the nightlight’s short lifespan CapEx amortisation has been excluded.  ↩

11. Commercial success of service cannot be underwritten by PSBs – see market failure case Boxer/SVT ↩

12. Spares harvested from retired muxes can be used to sustain the remaining network ↩

13. Publicly or Beneficiary funded. ↩

14. Sky is a key consideration since it is increasingly focussed on IP-based services. However, to date, it has not committed to phasing out satellite services. ↩

15. For simplicity and given the nightlight’s short lifespan CapEx amortisation has been excluded ↩

16. Commercial success of service cannot be underwritten by PSBs – see market failure case Boxer/SVT ↩