Freeview’s long-term future has rarely looked shakier than it does right now – but Arqiva, the company that runs the UK’s TV transmitters, has just put forward a detailed plan to keep it alive well into the 2040s, and it’s a plan that could end up shaping what happens to the aerial on your roof.
If you’ve been following along, you’ll know the pressure on traditional TV has been building fast. A couple of weeks ago we reported that the government is drawing up formal plans to switch off Freeview and Freesat, with a consultation document expected soon.
Days later came a fresh forecast suggesting Freeview could shrink to under a million homes by 2034, while its broadband-based successor Freely climbs to 10.5 million. The direction of travel has looked pretty much one-way.
Now there’s a voice arguing for the brakes. Arqiva – the company that operates Britain’s terrestrial TV and radio masts, which we’ve mentioned before as a backer of efforts to keep broadcasting going – has set out a specific, costed proposal for Freeview’s future.
And unlike a lot of “save Freeview” sentiment, this isn’t just a plea to leave things alone. It’s an actual blueprint, with numbers attached, for how free aerial TV could carry on for another two decades.
It comes as part of the BBC’s Royal Charter Review – the once-a-decade process where the government reworks the BBC’s funding and remit, with the current Charter running out at the end of 2027.
A committee of MPs asked anyone with a stake in the BBC’s future to submit written evidence, and while most of those submissions argued about the licence fee, Arqiva used theirs to make the case for keeping the transmitters running.
All the written submissions have now been published, so we can see exactly what they’ve proposed.
A Quick Recap: What’s Happening To Freeview?
Freeview – the service that delivers BBC One, ITV, Channel 4, 5 and dozens of other channels through your TV aerial – is facing an uncertain future, and so is Freesat, which does the same job through a satellite dish.
Between them, they still serve millions of homes with no monthly bill beyond the TV Licence, but the government has spent the past couple of years working out what to do with traditional broadcasting over the coming decade.
There are broadly three options on the table. Upgrade Freeview with newer technology and keep it running; strip it back to a bare-bones “nightlight” service carrying just the main channels for those who haven’t moved online; or set a date and phase out aerial TV altogether, shifting everyone to television delivered over broadband.
Why even consider scrapping something so many people use? Cost, mostly. Running a national transmitter network is expensive, the audience using it shrinks a little each year, and the UK is stuck on broadcasting technology from the 1990s while much of Europe has moved on.
There’s also a looming squeeze on the airwaves after 2031, when the frequencies TV uses may have to be shared with mobile networks. The BBC has argued that the cost of reaching each viewer through broadcasting keeps climbing as fewer people watch that way.
Under current law, traditional TV is guaranteed only until 2034. Campaigners – including the group Silver Voices, whose petition against a rushed switch-off has gathered close to 100,000 signatures – want that pushed out to at least 2040. That’s the backdrop Arqiva’s plan drops into.
Who Is Arqiva, And Why Should You Care What They Think?
Arqiva owns and runs the UK’s broadcast transmission network: the masts and transmitters that beam Freeview and radio to homes across the country, reaching more than 98.5% of the UK from over 1,450 sites.
It also holds two of the three national commercial Freeview licences, so a good chunk of the channels you scroll past are carried on its infrastructure.
So let’s be upfront about it: Arqiva has a direct commercial interest here. If Freeview gets switched off, a big part of its business goes with it.
When the company that runs the transmitters argues for keeping the transmitters, that’s worth bearing in mind – exactly as you would with the streaming firms arguing the other way.
It’s a stance with real history behind it, too. Arqiva was a Freeview shareholder from 2005, but back in 2020 it stepped down from the company running the platform – reportedly because it didn’t want to help fund Freeview’s move into streaming, a shift that leaned away from the broadcast infrastructure that is Arqiva’s whole business.
It stayed on as the firm that actually runs the transmitters, but even then its parting message stressed Freeview’s future “with the emphasis on universal.”
Five years on, that’s still the heart of its argument. This is a company that has consistently backed the aerial – which is worth knowing when it’s now telling us to keep it.
But that doesn’t make their plan worth ignoring – if anything, the opposite. Nobody knows this network better, and theirs is one of the few submissions that doesn’t just say “keep Freeview” but sets out a practical, costed way to do it.
With the government still undecided (as far as we know), a workable plan from the people who run the kit could very well end up being one of the options taken forward. So it’s worth understanding what they’re actually suggesting.
What Arqiva Is Proposing
The heart of it is simple: don’t rush. Arqiva wants Freeview kept running, alongside the growth of streaming, until at least the mid-2040s – a “hybrid” world where you can use an aerial, the internet, or both, and nobody’s forced off broadcast before they’re ready.
But they’re not arguing to freeze things exactly as they are. Their headline proposal is to modernise Freeview by moving it from six national multiplexes to three.
A multiplex, in plain terms, is one of the bundles of channels a transmitter broadcasts – think of it as a lane on a motorway, with several channels travelling along each one.
The UK currently runs six of these lanes. Arqiva’s plan would slim that to three from 2034, with one shared between the BBC and the other public broadcasters.
What would that mean for you? A leaner Freeview. Fewer lanes means less room overall, so the likely trade-off is a smaller channel line-up than today – though the plan is built around keeping the main, most-watched channels going.
It’s a “Freeview survives, but trimmed” proposal rather than a promise that everything stays exactly as it is.
At the same time, Arqiva wants to upgrade the underlying technology to a more modern standard called DVB-T2 – the same broadcasting tech already used in France, Italy and Spain, which the UK has been notably slow to adopt.
The upside is better efficiency and room for more high-definition channels. The catch worth knowing: some older Freeview TVs and boxes don’t support DVB-T2, so a change like this could eventually mean replacing kit that can’t handle it – though a long transition timeline is exactly what’s meant to smooth that over.
Furthermore, the main argument for switching Freeview off is that it’s too expensive to run a broadcast network and pay for streaming at the same time – the BBC itself has said it doesn’t want to be stuck funding “two expensive distribution systems.”
Arqiva’s answer is essentially: it needn’t cost what you think. They reckon their slimmed-down, three-lane network would cut broadcasting costs by more than 40% while still reaching 98.5% of the country – the same near-universal coverage as today.
And according to independent analysis included with their submission, the net cost to the BBC of keeping it going could be as little as 1-2% of its licence fee income.
The pitch, in other words, is that keeping Freeview alive is far cheaper than the “we can’t afford both” argument suggests – which, if accepted, knocks away the main reason for switching it off in a hurry.
Why They Say We Shouldn’t Be In A Rush
Beyond the money, Arqiva leans hard on a point that’ll be familiar to anyone who’s read the comments on our previous Freeview articles: a lot of people still rely on the aerial, and they’re not the people best placed to cope with being pushed online.
Their figures make the case. Around 13.6 million homes still use Freeview, many as part of a mix alongside streaming. Some 4.9 million homes don’t have a TV connected to the internet at all, and 1.3 million have no broadband whatsoever.
Freeview on its own still accounts for close to half of all viewing of the main public-service channels. It’s a substantial chunk of the country. And it skews older: the UK’s population is ageing, and older viewers lean far more heavily on broadcast TV and radio than younger ones do.
This is where Arqiva’s argument runs up against the more optimistic forecasts – and the contrast is worth understanding, because both can’t be the whole story.
The research we covered recently, projecting Freeview’s fall to under a million homes, also reckoned the number of households with no broadband would drop to just 220,000 by 2034.
That’s a reassuring picture – but it’s a forecast, a projection of where things might go. Arqiva is pointing instead at the situation as it stands today: millions still without a connected TV right now, and real questions about how fast that changes.
The two aren’t necessarily contradictory – one is optimistic about the future, the other cautious about the present. But even the rosy forecast admits some people will still be left without internet TV. The question neither side escapes is what happens to those people.
Arqiva’s answer is the simplest one: don’t rush them.
Then there’s the cost-to-you angle, the one most likely to hit home. Right now, once you’ve bought a TV and an aerial, Freeview is genuinely free – no monthly bill beyond the licence fee.
Move everyone to streaming and watching “free” telly suddenly requires a broadband connection, at roughly £27 a month.
Arqiva puts it bluntly: forcing people to pay for broadband just to watch the BBC would amount to a subscription charge by the back door, whether or not that money ever reaches the BBC.
For a service whose whole justification is that it’s universal and free to use, that’s an awkward contradiction – and it’s a worry plenty of our readers have raised themselves.
Two more practical points round out their case. First, reliability: broadcast signals keep working in a crisis – storms, power cuts, emergencies – when broadband and mobile networks sometimes don’t, which is why the aerial network is built into the country’s emergency planning.
Second, radio. The same masts that carry Freeview also carry much of the UK’s radio, so switching off the TV side could push up costs for radio or even put some services at risk – a knock-on effect that ties directly into the separate review of FM radio’s future the government has already launched.
Where Does Freely Fit Into All This?
You can’t talk about Freeview’s future without talking about Freely, because Freely is what’s meant to replace it.
Freely is a streaming platform from Everyone TV – the organisation behind both Freeview and Freesat – designed to do the same job as Freeview, but over the internet instead of through an aerial.
You get BBC, ITV, Channel 4, 5 and a growing list of other channels in a single programme guide, with catch-up built in, and no aerial or dish needed. Like Freeview, the service itself is free; you just need broadband to use it.
When it launched in April 2024, there was a big catch: Freely only worked on brand-new smart TVs from certain manufacturers, so trying it meant buying a new telly.
That’s changed over the past year with standalone Freely boxes that plug into any TV with an HDMI port. The Netgem Pleio now sells for £99, and the Manhattan Aero sits just below it at £89.99, so the gap between the two has narrowed to £9.
But Freely also helps explain why Arqiva is urging caution, because it isn’t yet a like-for-like replacement. It depends entirely on having decent, reliable broadband – no connection, no telly.
The standalone boxes are streaming-only, with no aerial fallback, so if your internet drops, so does your TV. It doesn’t let you record in the traditional sense – there’s a short live-pause buffer and that’s it.
And its channel line-up, while growing, is still smaller than the full Freeview list, with many smaller channels still needing an aerial.
For plenty of households Freely already works well; for others, the broadband, the cost or the missing features mean it isn’t there yet. That gap is the crux of the whole timing argument.
What Happens Next
None of this is settled. The submissions to the committee feed into a much bigger process: the government is working through the responses to its Charter Review and is expected to publish its conclusions later this year, with a draft Charter going through Parliament before the current one expires on December 31, 2027 and the new one taking effect on January 1, 2028.
Separately, the green paper on the future of TV distribution – the document that will actually set out the conditions for any Freeview switch-off – is expected soon.
The future of Freeview is only one piece of all that, and the government has given itself room to move slowly: broadcast TV is currently protected until at least 2034, with campaigners pushing for 2040 or beyond.
Arqiva’s mid-2040s hybrid plan sits squarely in that “don’t rush it” camp.
The thing to take away is that this isn’t just lobbying for its own sake. Arqiva has a clear stake in the outcome – but it’s also one of the few voices to put a specific, costed plan on the table rather than simply picking a side.
With ministers still undecided on which road to take, a proposal from the company that runs the transmitters is one that could realistically end up shaping what happens to the aerial on your roof.
For more news about Freeview, Freely and TV, Sign up for our free e-mail newsletter.