The government has finally shown its hand on the future of Freeview – and it wants the aerial on your roof switched off as soon as 2034.
After years of vague “we’re looking into it” noises, ministers have now put a date on the table, named their preferred one, and made clear which way they want this to go.
Free aerial TV, the way millions of us have watched for over two decades, is being lined up for retirement in favour of telly delivered over your broadband.
It all comes in a newly published green paper – a government consultation that sets out proposals for discussion before any final decisions are made.
Which means this is not a law, and nothing is being switched off this week, this year, or for a good while yet. Your aerial still works and your channels are still there, for now.
But it tells you exactly where the government wants to go – and it is worth understanding what would actually happen to your telly if it does the things it is now proposing.
A Quick Catch-Up
Freeview is the popular service that brings BBC One, ITV, Channel 4, 5 and dozens of other channels into your home through your TV aerial, with no monthly bill beyond the TV Licence. Freesat does the same job through a satellite dish.
The replacement that has been built to take over from both is Freely, run by Everyone TV – the same organisation that’s behind Freeview and Freesat.
Instead of an aerial or a dish, Freely delivers live channels and catch-up over your broadband connection. You can get it on a new smart TV, or add it to an older set with a standalone box like the Manhattan Aero at £89.99 or the Netgem Pleio at £99.
For the past couple of years, the question has been which of three roads the government would take: upgrade Freeview with newer technology and keep it going, strip it back to a bare-bones “nightlight” of a few core channels, or set a date and switch it off entirely.
This green paper effectively closes off the first two. Both of the options now on the table end in switch-off. The only real question left is when.
2034 Or 2044 – And The Government Is Leaning Early
The paper sets out two timelines. Freeview could be switched off when the current broadcasting licences expire on December 31, 2034, or it could be given a time-limited extension to December 31, 2044.
The government is not sitting on the fence. It says in black and white that there is “a compelling case” for switching off by 2034 – the earliest possible date – and presents the 2044 option as the alternative it is “seeking views on.”
In other words, ministers have a favourite, and it is the sooner one.
Under current law, traditional TV is protected only until 2034, so the campaigners who have been pushing for an extension to 2040 or beyond do at least have a longer option in front of them.
But even that longer option is not a promise to leave Freeview exactly as it is today, as we will come to.
For a household watching through an aerial, the practical meaning is simple enough. If 2034 wins, you have roughly eight years before you need a broadband connection and some kind of internet TV device to keep watching the channels you get for free now.
If 2044 wins, you get an extra decade – but a changed service in the meantime.
The “Survival” Option Is Basically The Arqiva Plan
Earlier this month we covered a detailed, costed proposal from Arqiva, the company that runs Britain’s TV transmitters, to keep a slimmed-down Freeview going into the 2040s.
At the time it read as one company lobbying for the infrastructure its business depends on.
It has now become the government’s official fallback. The 2044 option in the green paper is, in all but name, the Arqiva plan: Freeview would be trimmed from six national multiplexes down to three, using carriage prices supplied by Arqiva itself.
A multiplex is one of the bundles of channels a transmitter broadcasts, so fewer of them means a smaller channel line-up, built around keeping the main, most-watched channels going.
This option also assumes an upgrade to a more modern broadcasting standard called DVB-T2, already used across much of Europe.
That leaves room for more HD, but there’s a catch worth noting: some older Freeview TVs and boxes do not support DVB-T2, so a change like this could eventually mean replacing kit that cannot handle it.
So even the gentler of the two options is not “nothing changes.” It is “Freeview survives, but trimmed, and possibly needing new equipment.”
Don’t Expect The Government To Pay
For months, the reporting around this had ministers exploring some form of help with the cost of getting online – a direct subsidy, or a levy on bills. The green paper quietly drops that.
The support package it describes is “industry-led” – to be designed and delivered by broadcasters, telecoms firms, manufacturers, retailers and charities working together.
And in a single, telling line, the paper says no assumption should be made at this stage that public funding will be available to support a transition.
The paper also points back to the last big switchover, when analogue signals were turned off between 2008 and 2012, and acknowledges that it relied on “significant public investment” to help people through.
Last time, the state helped pay. This time, the working assumption is that it will not.
In plain terms, if you end up needing a Freely box or a broadband connection to keep watching free TV, the starting position is that you cover that cost yourself.
So Why Do It At All?
If switching Freeview off is going to be this disruptive, with no public money promised, it is fair to ask what the country actually gains from it.
Part of the answer is cost. Broadcasters, the BBC chief among them, have long complained that they are paying to run two distribution systems at once – the old terrestrial transmitter network and the newer streaming platforms – and that the money spent keeping transmitters running for a shrinking audience could go into making programmes instead.
Switching Freeview off removes one of those two bills.
The bigger prize, though, is the airwaves. Freeview takes up a chunk of radio spectrum – the invisible frequencies that carry the signal to your aerial.
That spectrum is valuable, and the plan is to clear it and hand it to the mobile phone networks, who would pay for it and use it to improve mobile coverage.
When the government totals up the benefits of switching Freeview off, almost the entire figure comes from that one thing: selling those frequencies to mobile operators.
The Broadcasters Want This Too
It’s worth being clear that the people who run free TV are not neutral bystanders here. The Future TV Taskforce – made up of all six public service broadcasters (the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, 5, STV and S4C) plus Everyone TV – has come out in support of the 2034 switch-off, the government’s preferred early date.
Their argument, put bluntly by taskforce chair and Everyone TV chief executive Jonathan Thompson, is that it is not fair to leave a small number of older and vulnerable people on an outdated TV service that will only deteriorate over time, when there is a chance to help everyone get online instead.
They back this with their own figures. Around 2.6 million homes rely on Freeview today because they either cannot get internet TV or have no broadband at all, and 9.7 million have Freeview on their main set (though 73% of those already stream as well).
By 2034, they say, there will be under a million Freeview homes left, and the number of homes with no broadband at all will have fallen to around 220,000. They argue that for 97% of households, there would be no extra monthly cost in moving to internet TV, since 95% already pay for broadband.
That “no extra cost for almost everyone” claim is the heart of their case. But an average works both ways: the same figures mean a few per cent of households would face a new bill they do not pay now, on top of everything else that gets lost in the move.
What It Doesn’t Fix: Recording And Freesat
For all its length, the green paper has remarkably little to say about two things our readers often raise.
The first is recording. Freely does not let you record programmes – there is a short live-pause buffer and nothing more.
The pitch has always been that catch-up makes recording unnecessary, but catch-up is not the same thing: programmes vanish when licensing deals expire, you cannot reliably skip the ads, and you cannot build a library of your own.
For viewers who have recorded their own telly for decades, this is a real loss, not a different way of doing the same thing. The paper barely acknowledges it.
The second is Freesat. Satellite gets repeatedly mentioned in the same breath as Freeview, yet its future is pushed off to a separate “transition plan” to be drawn up later.
So Freesat users, many of them in rural areas with patchy broadband, are left with even less clarity than aerial users about what happens to them.
What Happens Next, And How To Have Your Say
This is the start of a process, not the end of one. The consultation is open until 11:59pm on August 31, and the government says it will set out its final decision in a white paper later this year.
A separate review of the future of FM and other radio – which matters because the same masts carry much of the UK’s radio – is due to report by the end of November.
There is one large dose of uncertainty hanging over all of this. The green paper was published the day after Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced he is stepping down, with a caretaker government in place and no confirmed successor expected before September.
A media consultation closing in August and a decision promised “later this year” both assume a settled government to act on them, which is not quite where things stand right now. Timelines could slip, and a new administration could approach the whole question differently.
For anyone who wants a say while the window is open, the consultation can be answered directly on the government’s website, and it asks members of the public to do exactly what this whole debate comes down to: choose between switching Freeview off in 2034 or 2044, and say what matters most in keeping everyone able to watch.
For more TV and streaming news, Subscribe to our free e-mail newsletter.
And for those who really have no interest in sports?
I think Sky and ITV will do a great job together because they do a great job on Horse Racing Coverage for 10 years next year ,Soccer Saturday and Soccer Special for 34 years in the pst and Regional News in the South for 68 years and the BBC and Channel4 will do a great job because they do a great job on Regional News in the South for 65 years in the past
So basically the govt has rigged their so called pretence of listening to anyone outside of the tv industry. No surprise there then! They have also effectively ended “Free to air tv “ in the UK as many older people will now be forced to have a broadband contract who don’t want it. A basic package will be aprox £300 per year + the licence fee. £450- £500 per year to watch a bit of telly. And increasingly terrible telly at that. And that is before you pay extra for the luxury extras of Sky, Netflix and all the others.
What’s more they have said they will not offer any funding to help with the switch over. How nice of them.
Essentially they have given the industry all that they wanted. Early switch over and no mention in their green paper of the end of recording. I’m sure many govt ministers will get nice jobs in the industry when they leave office.
Personally I would like to see the govt clamp down on broadband providers being able to offer only two year deals which they then raise the price half way through. (Sky, BT, Virgin, EE. It’s remarkable how it resembles price fixing) If someone is going to commit to paying 24 monthly payments the least the company can do is keep the price the same for the duration of the contract. Particularly as having a connection is now going to be essentially compulsory.
I suppose the good news is that TV is now revealed as going to be an increasingly expensive pastime. Perhaps more people will just switch off? That will make more people wonder why they have to pay a licence fee.
Great comment, Mark!
To be fair, I don’t think the government has any realistic choice. The main commercial broadcasters, and possibly smaller commercial broadcasters too, have decided that they are switching to internet streaming, regardless of what anyone else says.
Obviously, they will have to fulfil any legal obligations and-or contractual obligations first, but then they will switch as soon as it suits them to switch.
But, hopefully, you’re right about internet service providers not having price rises during a contract period.
They haven’t ended free to air. for a start it’s talking about years in the future and freeview not sat, so sat is another FTA alternative.
Aside from that, you don’t know if the TV license will still be around when freeview ends. there is much made public about stopping it.
You don’t know the cost of broadband in the future when freeview is turned off or what will be available then. Typically broadband has been going down in price in my experience over the decades, plus more availability of free internet access.
On the other hand the tv license has typically increased over time. therefore if that is scrapped when freeview ends, along with the reduction in cost of broadband, particularly bearing in mind what are referred to as social tarrifs, the end cost of watching tv over the internet for most will be less as most will have broadband already so they will no longer pay for the tv license. For those with no broadband who want it to watch tv, there may be little difference in overall cost compared to paying the tv license. Potentially it could cost less.
Plus of course having internet at home can be far more useful than having no internet connection and getting tv through freeview, and the more we move to the future, the more likely that will be.
So as well as being ablel to watch tv with the internet connection, people can shop online, get cheaper prices, get groceries delivered, be able to communicate with people all over the world easily, friends, family or professionals relating to medical advise, financial/pensions advice. All sorts of things. Internet connected alarms for security, internet connected video cameras. Being able to call out or press a button to call for assistance if someone falls or has an accident. Far greater benefits than watching Ant and Dec or Eastenders and perhaps by giving many alternatives to watching tv, people will watch less and instead of vegetating in front of a tv feeding them a one way flow of tv shows, they can interact more with other people and doing other things, or at the very least use catchup and streaming services to watch things more interesting to them than whatever is broadcast during daytime or early evening and watch what they choose when they choose to watch it instead.
We are legion that seek to record programmes with the added advantage of skipping those moronic, brain softening adverts.
We pay for a TV licence. Slightly incorrect terminology. We pay for access to the BBC Services licence. We also pay within this figure access to freeview and the upkeep of the service ( which also includes freely). Time we establish a clearer definition of the products. Simple rebrand the licence fee.
Nobody is working on a device that allows recording of freely transmitted programmes because to me is the generthey already have them. The problem is it seems the providers of channels cannot exist without advertising yet the population don’t want to pay for advertising free television. Just look at the BBC arguments with regards to charging for the services they provide. Then compare this with the millions who pay the provider to put your screens into advert mode ( Amazon Prime, Sky, Disney,ItvX,) and all the others. People have to get over the problem that advertising and broadcasting is a well established way of life unless you pay for the service of advert free TV. Simple question. Again given to you with the option menu of pay for advertising freedom or watch those adverts. Life is not free so get use to it. Kind Regards SteveWJ.
The problem is not everyone has a good enough cell signal where they live. The other problem is not everyone has a good enough Internet connection where they live. The UK is backwards in a lot of technical aspects. Hence why we have more SD then HD channels. All channels should be HD. All homes should have access to decent Internet and cell service. But they don’t because the UK is backwards.
But that still fails to deal with those annoying ads!
Pretty much “Everyone” (pun intended) wins by shutting off Freeview, think about it, most people have some kind of internet connection already so wether that’s through a mobile phone or a proper broadband connection & that’s increased since the last time media was upgraded & COVID etc, everything is becoming more and more digital, TV, Radio, Mobile, even the old traditional telephone lines, my only issue is why is shutting down Freeview going to take so long?, in terms of FreeSat, FM radio etc obviously they can’t shut everything down at once but so they’ve basically decided to prioritise Freeview.
The main concern is Infrastructure. At present the current infrastructure is of limited and poor quality. To expand on this area I refer to the UKs slow and unreliable expansion of current service fibre broadband, 3g to 4g to 5g mobile services. All of these still not available to all of the UK and costing both the companies involved and the customers taking on the services. Then the costs in detail 5g costs the customer the same but the reliability and connectivity is limited and has proven no better than 4g. My personal experience of switching from copper cable to fibre optic broadband has also shown me that while reliability maybe okay the actual improvement in both speeds consistent service are wildly optimistic yet cost significantly more. Also while we talk about reliability and connectivity speeds can the current infrastructure cope with the increased capacity now to include television signals as well as all the more important information flying inside cables. I am not convinced the government is asking the right questions but has clearly seen a way of freeing up bandwidth to sell on at a good profit. All in all this normally reliable and proven system is being looked at very similarly to the increase in use of motor vehicles build more roads and the congestion problem is solved and we can close railways down because they are not needed now. Ohh please tell me how that little plan worked out after years of government infrastructure planning. Ohh right we decided to return to rail travel and build more railway tacks. Again I ask please tell me how much this has failed and cost the taxpayers in failed services unexplainable congestion and pollution to the country. Stop trying to resolve problems that don’t exist and take a holistic approach to where we are going and is all the change needed or just a costly upgrade that becomes a self perpetuating problem ( Ohh the iPhone 99 is out I must get this better phone because it must be better).
I can’t believe that no-one is working on a box that will record streamed content. If/when they release such an item, they would completely change the market.
Also, as ads cannot be skipped, the required penetration of an ad would be reached more quickly. Wonder if that means fewer ads?
Doubt it.
There’s been various devices available for decades that can record streamed content or basically any audio/video content and you can do it in 4k too.
“For all its length, the green paper has remarkably little to say about two things our readers often raise. The first is recording.”
Is there data available elsewhere which can inform on how many people actually care about this? My guess is the number would be too small to be considered of importance.
No recording = no skipping adverts = not for me
Whole heartedly agree. I find advertising patronising, condescending and an insult to the intelligence of the public.
Nor for me. I’ve recorded terrestrial TV on PVRs for decades and Freely, without the recording capability, is just not an equivalent at all. It would significantly detract from watching any commercial stations such ITV or C4.
I’d like to be able to watch programmes without the intolerable interruptions – but I guess the broadcasters are lobbying the government hard for this with the aim of protecting/improving their advertising revenues.
It seems the consumer, as usual, has no real say in the end result when business has made it’s mind up.
Not true! This is a common misconception among PVR luddites.
‘tis true! Impossible to skip ads with Freely, so the zombification of !he nation is assured!!
Quite right! I really despise the advertising that shouts at us, patronises us and attempts to brainwash us. We all need a way to resist this zombification of the nation.
I do record things quite often. I don’t do catch-up TV. I don’t see why people should have to pay. We already pay for a TV licence. I think it’s a bit unfair to expect people to pay for programmes. I don’t do sky tv, bt etc.. I can’t afford them, so I use a freeview.
I don’t doubt that there are people who value the ability to record live TV broadcasts. My point is I suspect there are not many. If that suspicion is correct, the decision makers won’t be giving any significant consideration to that group when making decision on when to turn off the Freeview transmitters.
I thought it was supposed to be a ´Service´ a Vital Lifeline: For millions of older residents—especially those living alone or in isolated rural areas—television is not just entertainment. It acts as an essential companion that combats loneliness and keeps them connected to society .While major broadcasters favor an online transition to save on network maintenance costs, it essentially shifts the financial and technological burden entirely onto the UK’s most vulnerable demographic, so you might just as well stop the rural Bus Sevice as well and let the poor old old uns ROT!
Seems like a solvable problem. I can imagine a scheme whereby people without broadband and deemed vulnerable could be provided with a device which connects them to Freely (via mobile internet) at no ongoing cost to the household, and at lower ongoing cost to Everyone TV compared to cost of ongoing maintenance of transmitters.
That does not work in every case. So that’s not a reliable solution for everyone who would need it. The only solution would be to make sure everyone in this situation has decent enough Internet access to run Freely.
What does not work in every case? Mobile internet?
A device that uses mobile internet would probably be easiest to supply to those in need, but it wouldn’t have to be mobile internet. It could alternatively be via cable or satellite broadband, and it seems like Freesat may be around for longer than Freeview so that’s another option. They could use the most suitable option for each case. Furthermore this would all only be needed in 2034 at the earliest, by which time there will likely have been significant improvements in coverage through all forms of internet access.
I think the solution you are searching for is “5G Broadcast”.
What has Age UK to say ? Freesat works a treat for us !
I’m hoping they’ll eventually opt for the 2044 option, with a gradual reduction in multiplexes from 2034 as per Arqiva’s plans. That will allow more time for people to migrate onto alternative solutions, as 2034 feels too little time to achieve that.
Perhaps we could go back to four or five terrestrial broadcaster using analog with high quality programming rather than hundreds of junk programmes. I have already started to buy DVDs ready for the time I will no longer pay the TV licence
I agree more channels means more repeats and just more trash. On a second point I have a den with an old 1950s Bush tv that I use I wonder if I will still be able to watch programs on it
I’m not sure about that, there’s a lot to take in. Personally, I’m more interested in when they’ll ask the public when they think they should do away with the BBC tax, that should be the priority.
First of all, Freely is NOT free! You have to pay for an internet connection. Not being able to record the tv, takes us back to the 1970, I wonder if the sale of Video Recorders will come back. If this is going to happen, then the terrestrials bit needs to be replaced with free wifi across the whole of the country.
Freely is free. The box/device you may have to pay for just like the tv and other devices you may currently use. You may or may not pay for your broadband depending on situation. You may or may not pay for your electricity bill depending on situation. Freeview is free too. Even if you need to pay for electricity or broadband or rent or mortgage or TV license freely and freeview are still free.
You don’t need to record these days. There’s catchup for a start and various other options to watch tv and movies without ads and all sorts of things for enthusiasts.
This is a move to the future, not the past. You aren’t recording the tv, you are recording the shows. Anything you can see or hear can be recorded, stored electronically, uploaded or downloaded online etc, something you couldn’t do in the 70s.
You don’t even need wifi for freely. Plus apart from freely there is sat tv. Few people come 2034 won’t have the sat option or sufficient internet, and fewer won’t be able to have that option. It’s TV, not an essential item, it’s entertainment.
Utter nonsense…..
One needs to pay for internet – the need to pay to watch YV pushes up the price….
Adverts can be easily missed at the moment…
The “catch-up” time needs to be a long time (2 hours at the moment with freeview) to allow people to do things and came back to a channel they are watching.
At the moment ads can be zoomed through – it is clear that this is to make ads more watchable (needing to) whilst watching live TV.
Streaming is not smooth for finding parts to watch – freeview is.
What cabling will be needed to work this lot – especially in houses with multiple TV’s.
In essence what is being offered is a big step back with a need to spend money to be able to step backwards.
At the moment the offer is essentially a non starter….
Nonsense? That’s an opinion. not a fact.
“One” needs to pay for the internet? One person may have to, not everyone.
Many people live with family and literally don’t pay the bills, in particular one that provides internet. Other’s live in homes or areas where internet is available without paying.
That’s the case currently and likely to be so in the future and for a long time to come. We don’t know what will be available in 8 years time or if/when freeview ceases. At the moment as has been the case for many years now, there are sims available for free that offer mobile data. In the past with mobile phones and phones in general people paid per minute/second for phone calls, now packages typically include this with no charge, even international calls. Over time there are things people used to pay for and be used to paying for them, but are now available for free.
Pretty much most of what you say is simply subjective opinion and not a fact.
Instead of the concept of “watching a channel”, think instead of watching shows that people want to watch, and can watch at ANY time they want once made available. Pause/stop when you want instead of waiting till an ad break or the show ending. Make tea or pee when you choose.
With devices like firesticks and other streaming devices you can have less cabling than regular freeview/sat watching that typically requires cables running from outside of the building to each tv. So a freely box doesn’t need this. Thus less cabling, and in turn easier for people to install themselves without someone else required, such as people installing sat dishes or aerials.
Contrary to any idea it’s a step back, it’s a step forward, and potentially one that requires less money spent than more, such as if the TV license stops or is reduced in price as just one example.
Catch up is no alternative to recording. There are many factual programmes and documentaries that people wish to retain permanently.
Without permission from the rights holders, which you can get if you “buy” a copy, you don’t technically have permission to do that.
In a nutshell, the legality of recording shows stems from around 1988 in the UK where the law made recording for “time shifting” reasons legal. The idea being you could legally record a tv show from BBC or ITV for example, and watch it at a later time, such as a day or so later. Not to keep a permanent copy.
For most people catchup is better than recording. You think think of what you want to watch, look it up and play it. No need to set timers or whatever in advance. Gone are the days of the last 5 minutes of a movie missing because the broadcast started late because some sports over ran. Most people just want to watch a show once and that’s it.
It’s generally a minority who for whatever reason want to keep a show permanently, to which there are a number of options available, legally and otherwise. Those with such an interest will usually be aware of options, and those who don’t will usually have the facilities to search and find out how to do this, just like they can find out how to do most things by googling.
So catchup and freely are more than sufficient for most people who just want to sit down and watch a show. It doesn’t stop people buying other products or using other apps or doing other things with other devices. it’s essentially computer code that’s at the moment running on some tv’s and some devices, but has the potential to be released as an app like iplayer and made available to run on the majority of current and recent smart tv’s and firesticks and android and IOS devices. The sooner freely is available as a free app instead of people spending 70-100 for yet another box they really don’t need if the app ran on the equipment they have, like firesticks, or buying another tv, the quicker the takeup.
For those you want recording or whatever, there’s a bunch of options.
Think about normal regular council tv. You turn it on, put on a channel and watch. There’s no recording, no pausing, no rewinding. That’s how TV has been since it started being broadcast. That’s essentially what freely does, but instead of an aerial or sat dish it uses the internet. If you want recording or catchup or whatever, then you get a device that provides for your requirements, just as people do with all sorts of things in life from their homes to their clothing, food, etc. Multiple options available to suit multiple requirements.
The requirement here is for freely to replace the decades old option of using an aerial for broadcasts, by using the internet instead. Something that’s been common in the UK for longer than freeview. Why spend millions maintaining a delivery service where there are established commonly available alternatives that are already used by the vast majority, is essentially what motivates the change.
I completely agree. I was trying to watch a program that I had failed to record but the stream kept buffering, pausing etc. Made it almost impossible to watch
Free (or paid) Wi-Fi would not be possible across the whole country. Would a Freely type box that uses mobile data only for the use of TV channels at no extra cost for people without broadband not be possible for a fair few, with free broadband paid for by the spectrum fees the government gets not be possible as well or instead.
You don’t need a freely box that uses mobile data. You can use a standard freely box. If you can get mobile data you can use a 4g/5g router, about £40 ish new or use fairly standard mobile phone and create a wifi hotspot for example, and/or you can get mobile routers or devices/adapters that can take a wifi signal and convert to ethernet so non wifi devices can effectively use ethernet.
That’s just one option, there’s also internet avaiable through other methods like satellite, and that’s just what’s available at the moment, never mind what’s available in 8 years time and not just in regards to technology but finances, laws, etc.
The world keeps changing and adapting. Freeview is only about 30 years old. TV only around 100 years old, even radio. 100 years ago only about 6% of the UK had electricity at home. 50 years ago 3 channels on UK TV and only a minority of enthusiasts had tech to record it. Only about 40 years ago did sat and cable start offering dozens of channels in the UK. No home internet 40 years ago. It’s only been around the last 25 years that UK broadband and streaming videos has been around, similarly wifi and mobile internet. These days most people around the world, even in developing countries, have internet connected smartphones, and smartphones have only been around about 25 years.
Not everyone has a TV at home or wants to watch TV, those who are enthusiasts will usually figure out ways to do what they want to do, whilst those who aren’t so bothered won’t care much, so no need to try and cater to those who aren’t interested who are usually a minority.
If someone is legitimately watching freeview/freely they would usually be paying for a TV license, so if that was scrapped then that money could go towards an internet connection or even fully cover the cost. There are a large number of possibilities.