Freeview and Freesat could be switched off by 2034 – and new research from Sky claims only 330,000 households would be left behind.
That’s the headline finding from a major study published this week, and it’s far more optimistic than the government’s previous estimate of 1.8 million households still needing help by 2035.
But there’s a big “if” attached: it only works if the government announces a clear timeline around 2027, giving people seven years to prepare, and invests properly in helping vulnerable groups get online.
The research comes from Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates, commissioned by Sky, and it’s landed right in the middle of a heated debate about the future of the 18 million homes that still use Freeview.
On one side: broadcasters and streaming companies arguing the economics of traditional TV broadcasting are unsustainable, and most people have already moved online anyway.
On the other: a petition with nearly 96,000 signatures warning that rushing the transition will leave millions of vulnerable people behind.
At stake is more than just how we watch telly. It’s about whether broadband becomes a requirement for accessing free-to-air television, what happens to recording, and whether the UK maintains a shared national broadcast that nearly everyone can access during major events.
Is Freeview On Its Way Out?
Freeview – the service that delivers BBC One, ITV, Channel 4 and dozens of other channels through your aerial – is facing an uncertain future. So is Freesat, which does the same thing via a satellite dish.
The government is trying to work out what to do about traditional TV broadcasting over the next decade.
Three main options are on the table: upgrade Freeview to use more modern technology, reduce it to just a handful of basic channels (a so-called “nightlight” service), or plan for switching it off entirely during the 2030s.
Why the debate? Traditional broadcasting is getting expensive to maintain. The UK still uses technology from the 1990s while other European countries have upgraded.
Fewer people watch traditional broadcast TV each year. And after 2031, TV might need to share its radio frequencies with mobile phone companies, making the current setup even less viable.
Meanwhile, most people have already moved to watching TV through the internet, at least some of the time. By 2024, 94% of UK adults had internet at home and 92% used some form of streaming service.
The shift is well underway – the question is what happens to the millions who haven’t made the switch yet, and whether we should keep expensive infrastructure running for a shrinking audience.
There’s also Freely, the new streaming platform launched in April 2024 that’s designed to eventually replace Freeview (and Freesat). It delivers most of the same channels through your broadband instead of your aerial, but it only works if you’ve got decent internet.
That’s the context for this new research, which basically argues: most people will transition naturally, a clear deadline will push fence-sitters to finally make the switch, and only a relatively small group will need hands-on help.
The Big Numbers Shift
Previous government research suggested 1.8 million households would still be without internet-delivered TV by 2035 if things carried on as they are now.
Sky’s new analysis says that’s far too pessimistic. By looking at what happened during the last big TV switchover – when analogue signals were turned off between 2008 and 2012 – the researchers reckon announcing a firm deadline changes everything.
Back then, digital TV adoption was bumping along at 93% in 2011. Then, as the October 2012 deadline approached, there was a massive jump – nearly five percentage points in the final year alone.
By the time the switch happened, 98% of households had made the transition. The remaining 2% included people without TVs, those watching through games consoles, and a small number who genuinely couldn’t switch.
The new research models what would happen if the same pattern repeated. Announce the switch-off around 2027, watch adoption accelerate as the date gets closer, and by 2034 you’d be down to around 330,000 households who genuinely need targeted support to get online.
It’s worth noting this is an illustrative model, not a precise prediction. But it does line up with how people actually behaved last time – lots of us procrastinate until there’s a deadline.
Who Gets Left Behind?
The 330,000 figure isn’t random people who just haven’t got round to it yet.
These are households facing real barriers: older people who struggle with technology, lower-income families for whom monthly broadband costs are a genuine burden, disabled people who need specific support, and rural communities where reliable internet still isn’t guaranteed.
The research surveyed 1,000 UK viewers and ran workshops in Glasgow, Leeds, and rural Devon. What came through clearly was that many people who haven’t switched yet would actually benefit enormously once they do.
Among over-70s who already use internet-delivered TV, 99% find its features useful – higher than any other age group.
Features like “watch from the beginning” when you’re a few minutes late, or pausing live TV, or instantly jumping to catch-up without changing devices all score really highly with older viewers once they’ve tried them.
But among over-70s who haven’t made the switch, only 37% think those features would be useful. There’s a massive gap between what people expect before trying something and what they actually value once they’ve got it.
The problem is that final 330,000 households likely include people who genuinely can’t afford broadband, who lack the digital skills to set things up, or who live in areas where internet coverage is patchy at best.
These aren’t problems that solve themselves just because you announce a deadline.
The Affordability Problem
Freeview is genuinely free once you’ve bought the box. Plug in your aerial, tune the channels, done. No monthly bills beyond the TV licence.
Moving everyone to internet TV means everyone needs broadband. That’s roughly £27 per month on average in the UK. For vulnerable households already struggling with rising costs, that’s not trivial.
Social tariffs exist – cheaper broadband for people on benefits – but only 220,000 homes use them despite 4.3 million being eligible. Most people don’t know they exist or don’t realise they qualify.
The research acknowledges this but argues it’s not really a TV problem – it’s part of the UK’s broader shift to digital services.
Banking, healthcare, government services, and more are all moving online. Helping people get connected and skilled up brings benefits beyond just watching telly.
That’s probably true, but it doesn’t change the fact that right now, watching Freeview is free and watching Freely requires a monthly subscription to an internet provider.
Whether the government will step up with the funding to bridge that gap is an open question.
What People Actually Want
One interesting finding: almost nobody wants a “nightlight” service.
The nightlight idea is to keep Freeview running but strip it back to just the five main PSB channels – BBC One, BBC Two, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. It would buy more time for people to transition but cost a fortune to maintain.
Only 21% of survey respondents without connected TVs said they’d actually use such a service. And here’s the kicker: only 5% of current Freeview users said they’d switch to a satellite-based nightlight if Freeview went away.
When workshop participants were asked whether they’d prefer government spend money on a nightlight service or on helping vulnerable groups transition to internet TV, 72% chose the latter.
Even people who aren’t particularly tech-savvy themselves said they’d rather see resources go toward proper support than keeping old infrastructure limping along.
That’s a pretty clear message: people aren’t opposed to change, they just want to make sure nobody gets left behind.
The Freely Boxes Are Here
All of this matters more now because you can actually buy Freely without replacing your entire TV.
When Freely launched in April 2024, it was exclusive to brand new smart TVs. Want to try it? Buy a new telly for several hundred quid. That was never going to work for mass adoption.
The Netgem Pleio launched in November 2025 as the first standalone Freely box. It works, but at £119.88 (after a recent price increase) and bundled with gaming features some viewers don’t care about, it’s not always an easy sell.
This week, Manhattan TV announced the Aero – a £69.99 Freely box launching in February that undercuts the Pleio by £50.
Manhattan is the British company behind reliable Freeview recorders like the T4-R, and they’re positioning the Aero as a straightforward Freely box.
Both boxes are streaming-only. No aerial port, no fallback to traditional Freeview. You plug them into your internet connection and that’s how you watch TV. If your broadband goes down, so does your telly.
That’s the future these boxes represent – and it’s the same future Sky has been pushing with Sky Stream (which replaced Sky Q for new customers) and Sky Glass, and Virgin Media has been pushing with its own Stream box.
Whether £70 counts as “affordable” for vulnerable households is debatable, but it’s a lot cheaper than a new TV. And as more manufacturers jump in, prices will likely fall further.
The Passionate Opposition
Not everyone is convinced this is the right move, or that the timeline should be this aggressive.
Silver Voices, a campaign group for older people, launched a petition warning that the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are pushing government toward “an early transition to IPTV, without any genuine concern about the millions who would lose out.”
The petition has now gathered nearly 96,000 signatures.
Silver Voices doesn’t object to internet TV in principle. What they want is more time – keep the current hybrid system where you can use broadcast, streaming, or both, and don’t rush into a switchover that could leave vulnerable people scrambling.
Their concerns are practical: broadband costs money every month and often rises faster than pensions. Social tariffs aren’t reaching the people who need them. Digital skills training exists but isn’t universal. And Freeview currently reaches 98.5% of households without any of those hurdles.
The group also worries about losing TV as a shared national experience. When big events happen – elections, royal occasions, crises, major sporting moments – Freeview allows nearly everyone to watch the same broadcast at the same time.
Streaming fragments that into individual connections that can fail at different times. These aren’t small concerns, and 96,000 signatures suggests a lot of people share them.
What You Lose In The Switch
There’s something else worth talking about: recording.
Freely doesn’t let you record programmes. Neither does Sky Stream or Virgin Media Stream. The pitch is that everything will be available through catch-up services, so you don’t need to record anymore.
But catch-up isn’t the same thing. Programmes disappear when licensing deals expire. You can’t skip the ads (unless you pay extra, in some cases). You can’t build a library of content you own (well, recordings were never really “owned” due to copyright, but they were yours to keep and rewatch).
For many viewers, particularly older ones who grew up with VCRs and value recording to watch on their own schedule, this is a fundamental downgrade. The new Freely boxes offer a 15-minute pause buffer and that’s it.
Manhattan’s T4-R Freeview recorder might be the last great recording box for traditional TV. Humax is reportedly working on a box that might combine Freely streaming with aerial-based recording, but nothing’s been officially announced.
The shift to streaming means the end of recording as we know it, regardless of what other benefits it brings. That’s worth acknowledging rather than glossing over.
Where This All Leads
The government is expected to publish its plan for TV’s future before mid-2026. That’s just months away.
The research published this week makes a clear argument: announce a timeline around 2027, plan for a managed transition by the mid-2030s, invest in digital inclusion rather than expensive nightlight services, and focus support on the 330,000 who genuinely need help rather than 1.8 million.
The petition’s 96,000 signatures make an equally clear argument: slow down, maintain the safety net longer, don’t rush vulnerable people into something they’re not ready for.
Both sides might have valid points. The economics of traditional broadcasting are brutal and getting worse.
Keeping transmitters running for an ever-shrinking audience while also investing in streaming platforms means broadcasters are paying for two distribution systems simultaneously – money that could go into making better programmes instead.
But there’s also something to be said for not fixing what isn’t broken for millions of people, and for recognising that “most people have already moved to streaming” doesn’t help the people who haven’t.
What’s increasingly clear is that the decision has essentially been made at an industry level. Sky doesn’t sell Sky Q online anymore. Virgin Media defaults new customers to streaming. Freely exists and is getting standalone boxes at falling prices.
The infrastructure for a streaming-only future is being built regardless of what the government decides.
The real question isn’t whether traditional broadcasting ends, but when, and whether the transition is managed well enough that those 330,000 households – or 1.8 million, depending on whose forecast you believe – don’t just get left staring at blank screens when the transmitters finally switch off.
For more news and guides on TV and streaming, Subscribe to our free newsletter.
I don’t want the high definition – I don’t have a very big TV and am not interested in sport but I record a lot using a Humax (Freeview box). High definition takes much more space so I can record far more in lower definition.
You are in the minority. I want HD for all TV channels in the UK. I find SD can be fuzzy. The thing is, if the UK was to go all HD, SD would have to go as we’d have no need for it. The UK is just so technologically far behind where it should be.
Like Freeview Humax Aura HD 4K 2TB Box working that’s fine safe service when only show like Freely available box buy this year please what course?? 🤷🏻♂️
You won’t have to buy a new TV. You would have to buy a box that can do Freeview, Freely, and Internet and has apps.
The survey was from Sky, so hardly independent! Freely isn’t the same at all – read what Cord busters says. No ability to record and needs new TV
There are freely boxes coming out. So what TV you have won’t be a problem.
I am puzzled by much of this. I don’t have a problem with paying for broadband, I have a problem with a TV too old to use broadband! I do not want to fork out for a new smart TV. I have an old (very old) Humax box so I record masses of stuff which is permanently mine, no adverts (fast forward). If I have forgotten to record something I catch up using my PC or laptop. Signals round here aren’t always very good so would on line be better? I only use Freeview channels and there are so many now, I don’t miss Netflix or amazon etc.
I don’t really see freely as an actual alternative to freeview because it needs the tv to be approved by everyone TV, unlike freeview where you can use almost any TV with an aerial input. It feels more like a UK TV streaming service than a true freeview replacement.
Here in the UK we’re busily getting ready to kill off OTA TV yet in countries like France and Spain are pushing ahead with 4K OTA broadcasts. The US is getting ready to deliver its ATSC 3.0 OTA service, which will greatly improve quality and reliability.
We’re still mired in a standard definition broadcasting platform, by and large. Freely isn’t a proper substitute for DTT and DSAT, especially if you want to enjoy 5.1 surround sound on certain content broadcast on the BBC HD channels, along with C4HD.
Our streaming services are still rubbish. Want surround sound? Forget it. Want full HD? pretty much forget it. Want 4K? You might be lucky on iPlayer.
The push to stream content may well have an impact on the amount of traffic that broadband providers will be expected to manage. We’ve yet to hear from them, but I’m sure that we will do, once Freely is more used. We might end up like they do in the US with speed caps or usage limits.
To me, Freely is yet another bodge, just like Freeview is. In the race to the bottom, the UK wins every time.
The UK is pathetic, Why do we pander to SD? We should delete all SD channels where we have HD channels and we should tell the SD only channels that they have to go HD. Also we should be telling any channel with a streaming app that they at least have to be HD and they have to have at least 384k and 5.1 sound if the program has 5.1 sound,
I actually find my 43″ 2019 LG TV in the bedroom overall does a better job playing stereo from a BBC 5.1 broadcast then iPlayer does.
In terms of reliability of signal our own experience is Freeview first, then Freesat (including “Freesat from Sky”) then a very distant third place to broadband delivered signal.
Furthermore if there’s a Freeview problem usually summoning a local aerial contractor sorts the problem quickly and cheaply. Perhaps a bit more tricky sorting a satellite dish problem. But broadband is a real issue for the average OAP, battling with IP settings/router bands, transmission glitches and even multi day long outages with broadband. And don’t get me started on how you communicate intelligently with ISPs unless you’ve got a degree in computer science.
I fondly remember the days when you just bought a TV, plugged the aerial in the back and settled down to watch your programs. If you wanted to record them, just pop in a VHS recorder or Humax and off you go. Simples.
… after you’d tried your ariel in at least 10 positions, including beside 3 windows, and found the one video tape that wasn’t chewed up, crackly or Betamax …
Reliability. I watch tv with Freeview from a small transmitter (with a limited range of channels), Freesat, and broadband for streaming! All have their reliability problems: the transmitter occasionally not broadcasting some channels, a neighbour’s tree growing too tall, and broadband getting congested at peak times or my router dropping its wifi connection. I would be worse off if I only had 1 of these 3 ways of watching tv.
“…The research comes from Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates, commissioned by Sky,…”
Unbiased eh?
Say no more.
How much will be saved if the transmitters for Freeview and satellites for Freesat are closed down? And which organisations and companies will realise these closure savings? And which will benefit from grabbing the closed bandwidth? These sums should go to those who cannot afford £30 a month for broadband.
“If everyone thought like you do, we’d all still be watching black and white analogue telly, with only one channel.”
What a ridiculous statement.
Whilst I agree that there is a possibility of improved picture quality – as long as your broadband is reliable but sound quality improvements not so much. If you have the room and finances for multi-channel amplifier and speakers yes, but if you only use the stereo format for listening then I have found the quality degrades when multi-channel is downmixed to stereo. Quite possible because centre channel (most useful for dialogue) seems a bit “lost” in the conversion.
“More Channels” – we already have a plethora of low cost junk programs to choose from, I certainly don’t need any more to have to exclude from my channel guide. We are already going the cost cutting way on the main channels, BBC, ITV, CH4, & CH5. The choice over the Christmas period especially on the BBC was very disappointing – full of repeats of repeats consisting of Films, Drama and Comedy yet again broadcast multiple times – all of these should have been left on iPlayer for those that wanted to re-live the experience but no, here they are again on prime time slots.
Maybe you like watching moronic adverts – I do not and will not which was the point I was making. Yes you can skip them by paying more subscriptions per month. As I said, all about getting more revenue.
Like a high proportion of other enterprises, the bean counters or Industry interests are running things and the bottom line is, well, the bottom line! They all need to extract more money from their customers – and that means YOU!
I’m beginning to research PC recording options. Any advice/experience?
I don’t mind paying a TV licence if I can record stuff, retain it securely and replay at my leisure independently of any broadband dependency.
Am already building up a library of films etc on 2 x 2TB Humax 5000T Freeview recorders, but this is very vulnerable to any hardware failure whereas a PC system could be backed up properly, is rather more secure and not dependent on the broadcaster pulling the plug.
I share the aversion to compulsory broadband-delivered TV. I record and want to go on recording. For PC recording, I’ve recently started investigating IPTV. I’m currently experimenting with NextPVR on a PC and Tivimate on Android (a Humax Aura PVR). Both are promising and both have glitches.
For your library, I don’t know the 5000T, but can’t you transfer the recordings by FTP to a PC?
I currently record from Freeview (usually SD channels) using a Panasonic DMR-BWT735. This is a few years old now, but has various capabilities, including recording to a 1TB hard Drive. Once I have recorded a program, if I choose to keep it longer, I can edit it to remove adverts, then convert it to DVD format and write it to a DVD-RW disc, and transfer it (physically) to my PC, where I can store it on my hard drives for as long as desired.
I’m not certain about the capabilities of more modern Panasonic devices, and whether they can do the same things.
Freeview needs to change and not go away. It needs to be all HD and any SD channels need to go HD.
If Freeview is to continue in any form, it needs to switch to “5G Broadcast”.
I’ve seen Dad’s Army on Gold HD and BBC HD and it actually looks not bad. It does not have such grain as you describe. Maybe it’s your TV settings. Do you have the sharpness turned up too much? I’m using a 65″ LG C1 OLED TV. I have my sharpness set to 5.
I seriously doubt that any survey which is funded by an organisation that would benefit from such a “negative” result can be trusted. Of course Sky would see themselves as a beneficiary of an early turn off of Terrestrial Digital TV. It is just like The Daily Mail’s readers being asked if they want to get rid of the TV Licence, after especially if the paper had published a series of articles using the word “tax” instead of “licence” in the run-up to the survey.
The licence fee will become impossible to be justified. If I have to pay to watch internet channels on internet only, and don’t watch any BBC channels, then the BBC will have no case to answer as they won’t be providing me with anything. It would be like Sainsbury’s charging me to shop at Tesco.
Also, if I miss the initial media blitz of any new series, then without a regular TV guide and weekly schedule miss the series…this has happened lots of times…for instance, there was a series called Billions….which I never knew existed for 8 years…when I found it I liked it, and it had finished…that’s 8 years they could have had my subscription, instead of me binging it on a one month trial.
That’s the problem – “the decision has been made at industry level!”
The Government/Civil Service does not have the capability to make an informed or technical decision, they mainly enjoy their position of authority and being able to fly here and there on “bonding” or “business orientated” trips at our cost of course.
If they are going to save so much money by dismantling all the terrestrial infrastructure and release of bandwidth for cellular etc. should that not lead to a large decrease in TV Licence charges?
Sky has an axe to grind – they want more subscribers so I don’t believe them at all.
I want to be able to record and then watch when I feel like it WITHOUT ADS as I have done for very many years. Often there are 2 or even 3 programs that overlap on different channels which I will record and then have the choice to watch when I want including skipping ads if needed. Of course the argument here is well you can watch them all on catch up/streaming but I refuse to watch ads unless I happen to have missed episode one of a series on ITV when I will watch that on catch up and record the rest!
Their argument being – Oh you can subscribe to an ad free service – so you could end up paying for Broadband, TV licence, ITVX, CH4, CH5 and in my case Netflix (No ads) as well. That is quite a chunk of money each month!
Let’s admit it, this is all about money – more money from releasing more bandwidth for cellular, huge savings from dismantling the terrestrial infrastructure and not having to maintain it and revenues from subscribers forced into this system. A bit like BT has done when compulsorily converting any renewals into their HD digital voice phone system so they can do away with lots of “twisted pair” routing and maintenance BUT still keep increasing prices astronomically, oh, and get you to buy a new phone! But we actually still have a twisted pair connection to the local green box and as we are rural and is not likely to change anytime soon. It just carries VOIP for the phone (tied to only BT equipment) instead of analogue. Ever felt conned by big business?
Make no mistake, sooner or later terrestrial is being turned off, you will not be able to record from any IP service and you will be paying more.
I have signed the petition, not that it will likely have any effect.
If everyone thought like you do, we’d all still be watching black and white analogue telly, with only one channel.
Change will have advantages and disadvantages, but overall it’s an improvement. Like more channels, more choice, better picture and sound quality, and more possibilities.
So, no, it’s not ALL about money, as a lot of it will be free, funded by lovely adverts.
Interesting arguments, one elephant in the room if Freeview is retired in 8 years, is radio transmissions. These still use most of Arqivas network and where does this leave Arqiva too? Would radio services be cost effective without TV transmission sharing their infrastructure too? Our mobile internet is woefully rubbish with my signal usually on 1 bar of 4G even in central London! Travelling abroad I usually receive a full 5G signal in most places. Ofcom need to get tougher with the providers to really up their game as they aren’t at the moment, but thats another issue! DAB has established itself as a full radio service most of us use each day along with the smart speakers at home, even FM isn’t being retired any time soon… I’m sure the government haven’t even given this consequence a thought!
Internet streaming, in my case TiVo and Freely, isn’t just about television, it includes radio broadcasting too. The B.B.C. includes ALL its stations on the Freely Telly (?) Guide (E.P.G.), or in B.B.C. Sounds.
Previously I have listened to some B.B.C. radio stations by streaming them. But recently I have explored commercial radio stations this way too. And I was pleasantly surprised to find one of my favourite niche radio stations was available on streaming, which was good as it had disappeared from my D.A.B. digital radio!
Well, it’s all about the Ad’s isn’t it. Stop home recording and then there’s no way to bypass watching them.
You might buy a new streaming box or freely tv and own it, but you never own the content.
Unless there’s a way for me to record programmes and to watch them (offline and when I want) then I won’t be going anywhere near freely or and of the paid-for Sky/VM streaming services.
Im surprised sky are pushing for broadband when millions are watching all there chanals on dodgy boxes…..make no sence freesat is best option
Well, Sky would want to see the back of Freeview, their biggest competitor, wouldn’t they.
Freeview is being replaced by Freely. Freely then becomes a big competitor, so that’s not much change then.
I cant understand why UK is so far behind with Tv transmission technology, I went to France recently all of their channels free to view is in HD and a few 4K, why hasn’t UK kept up? unless UK is an test bed for future television?
We do need to have all channels be in at least HD. None of this really poor quality SD. Even olf programs in SD look better when broadcast on an HD channel. And if the UK went fully HD, all the SD channels could go away forever. Never again would there be and HD and an SD channel.
As it stands, you cannot buy a new TV that cannot play HD. Also, most TVs are 4K. And programs that are supposed to be HD look awful on an SD channel. Ofcom has really dropped the ball.
How anyone can say that old programmes look better on HD is beyond me. Example: Anything shot on 2″ Ampex video back in the 70s and 80s (such as Dads’ Army) looks atrocious, with “grain” the size of golf balls.