Event Report: Digital Inclusion and the Future of Television

On Monday 7th September 2026 the Digital Inclusion APPG held a roundtable session on the Future of Television, bringing together parliamentarians, broadcasters, connectivity providers, and digital inclusion organisations. The session was chaired by Gill German MP and considered how a future transition in television delivery could strengthen digital inclusion without creating new barriers for viewers.

Gill German MP, Member of Parliament for Clwyd North, opened the session by welcoming speakers and attendees. She emphasised television's role in bringing people together and described it as one of the country's most widely used and trusted sources of news, information, and entertainment. For many people, she noted, television is an important connection to the wider world.

Gill explained that she did not come from a technology background and suggested that this was itself important to the discussion. If conversations about technological change involved only those for whom technology was second nature, they risked overlooking the experiences of people who found new systems difficult or unfamiliar. She stressed that digital inclusion was not simply a technology issue, but was at the heart of social inclusion.

Drawing on her experience in her North Wales constituency, Gill noted that people already at risk of digital exclusion were often at risk of exclusion in other areas of life. She had also seen that digital inclusion was possible for older people when the right tools, resources, and support were available. As television services changed, she argued, it was essential to preserve the medium's connecting role and avoid creating new barriers.

She outlined the principal questions for the roundtable: how a transition in television could be digitally inclusive; the potential social and economic benefits of increasing digital inclusion through television; how Government and industry should work together; the barriers viewers might face; and the lessons that wider digital inclusion policy could offer for the future of broadcasting and public service media.

Baroness Armstrong, Chair of the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, described the committee's work and her longstanding interest in social exclusion. She said the committee believed that the future of television should be approached as an opportunity to transform people's ability to participate digitally, including those for whom television may be their principal or only digital device.

However, she stressed that any transition would need to be supported effectively. The committee's response set out the steps needed to make change equitable and open to everyone, including appropriate support in people's homes or through local hubs. She highlighted the large network of digital inclusion hubs across the country, while noting that many people did not know however that nearby support may be available. Government therefore needs a strategy to make support visible and accessible.

Baroness Armstrong also pointed to the potential wider benefits of connected technology. She described local authorities providing digital training to domiciliary care workers, enabling them to carry out basic health checks and send results to GPs, alongside the use of connected devices to remind people about medication or forthcoming care visits. These examples demonstrated that people who had previously felt digital services were not for them could benefit when technology was introduced with the right support.

She concluded that the transition should be pursued only if the preparatory work was undertaken collaboratively. People needed knowledge, confidence, and continuing support, while products themselves needed to be accessible, easy to use, and safe.

Jayne Kirkham MP, Member of Parliament for Truro and Falmouth, focused on the position of rural and coastal communities in Cornwall. She explained that around 8,000 properties remained unconnected following the withdrawal of a provider from a programme intended to reach difficult premises. Many of these communities continued to rely heavily on radio and terrestrial television, making the resilience of alternative services a central concern.

Jayne described the impact of Storm Goretti, where power and water supplies were impacted for several days. While the relevant utilities operated within established emergency-response arrangements, communications and digital services were not covered in the same way. Once power returned, some residents discovered that their internet connections remained unavailable, with difficulties reporting faults and restoration taking much longer in some cases.

She emphasised that mobile coverage had not provided an effective fallback in this situation. Coverage was patchy, masts lost power, and limited battery support was insufficient for a prolonged outage, affecting even the ability to make emergency calls. Jayne added that residents in Cornwall often had limited provider choice, while many farming businesses lacked fibre access or reliable mobile connectivity.

She asked how a future switchover could include areas already experiencing poor connectivity, slow speeds, and increasing exposure to severe weather. For communities reliant on terrestrial television, the move could not be separated from questions of infrastructure coverage, resilience and accountability.

Jonathan Thompson, Chief Executive of Everyone TV, explained that ETV is owned by the UK's public service broadcasters and manages Freeview, Freesat, and the streaming service Freely. Its mission, he said, was to support universal access to free television and ensure that everyone continued to benefit from public service broadcasting.

Jonathan distinguished between the wider challenge of digital inclusion and the closely connected question of television distribution. Television viewing was already changing, with a third of homes watching entirely over the internet and many more using connected services. The central question was therefore how to manage that change so that everyone benefited.

He presented Freely as an example of how internet-delivered television could retain a familiar viewing experience, including a traditional programme guide and straightforward access to live channels, while also providing greater choice, flexibility, and accessibility features. Audience research, he said, indicated that some viewers initially considered resistant to change valued these features after receiving support to try the service.

Jonathan identified three prerequisites for a successful transition: reliable broadband availability, affordable connectivity, and usable services. Viewers who needed help would also require clear communications, practical assistance, and a help scheme.

While recognising that some audiences would require substantial support, he cautioned against overstating the incremental cost for the majority of households already using broadband. At the same time, continuing terrestrial and internet television systems in parallel would impose significant costs on broadcasters. As terrestrial use declined, there was also a risk that its offer would become less attractive, producing a division between digital 'haves' and 'have-nots'. He argued that the change should be framed as a managed transition rather than simply a switch-off, with the firm condition that no one be left behind.

Emma Stone, Director of Evidence and Engagement at Good Things Foundation, agreed that future television should be universal, reliable, affordable, inclusive, and easy to use. She described the potential change as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, whether it occurred in 2034 or later, but said that national transitions worked best when Government provided clear leadership, established standards, and set out the steps required.

Emma contrasted this with the tendency to 'muddle through', relying on charities, voluntary organisations, and libraries to compensate for gaps in digital inclusion policy and provision. A clearly led and properly managed transition could instead create a national focus for tackling digital exclusion.

She noted that provision remained patchy across constituencies and local authorities. Good Things Foundation, alongside other consumer and accessibility organisations, had therefore been considering what a managed transition should involve. A central lesson was that the most vulnerable and difficult-to-reach households must not be left until the end, as this created anxiety and risk rather than bringing people with the process.

Emma said organisations across the National Digital Inclusion Network were concerned about the risks of the transition but were also clear about the role they could play if adequately resourced. Local organisations and libraries could provide support and signposting, but their capacity varied and insecure funding remained a persistent problem. Simpler technology, affordable connectivity, and a clear national message would make it easier for them to build confidence and provide effective help.

Daniel Wilson, Policy & Public Affairs Director at BT, welcomed the Government's Media Green Paper as an opportunity to generate a concerted national effort across Government, industry, regulators, and civil society. He outlined BT's contribution through investment in fixed and mobile infrastructure, social tariffs, and digital skills programmes, while acknowledging that these measures did not on their own resolve the wider challenge of digital inclusion.

Daniel said BT planned substantial investment in infrastructure over the decade, including fibre rollout to homes and businesses. He also highlighted the company's social tariff and work with partner organisations to provide digital skills advice and tools. He agreed that greater awareness was needed so that people eligible for existing assistance could find it.

He suggested that several challenges described in the Green Paper could also be treated as opportunities. Resilience was a genuine issue across delivery systems, and terrestrial television was not itself immune from failures. In his view, delaying a decision for another decade (2044) would also carry a cost by denying people improved television and access to other connected services enabled through the transition such as digital healthcare and banking.

Daniel supported a firm decision and argued that a 2034 transition was achievable if organisations began working together promptly. Gill responded by asking how parliamentarians could help make constituents more aware of social tariffs, noting that information about them was often difficult to find.

Susan Murray MP, MP for Mid Dunbartonshire, reinforced the scale of continuing connectivity barriers. In her constituency, some streets were not scheduled to receive connections during the current rollout, while residents in a village only 11 miles from central Glasgow had to leave their homes to obtain a telephone signal. She supported the principle of addressing the most disadvantaged first, because this would force the major challenges to be confronted from the outset.

Susan also challenged assumptions that older people were necessarily unwilling or unable to change. Gill agreed, referring to older people confidently using emerging technologies and suggesting that age became less of a barrier when interfaces were designed to be genuinely user-friendly.

Andy Wileman, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Virgin Media O2, described the company's perspective as a broadband provider, mobile operator, and television platform. This meant it would form part of the connectivity solution, could see potential benefits from spectrum currently used for terrestrial television, and also understood the importance of the existing television platform.

Andy also welcomed the Green Paper but felt it gave insufficient consideration to the connectivity required to underpin a transition. Questions remained about the quality and reliability standards that might be expected of networks, their ongoing investment needs, and the sustainability of providers in a highly competitive market. Government therefore needed to consider how the underlying foundations of internet-delivered television would remain sustainable and accessible.

He also drew lessons from the migration of customers from legacy landline services. Supporting the final group of customers was particularly difficult, and assistance could not end once a household had migrated. People might later need help if Wi-Fi stopped working, a television needed resetting, or a password had to be entered. Responsibility for this continuing support, and how it would be funded, needed to be agreed. Gill endorsed the importance of aftercare so that equipment did not become unusable and sit disconnected in people's homes.

Elizabeth Anderson, Chief Executive Officer at the Digital Poverty Alliance, explained that the organisation works across the UK, combining advocacy and research with direct support for individuals and community organisations. She stressed that listening to people experiencing exclusion was as important as providing connectivity and skills.

Elizabeth described an 81-year-old relative losing internet access for nine days after a routine failure and cable theft. If television had also relied entirely on that connection, the person would have been cut off from it too. She expected broad internet availability by the mid-2030s, but stressed that availability and infrastructure resilience were different.

Moving an essential service online would not itself solve exclusion, Elizabeth warned; similar expectations in healthcare, education, and banking had not produced universal connectivity. The order of action was crucial.

The Digital Poverty Alliance supported a clear decision, but argued 2034 was only eight years away and longstanding problems remained. Community hubs, charities, and libraries needed stable funding, while cost, basic skills and confidence remained barriers. Even a request to sign into a streaming service with a QR code could exclude users.

Workshops would not suit everyone, so Elizabeth suggested an in-home 'white glove' service to install equipment and provide aftercare, while asking who would fund it. She was especially concerned about underconnected people and how support could scale without a national funding and training framework. Free television, she concluded, must not sit behind a monthly broadband paywall.

The discussion was then opened to the wider group by Gill German MP.

Natalie Ceeney, Chair of The Connection Project, said the organisation was established because the UK was falling behind as a digital society.

Natalie argued that the problems were already present: some people could not afford broadband, some areas lacked connectivity, and infrastructure resilience remained uncertain. A successful transition required Government commitment, a firm date, funding, and a joint strategy covering connectivity, support and simplicity.

Natalie suggested universal access could be achieved in eight years through continued network building and technologies that filled gaps. She argued that connectivity should be treated as national infrastructure and made affordable. She also called for national campaigns, sustainable funding for Community Hubs, in-home support, and simpler television interfaces.

Natalie further suggested that a joined-up approach had been missing from earlier transitions. She said the economic case should include the cost of remaining offline and the wider benefits of digital inclusion, from schoolwork to job applications and remote work. In her view, the transition to digital television is achievable with a coordinated plan.

In response, Elizabeth Anderson agreed on the benefits of tackling digital exclusion but opposed using the threatened loss of television as leverage. She said people who worry about affording broadband should not feel forced online.

Emma Stone agreed that people already felt pressured online and said support should be built in early enough to avoid a last-minute 'ticking clock', while a national moment still required a clear decision and sufficient time for a non-coercive transition.

Helen Burrows, Controller, Distribution and Business Development at the BBC, said previous moves online had too often combined pressure with poor planning, service design, and support. A different approach would design first for people who found services difficult rather than expecting them to adapt to unnecessary complexity.

The previous television switchover had attracted resistance, but preparation and support made the eventual change manageable. Helen said a properly designed future transition could do the same while addressing disparities in channel availability.

Broadband reliability, restoration standards and funding needed resolution, but so did the growing dependence of healthcare, education, employment and social care on connectivity. Helen favoured investing in future infrastructure rather than funding old and new systems indefinitely; the transition could help hold Government to its connectivity commitments.

She stressed that viewers should be able to find familiar channels without training. Support would still matter, but reducing avoidable complexity should come first.

Natalie added that a defined date would force organisations to design for the hardest-to-reach users from the outset. It could also support a profession around installing and maintaining home connectivity and focus the wider debate on broadband and mobile resilience.

Andy cautioned that internet television depended on more than the broadband line: household equipment, configuration, and other links could fail. Unlike dedicated terrestrial television, broadband carried competing services. The test was whether internet networks could provide a sufficiently good television service for everyone.

Daniel said fibre was more reliable and called for planned deployment to be completed. Greater reliance on broadband raised wider questions about resilience standards, investment, and affordability. Showing households the benefits of connectivity, alongside investing in infrastructure, could make the approach more inclusive.

Michael Pickton, Senior Manager, Public and External Affairs Policy and Public Affairs at Channel 4, focused on the viewer experience and the sustainability of public service broadcasting. Channel 4's audiences were already moving towards streaming, while maintaining the terrestrial network was becoming increasingly costly. He said that broadcasters needed a consistent path so they could plan investment and continue providing the best content.

He noted that money spent maintaining an older distribution system could not be invested in content or new technologies. He added that better-financed global providers might be able to spend more on programming, potentially placing UK public service broadcasters at a disadvantage. The future distribution decision therefore also concerned the continued availability of distinctive British content and the sustainability of the public service broadcasting system.

As the discussion drew to a close, Emma Stone observed that parliamentarians often described themselves as 'not techy' and might not immediately engage with a consultation framed around television distribution. She invited participants to consider how the issue could be communicated more effectively across political parties, including both the practical implications for inclusion and the wider importance of public service media.

Closing the session, Gill agreed that parliamentarians should consider how to involve more colleagues in the debate. Alongside the practical question of connecting households, she highlighted the importance of keeping public service media at the centre of the UK's offer and protecting its status as a flagship national strength.

Gill thanked attendees for their contributions and said the discussion had raised important issues that would need to be addressed. Her principal takeaway was that, despite the complexity of the transition, everyone needed to be taken with it. She said that despite roundtable participants differing on aspects of timing and approach, they shared a broad commitment to ensuring that the future of television strengthened inclusion rather than leaving people behind.