BBC's plan to dismantle its universal service is a worrying trend, one that threatens the very fabric of British broadcasting. The corporation's proposal to axe digital terrestrial television (DTT, or Freeview) by 2034 would force millions to pay for high-speed broadband or risk losing access to BBC services.
In essence, this move would mark a turning point in UK television history, as for the first time, viewing "free-to-air" content would require a subscription. The estimated annual cost of this new regime would soar above £500 per household, leaving hundreds of thousands of low-income and elderly households on the brink of exclusion.
This draconian policy is likely to hit the most vulnerable members of society hardest, with potentially disastrous consequences for those who cannot afford or access digital technology. It is unconscionable that the BBC's solution involves shifting this burden onto individuals, rather than exploring more feasible alternatives, such as maintaining Freeview and preserving its universal service.
One way forward would be to adopt a more measured approach, allowing Freeview to remain operational until at least 2040 without requiring new public funding. This would minimize risk for those reliant on DTT while also sparing the BBC from incurring significant financial losses.
Ultimately, as Tim Davie has pointed out, preserving universal access to broadcasting should be seen as a societal choice, one that must not be hastily or unfairly prejudged by the corporation's short-sighted plan.
In essence, this move would mark a turning point in UK television history, as for the first time, viewing "free-to-air" content would require a subscription. The estimated annual cost of this new regime would soar above £500 per household, leaving hundreds of thousands of low-income and elderly households on the brink of exclusion.
This draconian policy is likely to hit the most vulnerable members of society hardest, with potentially disastrous consequences for those who cannot afford or access digital technology. It is unconscionable that the BBC's solution involves shifting this burden onto individuals, rather than exploring more feasible alternatives, such as maintaining Freeview and preserving its universal service.
One way forward would be to adopt a more measured approach, allowing Freeview to remain operational until at least 2040 without requiring new public funding. This would minimize risk for those reliant on DTT while also sparing the BBC from incurring significant financial losses.
Ultimately, as Tim Davie has pointed out, preserving universal access to broadcasting should be seen as a societal choice, one that must not be hastily or unfairly prejudged by the corporation's short-sighted plan.
. I'm all for innovation and whatnot, but come on, can't they think of a better way to make it work? It's not fair to those who are struggling or don't even know how to use one of them new-fangled broadband things.
? And what about all the elderly folks and low-income households who can barely get by as it is? It's like they're tryin' to make 'em choose between food or TV 
. And instead of makin' people pay more, maybe we could find other ways to make it work, like gettin' some new funding or somethin'. But just plunkin' down this huge bill is just not fair 
.
. first they're cutting community radio and now this? freeview is supposed to be for everyone, but now it sounds like we'll have to shell out hundreds of pounds a year just to get our bbc fix 
. what's next, paying to breathe air? 
it's not fair at all. i feel sorry for the low income households and elderly people who will be affected by this policy 
? anyway, Tim Davie is right, let's not be too hasty on this one. maybe we should've thought about the consequences before saying "oh, we're just gonna take away everyone's free TV" 
like, what's next? They're already talking about taking away our Netflix subs if we don't pay up 
. The BBC needs to think about all the ppl who can't afford fancy broadband and just wanna watch their fave shows for free 
, like keeping Freeview alive till at least 2040 without new funding 
, I'm really worried about this BBC thing... like, what's wrong with just keeping things simple? Freeview has been around for ages and it works just fine. Do we really need to get all fancy with high-speed broadband now? It's just gonna be a bunch of rich people splashing out cash while the poor folks are left in the dark 
.
. Can't we just find a way to make broadcasting work for everyone, not just the wealthy few? 
and it's just gonna push more people towards the dark side... I mean, not literally but u know what I mean 
. They should totes try 2 find other ways 2 make it work instead of passing the buck onto individuals 
.
. Tim Davie is like the only one who gets it 
... preserving universal access 2 broadcasting is like, super important 
.
This decision is all about profits over people and it's just not right! 
this is some nasty business, folks! The BBC's plan to axe Freeview is like they're gonna leave a bunch of ppl in the dark (literally!) and it ain't right 
. We need to make sure everyone's got access to those BBC services, not just the ones who've got deep pockets 
. I mean, think about it, what if everyone had access to high-speed broadband? Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal of any broadcasting corporation? And yet, they're trying to make us pay for just having the option to watch "free-to-air" content... It's like we're being asked to choose between our social safety net and our entertainment options.
Every time I try to post from my phone it just crashes and I lose all my edits 
. I swear if I have to listen to one more person say "use Chrome" I'm gonna lose it 
People are already speculating about how it's going to affect their favorite TV shows 
.
. The elderly and low-income families will be hit hard, and it's just not right 
