The Green Paper Bill & The Truth About Streaming

[AndrewSmith20.07]

•  

Has anybody on this forum heard of the Green Paper Bill? This is a bill that is set to go through parliament sometime this month (Jun 2026 for archive readers) or early July. This the the bill that sets the wheel in motion for all TV to become streaming only, which I think is a pathetic idea. I very much detest streaming and for very good reasons. You could say it's a bit of a conspiracy what's going on at the moment with regards to streaming. For start, have you noticed that when any streaming service or station streaming is always mentioned in a very positive way, like it's the next big advance in TV broadcasting?

Let me tell you now that it isn't. It's a 3rd rate service which is about 75% inferior to network broadcasting, whether it be via satellite or terrestrial TV. The main aim is to make multi-million pound businesses ever richer. Basically pure greed. First of all they know they can do what they running a streaming service. They are not governed or overseen by a independent regulator such as Ofcom in the UK. On another forum recently a particular person was disgusted when Ofcom advised the main popular streaming services that a least 10% of their output should have an audio commentary for at least 10 of programmes/films on one day. I didn't know but this is a lot less that Network TV Stations now. For example Sky Q have the Uk governing body Ofcom overseeing then to make sure they stick to certain rules set by them or maybe initially by the British government.

Another one of Ofcom's rules is that the picture must be up to a particular quality/standard. Network TV absolutely no way would be allowed to broadcast as few Mbps as streaming services do or I doubt changing the resolution of mainly SD shows from their official resolution which all network broadcasters broadcast SD programmes in which is 720x576i (interlaced). DVDs also use this official SD resolution. I downloaded a show recently titled "May To December" (1989 - 1994). Series 1 & 2 had been released on DVD although I wanted Series 3, 4, 5, & 6, so I downloaded them from ITV Premium (not ITVX). ITV Premium you access through Prime Video as one of their add-on channels which costs extra, even though you've already subsribed to Prime Video first. If you're aware how it works you can set the picture quality on there. I always have it set to the maximum which is "Best".

First of all the picture was absolutely awful. It was juddering all the way through which is basically the opposite to being smooth and clear with good resolution... like how it would've looked on first broadcast on BBC One back in the early 1990s, provided you had a decent reception, which anyone can have if they put their mind to it. We always had a 100% analogue signal quality at two separate addresses when I was growing up.

Anyway back to Prime Video. The first time I downloaded the stream there was a weird noise on the soundtrack. I just knew it was a noise that shouldn't have been there. Luckily it was free to download as I had paid for ITV Premium, although some of their films they had on ITV Premium you did have to pay even more for. You can see where this is going. I download the stream again and this time the noise on the soundtrack was gone, although the awful juddering, unsharp pathetic picture was still just as bad. I had tried it at a different time of day as broadband data can fluctuate, a common complaint regarding streaming but more if it's HD or UHD. I decided to check the resolution thinking that using the awful 1.5Mbps or so was the only problem. I noticed the resolution had been lowered as well to a resolution that I didn't recognise was used for any TV resolution around the world. It was something like 580×525 or something very simiar to that. They were both 500 and something and that I believe is what it was or very close to. That's a reduction for both horizontal lines and vertical lines. How pathetic! Either they show it properly on something like ITV3 or don't show it at all. When streaming companies are running their service they don't have to account what the viewer wants or the viewer deserves, they can have the view of "s*d the customer. It's a picture isn't it?"

If it had been repeated on ITV3 via Sky Q or any other network TV service they couldn't of had this attitude. The resolution would've been 720x576i and it would've been around 6-7Mbps, not around 1.5Mbps. They would be allowed to upscale it to 1920x1080i if it was a 24 hour HD channel.

Also 4K via streaming is nothing like a 4K Ultra blu-ray discs. What they put out for 4K is totally innapropriate. The highest quality streaming 4K I've come across is 25-30 maximum. Very rarely is it 30 though. Plus streaming companies like Prime Video themselves are absoute con artists. They put on a film and advertise it as being 4K UHD but in reality they've taken a copy of the previous Blu-ray master, do what they need to do to it (and tonnes of compression) so they can keep it at 25mbps or near enough, upscale it to UHD and upload it whilst adding the information that it's 4K UHD and no mention of it being upscaled to 4K from standard HD blu-ray quality. The James Bond films that are supposed to be 4K they said had a file upgrade recently. Whether they are now using the new genuine 4K masters now... I don't know, but they will be nothing like the discs when they come out even if it is the same master used for both, but the streaming editions will be pretty boring compared to the discs, not just because of the inferior picture quality. Currently no streaming can carry lossless audio which is standard on both Blu-ray and 4K Ultra blu-ray and is the main track. Lossless means it's been compressed by a format that doesn't remove any information at all from the original uncompressed format. MP3 or AAC is lossy audio which if you've used a decent amount if compression like 256kbps it still sounds pretty good. In music lossless formats would be like FLAC or uncompressed PCM. Lossless audio will be formats like DTS-HD, DolbyTrueHD and Dolby Atmos. Streaming services include Dolby Atmos on films mainly but is a heavily compressed version of it. I've heard that the difference between the two is quite noticable. I don't actually know what network TV use, but it won't be heavily compressed as streaming. Sky will be using Dolby Digital Plus for both 5.1 and 2.0 audio.

This format is similar to most DVDs. The picture is very good for SD but the audio format is Dolby Digital 5.1 and 2.0. Maybe Plus is better but I can't see it being much different. You may think that DVDs sound fine, although have ever watched a music concert on DVD either in stereo or surround sound 5.1. That's when it shows itself up. In around 2004 I had a Quo concert from 1989 that I had for around 6 years or sound. I used to love playing it as the Hi-Fi Stereo analogue audio sounded so natural and great. In 2004 or thereabouts if decided to transfer it to DVD purly for convenience. The only option I had was Dolby Digital 5.1 & 2.0. Obvoiusly I tranferred to audio using 2.0 as the original source was stereo. I played it and instantly the DVD had sucked the life out of it (the audio only). That fabulous open natural sounding stereo had gone. Some PC programs now let you use uncompressed PCM audio even on a standard DVD, but as this took a lot more memory the time available the disc had with Dolby Digital was around just under half the time so it wouldn't fit all onto the disc.

 My main point is, this is what its going to be like with this Dolby Digital Plus. If a station like Sky Arts shows for example, a classic Queen concert that was captured on film and therefore had been re-scanned to HD, not only will the picture be poorer and blurrier on fast moving scenes the audio with be almost the same as what I heard transferring that VHS to DVD. On Sky Q (if it's still on) the audio will be ten times better. I've watched and recorded a lot of concerts off Sky Arts or rather Sky Arts HD. The audio may not be lossless PCM but it will sound far closer to a Hi-Fi Stereo VHS than what the Sky Glass audio will sound like. I very much doubt the improvement with Dolby Digital Plus will be a tonne better the Dolby Digital. I dare say all streaming services won't deliver the sound that network TV provides and it will sound the best on blu-ray & 4K Ultra blu-ray and maybe a network TV station depending on what audio format they use. Not all channels use the same format, but as for Sky it sounds like there streaming service will use Dolby Digital Plus as their universal sound format, even if it isn't a Sky channel.

Like I said at the beginning streaming is all about media companies that are already absolutely loaded can make ever more tonnes of money that before with Network TV. Don't believe the hype that advertises say, or sound like they're saying that streaming is fantastic and the best thing that has happened in the world of television and viewing in general. To get all you favourite channels you are going to end up pay three subscriptions a month or easily even more, especially if you have children that like particular programmes that are on a subcription service you wouldn't usually pay for, and they are not cheap. The highest one I've ever seen was around £22.00 although I forget which one although I believe it was an American one just like Disney, Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video, a lot of add-ons from Amazon Prime Video, Acorn TV, Sky obviously. I'm not saying you'll end up paying for everyone of these but It's bound to be at least 3 or 4 subcriptions especially if you the kind of person who watches TV a lot (like myself). You will end up paying more than that you did before for an inferior service or services. Streaming can't give you great sound, they won't give you any extras if you purchase a film for good. Don't be prepared to expect the extras the physical media will give you as well as an inferior over-compressed picture, there will be now extras like "behind the scenes", an interview with the star(s) of the film taken from a chat show, no audio commentries by the stars of the film or the director (often both on physical media) or any other extras you can think of. The only thing a film that's been streamed or is streaming will give you is probably subtitles. That will become pretty boring after a while. This is why as of 2026 physical media sales (even including DVDs) has risen quite a lot, mainly by the younger generations, but I dare say older people as well, it's just been the younger generation the most. It's because they've discovered streaming and have become very bored watching or purchasing movies via a steaming service. They want the artwork, the extras that come with it which are usually printed on the back cover. If you watch your favourite movies via actual streaming like most people (not downloading the stream) you're also vulnerable to drop-outs through whatever your watching usually due to your broadband. This can happen at certain times, especially a time of day when most people come home from work and switch there PC on or maybe starting to stream TV themselves, then after watching it a few times the download service your watching takes you one of your favourite movies off the streaming service, either due to copyright reasons or they want to cut down slightly on the amount of entertaiment they offer just to save money, even though they already have money coming out of their ears.

Did you know that Sky Q actually broadcast about 3 or 4 4K channels via satellite which is just as easy to do as broadcast anything else. As it's classed as network TV they use roughly 40-45Mbps. This may not be 4K Ultra blu-ray quality but is ample to not get that streaming look on the picture. Remember that on average the maximum a streaming service uses for 4K is 20-25Mbps. Basically it is satisfactory for views and it won't look like it's being streamed. This way of broadcasting 4K via satellite is big on mainland Europe, especially Germany as their satellite service is run together by 2 of Germany's main TV channels that have been broadcasting for years. One of them is definetely ZDF and I'm sure that the other one is ARD. This service also covers Austria and is also for the German speaking parts of Switzerland which is the largest language area.

It's not just Germany. Spain have a terrestrial 4K service which is obviously HD and maybe SD as well which you recieve via a standard TV area. There are other countries in Europe where network TV have started to broadcast 4K, usually broadcasting their own programmes that have been recorded in 4K. They may show movies as well but they are almost all dubbed into that countries' main language. If any Scandanavien countries have started 4K stations via network TV they are more likely to show movies in English with subtitles in the local language.

Unless you subscribe to them you probably didn't even know that a few 4K channels were being broadcast by Sky via satellite. They are exclusively Sports channels which maybe just be 4K simulcast of some already established Sport channels that are already in HD and these channels are the same channel in 4K. I really don't know. Have you noticed that Sky hardly ever advertise UHD channels on Sky except for the ones available via Sky Glass or Sky Air. They don't advertise the fact that they are satellite 4K channels and therefore better than the 4K streaming version. This is because they don't want to advertise them because they know that in 2029 which is the year Sky Q is supposed to stop broadcasting, viewers who do watch them are going to expect a really good picture like they are at the moment when they are forced to go to Sky Air or Sky Glass or whatever. The fact is they are going to notice a comedown in picture and maybe sound quality as well which will leave them quite confused as they will still be 4K channels just via streaming instead. Everybody sees 4K as the next big thing in the world of TV broadcasting which it is, but only if it's broadcast properly. When streaming there's a good chance that they will notice no difference between HD and UHD. This will depend on how many Mbps they use for the 4K streaming, and how much less they will use for the HD service as it will definetely be lower for both. I believe that one of these channels that are being currently broadcast via satellite is 1 or 2 movies channels so I believe I read. It will be an identical situation with them as well.

That is enough for tonight as it's late but I still have some information on how Sky Q and other Network TV services such as Freesat and Freeview could cut  broadcasting costs via satellite and terrestrial broadcasting by around 45% than it is currently.

Not that Sky need to cut there costs and it won't still be as cheap as streaming but should be around 45% cheaper which is obviously alot, but with streaming services they don't want to do something that cuts there costs by even 45% if they had stayed as ordinary TV broadcasters. The streaming services want the cheapest. So if streaming saves Sky for example 75% or 80% rather that 45% and remaining as network broadcasters they would still choose streaming anyday... full stop! This is because the saving is even more. All this and not thinking about the thoughts of their customers about this idea... the people who keep there business going, and there's a lot more people out there with the same views as me... believe me. 

I'll also tell you tomorrow who is one of the biggest culprits for all of this. Feel free to reply in the meantime and I will answer as many questions as I can. When the Green Paper bill has gone through parliament the public will have 12 weeks to oppose it which will be on the government website. When it's gone through i'll provide a link if anyone wants to oppose the bill or express bad parts about it. This is what happens when all bills go through parliament regardless of the subject. I dare say with particular bills in the past members of the public have commented on how good such an idea it is as well. Streaming is a good idea because... ?

I'll also mention about people who think streaming is a good idea as you can watch TV on the go, like on a train, or even a plane or maybe just during their lunch hour at work.

Goodnight or rather Good Morning  😉