For years, it felt like we were enjoying a revolution in the entertainment industry. The meteoric rise of streaming services and the decline of old media empires that followed was celebrated for providing consumers with cheaper, higher-quality content while giving them what they have wanted for decades: the ability to pick and choose their own programming.
Entire generations cut cable, if they even had cable to cut, and lived in a comparative paradise of not having to worry about paying hundreds of dollars for thousands of useless channels just so that they could get that one premium channel they actually wanted. Bloated cable companies that gleefully held us hostage with one-size-fits-all bundles stuffed with channels no one actually watched? They were on the down-and-out as we were sold choice.
For a while, it worked. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and other new entrants to the entertainment world carved out their own space, producing unique content for a fraction of the price. But revolutions have a habit of becoming the very thing they were designed to destroy. First, the cable giants created their own streaming services, with Paramount+, HBO Max, and Peacock dipping their toes in the world of their competitors.
At least in that world, we still had choice through variety and competition. But Netflix’s recent acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery — home of HBO Max, DC Studios, and more — for tens of billions of dollars may mean we’re watching the quiet implosion of streaming’s great promise. Paramount Skydance, which is still interested in Warner Bros. as well, launched a hostile bid for the company on Monday.
I’m not losing sleep over the boogeyman of “tech monopolies” because most of the time, so-called tech monopolies are a win for the consumer. Sure, Amazon is a monopoly in many ways, but as long as it remains the cheapest and most convenient online marketplace, I couldn’t care less. But if Netflix becomes its own monopoly, what’s to stop it from becoming a shiny modern version of the cable companies it destroyed?
The whole point of independent streaming platforms was that they represented a break from the monolithic cable networks. They were disrupters. Outsiders. Companies that forced the entertainment world to compete. When HBO competed with Netflix, the pressure to produce better shows increased. When Paramount had to fight for subscribers, we got more innovation, more risk-taking, and more focus on the viewer.
But if Netflix gobbles up Warner Bros., or if Paramount becomes the next whale to swallow another media library, the equation changes entirely. Suddenly, we’re right back to where we started: a single megaprovider with a near-total grip on the content people actually want to watch, and that is therefore able to set prices in the very same way as the cable monsters it supposedly replaced.
TRUMP SAYS NETFLIX-WARNER BROS. MERGER ‘COULD BE A PROBLEM’
In this world, what exactly is the incentive to keep subscription prices manageable? What is the motivation to produce the highest-quality shows and movies possible? Why would any company resist bundling content together into giant, mandatory packages?
We will pay more for the privilege of watching less. This isn’t innovation. It’s consolidation disguised as convenience. If that’s the future, then we didn’t cut the cord. We just plugged it back in somewhere else.
Ian Haworth is a syndicated columnist. Follow him on X (@ighaworth) or Substack.
