By Alex Jacquez
Either Netflix or Paramount buying Warner Bros. Discovery would be an unhappy ending for streaming customers
Consumers deserve fair prices and more choice, as well as not needing multiple apps just to watch their favorite shows.
Netflix (NFLX) stunned the media world on Dec. 5 by making a deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for $83 billion. Iconic Warner Bros. brands, shows and characters - HBO, &#34;Game of Thrones,&#34; Batman and Harry Potter, to name a few - could soon be controlled by the world's largest streaming platform.
Days later, Paramount Skydance (PSKY) went directly to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders with a sweetened $108 billion takeover bid.
The war for Warner Bros. Discovery is the latest salvo in the arms race for streaming content and customers, following Walt Disney's (DIS) $71 billion acquisition of 21st Century Fox in 2019. The experience has become a fragmented, frustrating maze of platforms and price hikes. The average consumer has 4.6 streaming-service subscriptions. Monthly streaming costs have climbed to $69, up 13% from last year, on top of internet bills.
Streaming companies are poised to fully replicate the predatory practices of the Hollywood studios, broadcast networks and cable monopolies that came before them. Policymakers should learn the lessons of the past and take action to protect consumer choice by blocking the Netflix acquisition and breaking up &#34;Big Streaming.&#34;
We don't have to look far to see how giant media conglomerates can weaponize their content and platforms. Just last month, Disney blacked out Monday Night Football for YouTube TV subscribers over a fee dispute that lasted weeks, while urging consumers to switch to its own streaming platform, ESPN+.
The conglomerates lure subscribers with low introductory prices, only to jack them up once a customer is inside their walled gardens. The platforms, led by Netflix, have been hiking prices relentlessly. Netflix has increased its ad-free price from $7.99 to $17.99 per month over 13 years. An ad-free monthly subscription to Disney+ runs $18.99, up 172% from the $6.99 upon introduction in 2019.
The practices of online streaming platforms have consumers yearning to bring back the cable bundle.
Cutting the cord promised choice and freedom from the rigid and monopolistic cable conglomerates that cross-subsidized hundreds of channels across subscribers with exotic fees and customer lock-in. But today, the practices of online streaming platforms have consumers yearning to bring back the cable bundle.
The streaming era isn't unique in American entertainment history. Putting too much control over what we watch in too few hands has been a perennial concern since talkies replaced silent films. Policymakers have faced and conquered this exact problem in Hollywood and on broadcast television - and they can bring the same solutions to the digital age to tame the power of the streaming conglomerates.
In the 1930s, the major Hollywood studios owned the production, distribution and exhibition of films, prioritizing their own content at studio-owned theaters at the expense of competitors and moviegoers. The government sued, forcing permanent separation of production and exhibition - allowing content and independent theaters to thrive under what is known, as it happens, as the Paramount Decrees.
Later, as broadcast television grew, the three major networks - ABC, CBS and NBC - reached every household in the country, financing their own shows and giving them primetime placement. The government adopted &#34;financial interest and syndication,&#34; or &#34;fin-syn,&#34; rules in the 1970s, preventing broadcasters from syndicating their own content and owning perpetual financial interest in their shows. Until their repeal, these rules allowed the flourishing of independent production houses and the rise of cable television.
The streaming conglomerates are no different from the Hollywood studios or broadcast networks that came before them - and Netflix, Disney, Paramount and Amazon.com (AMZN) can be handled in the same way.
Big Streaming should be forced to divest production or exhibition assets, preventing full vertical integration. Once independent, streaming platforms should enjoy the same compulsory licensing requirements as cable operators, which would allow them to license content from any provider for a fair fee, eliminating the proliferation of bespoke streaming apps that aim to lock their own content behind their own walls.
Platforms would compete on price and user experience, rather than a moat of content. Independent producers and studios could compete with the giants. That means fair prices and more choice for consumers, as well as eliminating the need for half a dozen apps just to watch their favorite shows.
Ultimately, the courts will decide the fate of this merger. The Justice Department should sue to block the merger, and state attorneys general should file suit as well, while Congress legislates separation between the production and exhibition of film and television.
The conglomerates will decry government overreach and point to their investments in content and job creation. But it's clear that the days of loss-leading streaming prices and huge paydays for talent are over. As subscriber growth slows, Big Streaming is buckling down on revenue maximization and pulling back on its free-spending ways. We only have to look to the past to see how prudent regulation boosts quality: The Paramount Decrees, for example, led to an explosion of independent filmmaking.
Blocking Warner Bros. Discovery from being acquired by either Netflix or Paramount and re-establishing vigorous competition throughout the industry will bring prices down for consumers, give viewers more choices and keep movie theaters alive.
Alex Jacquez is chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a nonprofit advocacy group. He is a former special assistant to the president for economic development and industrial strategy at the White House National Economic Council.
More: Is Netflix's massive $83 billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal actually a sign of weakness?
Also read: Paramount's hostile $108 billion bid for Warner Bros. is backed by Donald Trump's son-in-law
-Alex Jacquez
This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones &amp; Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
12-13-25 1443ET

NFLX

<p>The article argues against Netflix's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, highlighting concerns over rising streaming costs and reduced consumer choice. It calls for government intervention to prevent monopolistic practices by streaming giants, suggesting divestment of production or exhibition assets and compulsory licensing requirements. The piece draws parallels with historical media regulation, advocating for similar measures to ensure fair prices and more choice for consumers.</p>

- The article discusses the potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by either Netflix or Paramount, highlighting concerns over consumer choice and rising streaming costs.  
- It argues that such mergers could replicate past monopolistic practices in media, urging policymakers to block the deals and promote competition.  
- The author calls for regulatory measures similar to historical precedents to ensure fair pricing and greater access to content for consumers.

Block the Warner Bros. sale, break up 'Big Streaming' - and give us lower prices