The end of the shared TV experience? Why streaming’s power grab should worry viewers

The recent Warner Bros Discovery acquisition has been largely discussed in terms of financial figures, with competing offers increasing like a precarious stack of gold bars. Currently, Paramount seems to be leading the way over competitors like Netflix, creating a massive business deal worth a staggering $111 billion.

This isn’t just about money; the real prize is ownership of hugely popular shows and movies like Friends and Game of Thrones. It looks like Paramount – which already owns Yellowstone and Star Trek – is about to add characters like Joey Tribbiani and Jaime Lannister to its collection.

If regulators agree, this could dramatically change the TV industry, potentially establishing Paramount as a leading and highly influential media company.

Many TV shows that used to be widely available are now exclusive to different streaming services. In the US, there’s a move to bring all these shows onto one platform, but in the UK, HBO Max will launch later this month as its own separate service.

It’s true – another platform requiring a paid subscription has appeared. We really need a name for this trend – maybe ‘subscription creep,’ ‘streaming fatigue,’ or ‘on-demand overload.’ But how did television, once something everyone could access, become so fragmented and exclusive in the modern era?

People who grew up with only traditional TV remember a time when British television felt unified. Unlike newspapers, which catered to specific political viewpoints, or movies and plays, which required payment, television was something everyone shared. It created a common culture where channels like ITV and the BBC could broadcast a wide range of programs, from popular game shows to serious arts and documentaries, appealing to diverse tastes.

If you want to see how things used to be more equal, think about old TV schedules. There weren’t many channels, but everyone across the country could watch them. That didn’t last, though. One of the first signs that things were changing – that access would no longer be universal – was the launch of Sky, a satellite TV service, in 1989.

Viewers encountered something new: having to pay to access content. This quickly created a divide, with some people able to watch shows like The Simpsons and live soccer games, while others couldn’t.

We were told Sky would give us more options, but it actually marked the beginning of having to pay for television. Looking at shows like Friends, you can clearly see how television started being offered in different price levels, or tiers.

The American sitcom first aired on Channel 4 in the UK in 1994. Seeing how popular it was, Sky later obtained the rights to show new episodes in 1996, similar to how they’d previously acquired successful shows like ER, Lost, and 24 from other channels.

By 2026, Friends is once again being used to attract subscribers. After leaving Netflix in the UK in December 2025, it’s now being highlighted as a major attraction on HBO Max.

Once a shared cultural experience for everyone, the show Friends now feels like something people debate and discuss only within small, exclusive groups. Considering what’s happened to it, it seems television hasn’t really progressed so much as become more divided and exclusive.

We often don’t realize how much content is available now because there’s simply so much of it. The subscription-based system that Sky pioneered with satellite TV in the late 1980s is now standard for services delivered through wi-fi instead.

It often feels like there are so many streaming services – Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Disney+ and more – that it’s hard to keep up. What used to require just a TV license now means paying for several monthly subscriptions, quickly adding up the costs.

The feeling of having endless choices is an illusion. Most people can’t actually afford everything available, so we’re forced to choose what fits our budget. Watching television now means picking a service and paying for it, which means missing out on everything else.

It seems strange that despite having so many more places to find content now, fewer and fewer companies actually control most of it. While audiences are spreading out, ownership is becoming concentrated. Since we can’t possibly consume everything available, it’s important to consider who decides what we can see.

What’s happening with Warner Bros Discovery highlights a growing problem: a few powerful companies are gaining too much control. There’s concern that when media ownership becomes concentrated, companies become less willing to take creative risks, particularly in the US, where they’re hesitant to challenge or criticize those in power.

Look, as a movie critic, I’m already raising an eyebrow at what’s happening with Paramount’s David Ellison and his connections in Washington. It feels…cozy. And it doesn’t stop there. Jeff Bezos, of all people, dropped a cool million on the presidential inauguration back in 2025, and what happened next? Prime Video conveniently released a glowing documentary about the First Lady the following year. It all just feels a little too neat, doesn’t it? It makes you wonder what kind of influence is at play behind the scenes.

It’s ironic for people in the UK that while we’re paying more to use these platforms owned by American companies, the shows we watch are increasingly influenced by US standards and concerns, rather than British regulations.

Television used to showcase a wide variety of stories and perspectives, but now many shows seem focused on American politics. This could lead to less diverse content, as streaming services may avoid controversial topics to keep viewers happy. Ultimately, we might end up paying more for entertainment that’s afraid to take chances.

Recently, several streaming shows have tackled difficult social issues. For example, ‘Adolescence’ on Netflix powerfully portrays emotional pain, and ‘Suspect: the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes’ on Disney+ sparked debate with its controversial subject matter.

I’ve noticed something worrying lately. When politicians start criticizing or even demonizing artists and creators, it immediately makes big companies nervous about their stock prices. It used to be that TV networks could take a risk and absorb any fallout, but now, any controversy can quickly spread and really hurt the markets. It feels like things are much more sensitive these days.

Looking back, Sky’s launch in 1989 now seems like the first step towards today’s world of endless streaming options and the decline of watching television together as a family or community.

The days of everyone talking about the same TV shows are fading, and there are fewer big national viewing events. Shows that used to bring us together now cater to smaller, specific audiences. We’ve moved from watching TV as a family in the living room to watching on individual laptops, and the traditional TV license is now just one of many ways to pay for content.

However, the most significant consequence of all this might not be financial. Instead, we could lose those shared experiences and memories – like everyone discussing the latest episode of Line of Duty, or the collective surprise when Ross and Rachel finally kissed on Friends.

When fewer people own things, prices go up and everything becomes about profit. What used to be a shared public discussion is now focused on selling to very specific groups. Instead of a common culture, we’re seeing it broken down and sold back to us in small parts.

Authors

David BrownDeputy Previews Editor, TopMob

David Brown is a Deputy Previews Editor at TopMob, focusing on crime and fantasy TV shows. He’s been featured as a commentator on BBC News, Sky News, and Radio 4’s Front Row, and his writing has appeared in publications like the Guardian, the Sunday Times, and the i newspaper. Beyond journalism, he’s contributed as a writer and editor to the National Television Awards and worked on documentaries about prominent figures such as Lenny Henry, Billy Connolly, and the band Take That.

Read More

2026-03-04 20:11