This seems like a race to failure, this nickel and diming. Each content producer will have a min amount per month that they will accept. A consumer only has a

This seems like a race to failure, this nickel and diming. Each content producer will have a min amount per month that they will accept. A consumer only has a certain amount of disposable income. The horizon hurts both sides: consumers will get less content, and no provider will get enough subs to make it work. The demand for content was met legally through the rise of Netflix and other streamers with large catalogs; consumers could pay one provider one price to get access to entire catalogs across creators. Once this becomes so costly as each creator has their own minimum cost (HBO + Disney + Netflix + CBS + AMC et nauseum), users will pick only a small number of services, and users will start to go back to piracy in droves. The services will collapse due to lack of subscribers, but instead of going back to releasing the content back to the original services, they will instead sit on it... they won't get the original pricing from, say, Netflix or Hulu because they showed that the alternative, going alone, didn't work: no negotiating power, so they will simply sit on it, like the retail store locations left vacant for years until someone ponies up the expected rent. This helps no one: the consumer won't pay, the services won't last, and the content gets shelved. What might work: allowing rapid switching with credits that let one binge on different services for different time periods; allow aggregators to buy mass credits/subs and resell "group subs" that allow discounts to multiple services. Otherwise, I think this will be a mess. When I start paying more than I did for cable to get the same access, that will be a problem.