Technology was supposed to bring costs down but it doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job of it.
I just found out about another price rise for Kayo’s streaming services with its premium plan increasing from $40 to $45 a month.
It’s not the only one though. Last August, Netflix hiked prices for all its plans, with the basic ad-free plan increasing from $18.99 to $20.99 a month. In September, Disney raised the subscription price for the Disney+ ad-free plan from $15.99 to $18.99 a month. And in October, Apple TV+ monthly plan increased from $12.99 to $15.99 a month.
The streamers have relentlessly raised prices since launching in Australia. The Netflix basic ad-free plan cost $8.99 a month when first launched in 2015. That means the price of the plan has risen 133% over 11 years at a compound annual growth rate of 8%.
The increases are gathering pace too, as Netflix subscribers have seen two price hikes over the past 21 months, with the basic ad-free plan up 26% over that time.
So, how are they getting away with it?
Back in the (good?) old days
I remember it being vastly different to when I grew up in the 1980s and early 90s. Back then, we had free-to-air television and that was it. The TV then had more local content, less from overseas, an abundance of ads, and wasn’t very good. You had to watch shows at fixed times, unlike most of the time today when you can watch them when you want – though that’s changing too.
The TVs cost between $500 to a bit north of $1,000, which was quite a lot of money then. But while the TV sets weren’t cheap, the content was.
Today, it’s very different. We have an abundance of choices. More shows, more from overseas, ad-free if we pay up, and the convenience of all of it being on the one device (or a few devices if you wish).
It’s the content that’s much more expensive. Including the cost of Wi-fi, I am paying more than $2,000 a year for my streaming services – which is a lot of money.
From one oligopoly to another
When I grew up, the major TV networks – Nine, Seven, and Ten – made a mint off all the ads they showed. They had an oligopoly over TV services and made the most of it. That was around the peak for these operators.
Today, streaming is also dominated by a few companies, though they’re primarily tech giants based in the US. They have immense power like Nine, Seven, and Ten once did.
We seem to have swapped one oligopoly for another. Where TV networks used to rake it in based solely on ads, the streamers use a mix of ads and subscriptions to make their revenue.
Wasn’t technology supposed to reduce prices?
Improving technology was supposed to drive down prices, but that doesn’t seem to have happened with television.
The streaming companies will tell you that the content they provide doesn’t come cheap. Costs for sports have skyrocketed, and those for movies and TV series budgets have also ballooned.
Yet, these cost increases don’t fully explain the price hikes for streaming services. The power of the streamers is a significant factor too.
It’s not just streaming
It’s not just streaming where costs are going up. It seems to be happening with technology across the board, both for individuals and businesses.
Just ask Microsoft users about costs for Office and storage products of late. In early 2025, the cost for a 365 personal plan went from $109 to $159 a year. The company is planning to increase 365 prices for business and government users mid this year, citing improved AI capabilities.
You’re going to hear more about AI-related price increases from the tech giants because they need to recoup the hundreds of billions of dollars that they’re pouring into the new technology.
Competition is the answer
Back in the 80s, the TV networks had an entrenched oligopoly and ruthlessly protected it. Today, the tech giants have a stranglehold on the industry and pay billions to governments (“donations”) to take out competitors to make sure it stays that way.
It makes Netflix’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros Discover a fascinating test case. A takeover would undoubtedly increase the power of Netflix and reduce competition in streaming services. But the US has been weak in preventing monopolies/oligopolies in the tech industry in the past, and Trump himself has plenty of conflicts of interest, with his own media platforms and personal relationships with some of the main players.
If the takeover is successful, it will further consolidate the streaming industry and lead to higher prices for services in the long term.
****
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's speech in Davos caused quite a stir, arguing the longstanding rules-based international order has effectively ended and that middle powers like Canada must band together and pursue strategic autonomy rather than relying on old assumptions about global stability. In my piece this week, I suggest that Carney is onto something and the speech helps explain recent geopolitical events and some of the wild swings in markets, especially in currencies and commodities. I also contend that the regime shift will have significant implications for markets and portfolios over the long-term.
Meanwhile, Ben Walsh believes Carney's speech means much higher defence spending is needed by "middle powers" including Australia. With our budget deficit, more spending on defence likely means less spending on other things, including housing subsidies. He thinks housing reform is now becoming a strategic necessity rather than political suicide.
James Gruber
Also in this week's edition...
Clime's Steve Lambeth says the ASX’s traditional yield advantage has flipped, with dividend yields now sitting below risk-free government bond yields despite little to no dividend growth, creating an 'upside-down' market where equities no longer compensate investors for their higher risk. In this environment, he thinks investors need to be more selective about finding income stocks.
Commodities are flying and the big question is: is it too late to buy in, or are there still opportunities? Airlie's Emma Fisher gives an overview of the sector and where she's finding value on the ASX.
Meanwhile, gold’s surge into 2026 has prompted fears of having “missed out”, but John Reade says that misunderstands why gold has been rising and the role it plays in portfolios. He suggests its strength reflects deeper, structural shifts in inflation, policy and diversification - making gold less a trade and more a strategic anchor for portfolio resilience.
Did you know that South Korea's market went up 75% in US dollar terms last year? Or that Asia more broadly easily outperformed the US in 2025? Fidelity International's Matthew Quaife and Peiqian Liu believe it's no fluke and the outlook for Asia remains bright.
New research shows that after strong bull runs, markets need near-perfect conditions to keep delivering outsized returns - and history says that almost never happens. Larry Swedroe explains why today’s exuberance may be setting investors up for a decade of disappointment.
Lastly, in this week's whitepaper, MFS highlights key themes and growth opportunities for investors to consider in 2026.
Curated by James Gruber and Leisa Bell
Latest updates
PDF version of Firstlinks Newsletter
ASX Listed Bond and Hybrid rate sheet from NAB/nabtrade
Monthly Bond and Hybrid updates from ASX
Listed Investment Company (LIC) Indicative NTA Report from Bell Potter
LIC Monthly Report from Morningstar
Plus updates and announcements on the Sponsor Noticeboard on our website