Supply Side

A Four-Decade Media Insider on Why Today's Media Battles Look a Lot Like the Old Ones

By SOS. News Desk | Oct 15, 2025

Major broadcast networks now face what independent channels like Court TV endured for years. They lost leverage because must-carry rules simply don't apply in the world of streaming platforms.

Today’s battle between media giants and streaming platforms is nothing new. For industry veterans, it's the same old story with a new cast of characters. Technology changes, but core arguments over money, power, and access are as old as the media business itself, fueling a conflict that repeats with every new technology.

Glenn Moss* has spent over four decades navigating the media conflict cycle. A business affairs attorney, he currently serves as External General Counsel for Globecast America and an Adjunct Lecturer in Negotiation Strategy at Binghamton University. As a former senior executive at Court TV during the cable wars, he saw this exact fight play out from the other side of the table.

"Every time our affiliation agreement was up at Court TV, we were at the mercy of the cable company," Moss says. "We couldn't credibly threaten to walk away from a bad deal because we simply needed to be carried. An independent channel like ours couldn't exist unless it was on their systems." Today’s streaming wars reverse the roles. Legacy cable channels have lost leverage and are now the underdogs in the struggle for control.

  • The tables turn: During the cable era, broadcast networks used legal rights like must-carry and retransmission consent, forcing cable companies to carry their newer, unproven sister channels. Contractual clauses like most-favored nations (MFN) locked in that power, guaranteeing the best price and stifling competition. Now, the old giants find themselves in the very position they once created for others. "To see an entity like NBC having these issues, there's almost a smile on my face," Moss explains. "Major broadcast networks now face what independent channels like Court TV endured for years. They lost leverage because must-carry rules simply don't apply in the world of streaming platforms."

However, the consumer's voice should always cut through corporate posturing. A service blackout is a fundamental breakdown of the promise to a customer, one Moss sees as a critical professional failure. "It's like when the newspaper isn't delivered in the morning," he stresses. "People don't care that the delivery truck broke down. They just want their newspaper. That expectation for access is real and hasn't changed since the early days of media."

  • The consumer's demand: Public standoffs and ultimatums, asking consumers to advocate for their favorite channel or show on behalf of networks, are ego-fueled emotional displays. They reveal a lack of common sense, Moss outlines. "Consumers don't want to be bothered with these disputes. For them, watching TV gets them through the day. It's important. They think 'If you want my eyeballs for ads or money for subscriptions, focus on delivering.' As a consumer, I'm sitting here at 9 o'clock asking, 'Where's my show?'"

  • Mutual dependence: Watching the industry repeat these mistakes is a kind of madness for Moss. A mutual dependence exists between platforms and providers. Top players must respect this. "Both sides desperately need each other," he states. "However, accepting that reality is difficult for a former power player used to believing they need no one. Executives must emotionally step back and ask what their true interest is. Dropping a channel is an act of ego, not strategy. There is no win. It's an empty PR threat because consumers will simply find your content elsewhere."

If the problem is human, Moss contends the solution cannot be found in a legal document. He rejects "future-proof" clauses, offering a human-centric alternative. "I've written contracts in this business for a long time, and I can tell you, language alone won't save you," he says. "It never does. In the real world, where people, businesses, and markets behave unpredictably, the only thing that truly prevents these conflicts is the human element, the people involved."

  • Relational ROI: A better process and a different philosophy rooted in goodwill are the answers. Ten-year deals have been replaced by 2- or 3-year agreements, accelerating the negotiation cycle. This acceleration elevates relational capital, making it a hard-nosed business strategy extending beyond the negotiating table and into technology itself. "With shorter deal cycles, you'll negotiate with the same people again in a few years," Moss explains. "You must leave goodwill on the table. You cannot scorch the earth in a negotiation because you'll need that relationship when unforeseen issues inevitably arise. A practical solution is to include a clause stipulating that talks begin six months before the deal expires. That way, you air things out and negotiate without the artificial pressure of a deadline."

  • Partners in practice: "Technology itself allows for experimentation in ways never before possible," Moss says. "Use it to try new shows or interactive formats together. There are many creative things these companies could do collaboratively. Whether you call it a partnership or not, that is precisely what it is." This approach requires a willingness to look beyond zero-sum negotiations. It embraces the creative potential of new technologies. By transforming potential battlegrounds into opportunities for mutual growth and experimentation, companies create new value together, rather than just fighting over existing pies.

Ultimately, Moss’ perspective is both historical and forward-looking. He describes a future where new technologies like Starlink or a resurgent satellite industry create new platforms and players, sparking the same cycle again. Challenges, and the human solutions they require, remain the same. "The human element is the most difficult thing to wrangle," Moss states. "It is not subject to an Excel spreadsheet or an AI algorithm. It comes down to human beings using experience, common sense, and intelligence to decide what's truly important. Technology will always change, but if people remain open, flexible, and creative, you can make anything work. That is the key."

*The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Glenn Moss and do not necessarily reflect the views of his current or past employers.

Credit: Outlever

Key Takeaways

  • Today's streaming wars mirror past cable battles, only now it's the former broadcast giants in the role of underdog.

  • Media veteran and general counsel Glenn Moss suggests public disputes often overlook the mutual dependence between platforms and content providers, ultimately frustrating the consumer.

  • He advocates for a solution rooted in a human-centric approach, fostering goodwill, prioritizing relational capital, and refining negotiation processes to cultivate lasting relationships.