system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Competition is usually seen as ideal and friendly towards consumers, why does it seem like there are instances where it hurts consumers?

I'm thinking about streaming services (Netflix, Prime, Disney+, etc).

I'm struggling to put it into words but it seems like back when Netflix had a monopoly over streaming services it was much more friendly to consumers but now with competition it doesn't seem so. Netflix was hailed as the solution for piracy due to it's convenience.  Now as a consumer while you do have more platforms to pick from each platform has less than what Netflix offered when it was a monopoly. 

Doesn't this break the model of perfect competition? In this instance a monopoly is seen as more favourable. Can someone explain this or link a few papers about it?
gpt
The aspect youre missing is that intellectual property / streaming rights create monopolistic practices in their own right. If Netflix was legally allowed to offer any show, then it would likely be just as abundant as before if not more. But it has to pay absurd amounts of money for exclusivity in the real world, and once a contract is made no one else gets it (which is why Disney Plus had no Disney shows when it launched).

Piracy in Video Games is a really good example of where this leads. Video Game exclusivity and platform distribution exclusivity ("buy our stupid Ubisoft Play platform rather than Steam where all your other stuff and better functionality is") leads directly to increased piracy. Its technically more competition to have competitors to Steam, right? But they don't offer a competitive product while using monopolistic powers to make certain games exclusive - thus the frustration and piracy. Ignoring any criminality concerns, when the cost of dealing with the annoying sides of a service outweigh their benefits, people pirate. While you have more low-grade distribution platforms, you have less games or shows you want to consume without paying for them all. This is what happened with cable and what is happening to streaming as all of the cable people make their own streaming platforms. 

Its not a free market, because firms cannot provide substitutes for specific shows. At best they can offer similar shows and hope you like it, which is what Netflix is doing with their guaranteed-exclusives they make themselves. So you're left with two possible directions. You can "deregulate" in a way by reducing streaming rights and exclusivity, or you can increase the regulation:

A common solution is the "natural monopoly," which you've described in your last paragraph. Something like public utilities will often be granted a monopoly because we dont want 200 separate pipes or powerlines being laid and criss-crossed in a town. This is often just one solution, however. Another is strong regulation of a large number of firms. America has a deep regulatory history trying to keep the news and then cable open and fair. You may want to look into some of those big Supreme Court cases if you want to think about where the future of streaming could go given enough political will.