No, it's not. Or rather, it's not the good kind of competitive (i.e. doesn't benefit the consumer).

When the producer is also the broadcaster, they no longer have an incentive to license it to a competing broadcaster unless they think it'll earn them more money than remaining the exclusive broadcaster.

With TV, it makes more sense to syndicate after the show has run its course - the "first run" channels would have more new content that would be better suited to the prime-time slots than the stuff they have previously broadcasted. You have a limited number of timeslots to fill, do you really think advertisers will put in their biggest bids if they know they're going to be shown during re-runs? No, it is more profitable to get some new content that'll attract more eyeballs.

But with streaming, it's all VOD (video on demand). It doesn't matter when the content was produced because if you're the only one in town with show X, people have to subscribe to you to get show X (or pirate it, but most people prefer legal means). You don't have the limitation of filling timeslots on a TV channel and getting advertisers to out-bid each other anymore, because advertisers aren't even in the picture (or rather, they're doing product placement in your shows instead of also paying for airtime). Syndication means you are no longer the exclusive source of show X - and if you don't have a large pool of exclusive content, you will not get many customers.

In the past, you were just 1 of 100+ channels in a cable bundle. You needed to give consumers a reason to tune in, and you could only show one thing at a time. Now, you are 1 of (probably) less than 20 streaming services, and you can serve your entire library at the exact same time to anyone across the globe (pending licensing restrictions) - what's your pitch for why anyone should subscribe to you if they can get all your content elsewhere? If others have exclusives and you don't, you're going to lose. And not creating a streaming platform when everyone else has means you're earning less than you could - investors want returns, and they're going to start asking "ok so when do we get a bigger slice of the streaming pie?"

All this to say that we are in a competitive marketplace...just, one that competes on content and nothing else. You don't need to provide a better customer experience if you have something a lot of people want. It's like how YouTube has no incentive to improve because of the network effect relegating their former competitors to niches they have no incentive to pursue.

This marketplace sucks for consumers - if you want to watch Disney content (or any of the non-Disney content they've gobbled up), you have one option. Star Trek? AMC+ or Paramount+. Rinse and repeat for just about every other show.

I remember when people would complain about having to buy a cable bundle for just a handful of channels, especially when you only watched a few shows that weren't in the basic cable package. Then Netflix came around, and at its peak, it had 99% of what my mom and I wanted, and what was left, we were ok with just not watching or waiting until it ended up at the DVD rental store. Now, the shows my mom and I (legally) watch only take a little bit less than what we were paying for cable (and the lone DVD rental place left in town has become a CBD store with a couple shelves of disks gathering dust).