Fubo's NBCU Blackout: A Fight for the Future of Streaming

NEW YORK, NY – November 25, 2025 – Last week, approximately 1.6 million FuboTV subscribers saw their screens go dark on a slate of popular channels just ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday. On November 21, NBCUniversal pulled its entire portfolio of networks from the live TV streaming service following the collapse of high-stakes carriage negotiations. The blackout, which affects local NBC and Telemundo stations, key regional sports networks, and major cable channels like USA, Bravo, and MSNBC, marks the latest and one of the most significant battles in the ongoing war for control over the future of television.

In a public statement, FuboTV framed the dispute as a stand against anti-consumer practices, stating it refused to accept NBCU’s demands which “would hurt Fubo consumers.” In response, an NBCUniversal spokesperson characterized its proposal as offering the “same terms agreed to by hundreds of other distributors,” suggesting FuboTV was the outlier. This public disagreement lays bare the deep-seated tensions between content creators and distributors over bundling, pricing, and the strategic direction of the entire streaming ecosystem.

The Anatomy of a Blackout

The immediate impact on consumers was sharp and ill-timed. Subscribers hoping to watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade or key NFL and Premier League soccer games on NBC-owned channels were left scrambling for alternatives. The list of lost channels is extensive, including not only broadcast and sports programming but also entertainment mainstays like Syfy, E!, and Oxygen True Crime. In an attempt to mitigate customer backlash, Fubo announced it would issue a $15 credit to affected accounts if the dispute continues into December.

FuboTV accuses NBCUniversal of leveraging its must-have content to force a deal that undermines Fubo’s business model. According to Fubo, the core of the disagreement lies in NBCU’s insistence on bundling expensive, non-sports channels into its offerings. This directly conflicts with Fubo’s strategy to provide a cost-effective, sports-focused “skinny bundle” designed to appeal to viewers tired of bloated and expensive traditional cable packages.

NBCUniversal, for its part, contends that it is seeking fair market value for its programming and has painted Fubo as a difficult partner, noting the streamer has “dropped numerous networks in recent years.” This positions the conflict not as an exceptional case, but as part of a pattern where Fubo resists industry-standard terms, leaving its customers to bear the consequences of lost content.

Bundling Battles and the 'Versant' Complication

A significant and complex element in the negotiations is NBCUniversal’s impending corporate restructuring. Parent company Comcast is set to spin off most of its domestic cable networks—including USA Network, CNBC, SYFY, and Golf Channel—into a new, publicly traded company called Versant, a move expected to be finalized by early 2026. This strategic uncoupling will allow Comcast to focus on its high-growth assets like the Peacock streaming service and Universal theme parks, while Versant operates the more traditional (and slower-growing) cable brands.

According to Fubo, NBCU is demanding a multi-year carriage deal for these Versant-bound channels that extends “well past the time the Versant channels will be owned by a separate company.” Fubo claims it offered to carry the channels for one year but balked at a long-term commitment, arguing it would force its subscribers to subsidize networks that are being spun off precisely because they are part of a legacy ecosystem. Fubo’s statement explicitly accuses NBCU of wanting its subscribers to “subsidize these channels,” a charge that gets to the heart of the economic struggle between old media models and new streaming realities.

The creation of Versant is a clear signal that media giants are separating their assets for a new era. By forcing a long-term deal now, NBCU could be attempting to secure a stable revenue stream for Versant before it stands on its own, effectively locking distributors into supporting the legacy business while NBCU pivots toward its direct-to-consumer future.

The Peacock Problem and a Question of Parity

Perhaps the most pointed accusation from Fubo is that of “discriminatory tactics” related to NBCU’s Peacock streaming service. Fubo’s stated goal is to integrate Peacock directly into its own platform, allowing subscribers to access all their content in one place and pay on a single bill—a seamless experience that enhances user retention.

Fubo alleges that while NBCU refused to grant it these integration rights, it has already provided them to direct competitors. Research confirms this claim. In recent months, NBCUniversal has struck deals with both YouTube TV and Amazon Prime Video to offer Peacock as a premium add-on directly within their platforms. These partnerships give Peacock access to massive user bases while providing a more convenient experience for customers of those services.

By denying Fubo the same terms, NBCU maintains a strategic advantage. It can leverage its popular broadcast and cable content to pressure Fubo in carriage negotiations while simultaneously limiting Fubo’s ability to present itself as an all-in-one content aggregator. This two-pronged approach highlights a fundamental conflict in the streaming wars: content owners who also operate their own direct-to-consumer services are incentivized to make life difficult for third-party distributors. The dispute is no longer just about channel fees; it’s about who owns the customer relationship and controls the gateway to content.

This standoff is more than a simple contract squabble; it is a microcosm of the industry’s turbulent transition. For years, the promise of streaming was consumer choice and freedom from the bloated, one-size-fits-all cable bundle. Yet as media conglomerates consolidate power and prioritize their own streaming platforms, distributors like Fubo find themselves fighting to preserve the very “skinny bundle” vision they were built on. As these titans clash, the promise of a flexible, consumer-friendly streaming future hangs in the balance, with subscriber wallets and viewing habits caught in the crossfire.