Aren't they literally giving money to their competitor?
You cannot get a silky smooth experience across that many congested networks with just bare AWS.
Why would Netflix want to take on the enormous risks of self-hosting? They don't have the experience and they don't have the skills. They can hire the appropriate people but it's extremely expensive. AWS provides a lot of very valuable tooling and expertise baked into the service price.
In a way, they're allocating money and resources to Amazon rather than developing internally simply because the long-term ROI doesn't warrant it.
And let's not discount the most obvious reason why it's probably not even a concern for Netflix: Amazon Prime Video sucks. Sure, Blockbuster probably said the same thing about Netflix at one point, but it's hindsight. I think most people, at the time, would have never guessed Netflix would be the one to pivot to online streaming either.
It's a very though provoking question and there's no way to distill it into one answer, so I'm just providing my POV.
It wouldn't surprise me if Netflix had that meeting at some point. What would it cost them to run their own infrastructure? Would that be less than the cost of staying with AWS? Is Amazon exploiting their position as Netflix's hosting provider to unfairly compete with them? Do they fear that they might in the future?
At the end of the day, the answer was very likely a solid "no". Many industries are full of examples of competitors working together to the benefit of both companies. Just look at the aerospace industry.
At different points any one of these may make strategic sense, but as others have highlighted here such moves would consume resources that could be allocated to other areas.
My take would be that increasingly the Netflix business model is really content and production. Disney is the real competitor here. Technology is necessary, but not sufficient.
While it's fair to call them competitors, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.