• NY Times, Monday, April 17, 2006 11:15 AM

"Why Can't I Have Just the Cable Channels I Want?" is the headline on a particularly insightful Media Frenzy column by Richard Siklos in yesterday's New York Times.  Siklos does a very nice job of summing up both sides of the long-simmering controversy.  Some in the industry believe the current system of "bundling" works great; others, including the Federal Communications Commission, have come around to the conclusion that the formula must be revised so that customers can buy channels on an a la carte basis.  Siklos sees the value on both side of the argument.  Ultimately, he says, U.S. consumers--who are not as sophisticated about pre-paying for their media consumption as European--need not more channel choices but, rather, better choices.  The "colliding views" concerning bundling vs. al la carte "make sense," Siklos says. "When asked whether they want total choice, especially from historically monopolistic quasi-utilities, it's no shock that most people say: heck, yes. Yet, as the author and psychology professor Barry Schwartz and two of his colleagues pointed out a few weeks ago in The New York Times Magazine, Americans have this funny habit of confusing freedom, which they cherish, with choice, which can give them headaches.... [Stephen B. Burke, COO of Comcast,] says part of the problem with buying individual shows is that, amazingly, more than 90 percent of Comcast's 22 million customers still pay monthly cable bills by cash or check. That kind of customer isn't ideal for impulse digital purchases."

Read the whole story at NY Times »