When it comes to cable (and I suppose satellite) television consumption, does freedom mean viewers get to choose channels on an “a la carte” basis? Or does freedom mean cable companies get to choose how they market those channels to consumers?

According to the Washington Post, congressmen are swamped with complaints that their constituents’ cable bills are too high, and that they have to accept channels that offend them (or that they just don’t want) because they come with a larger package of channels.

Cable companies argue that less-watched channels like TechTV and BET might not survive because “not enough viewers would pay for them.”

Consumers, like those represented by the Parents Television Council, complain that “there is something terribly and fundamentally wrong with requiring consumers to pay for a product they don’t want, and may even find offensive, in order to get something they do want.”

My response to both: tough. For those channels who might not survive, there is no entitlement. We are already forced to subsidize a network few people want: PBS.

And for those who don’t like the way cable packages its channels, organize yourselves and pressure the cable companies. You don’t need government to effect a change, if the market wants that change. Preserve that freedom and leave government out of it.