Analogies can be powerful, offering an easier-to-understand explanation of a potentially complex issue.

Sometimes, they don’t help advance the argument.

A new bone of contention in the cable industry is the push (by the FCC) for a la carte (vs. bundled) cable.

The following analogy was used in the article:

“When you go into a grocery store to buy a quart of milk, says Cablevision Chairman Chas Dolan, “you’re not told by the grocer, ‘Well, you can’t have the milk unless you also buy a dozen eggs or a pound of cheese.’ “

True, but – if truly a la carte – should you not be able to buy 13 oz. of milk? Not a quart, not a pint? Isn’t that – those fixed sizes you may not want – bundling? A grouping where you’re paying for something you won’t use?

OK, same product (liquid milk). So, extend the food analogy to restaurants: If you don’t want the baked potato or rice pilaf, you don’t get anything off the meal. It’s bundled. Should we have to pay for each ounce of cheese, each slice of mushroom?

While the FCC argument has merit (why pay for what you don’t want?); it’s a bit flawed: One of the main reasons you get all these channels is that there is an agreement (structured how…I don’t care…) twixt the cable companies and the channels that basically help both sides, by hoping the end user will watch and the ad revenue will go up. If the channel is not there, it will not be watched; if there, maybe…

Bundling keeps costs down. (That’s my guess, and my business skills are much to sneer at.)