My preferences coincide with yours (as I agree the latter option would be better for everyone), but I do not understand why the FCC must impose either solution.

My preferences coincide with yours (as I agree the latter option would be better for everyone), but I do not understand why the FCC must impose either solution. Why does the FCC need to get involved in this situation at all? I also don't understand how the FCC will determine whether someone is negotiating in 'good faith', as each party to a negotiation has only two options: give the other party more, or walk away (at least temporarily). Is there another option that I am not aware of that is indicative of 'bad faith'? I'm not even sure whether someone can negotiate in 'bad faith', because if the party that walks away is losing less money from walking away than they would lose by giving more the the counter-party, walking away is the rational choice; if they lose more by walking than by giving in, they are the ones being hurt the most. Regardless of what happens with "cable", it seems to me that 'channels' are gradually unbundling themselves by providing access over the internet, and shows may soon unbundle from channels in a similar fashion. Both of these moves provide content providers more feedback with respect to what the consumers demand, which will benefit the consumers most. Personally, I hope consumers demand space operas.