AUGUSTA – Key lawmakers in Congress have asked the Federal Communications Commission to study whether it should stop cable and satellite TV companies from requiring customers to buy a large number of channels in a bundle, instead of just the channels they want to buy.

“It defies consumerism, “said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. “Americans always want choice and they should be able to have it.”

Snowe serves on the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over cable and satellite TV issues. In a recent interview, she expressed frustration that consumers are still being forced to buy packages that include dozens of channels when they only want to buy a few.

“Consumers are upset about the fact that they cannot make the choices they want,” she said. “We deregulated the cable industry in hopes of creating a competitive industry where consumers would have more choices and lower costs. They are getting wide programming, but no choices and higher rates, so something has gone terribly wrong.”

Companies are currently bundling dozens of channels into packages that consumers must purchase in their entirety, even though they may only want to watch a few channels.

Gene Kimmelman, senior policy director for Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, said consumers are demanding choice and control when it comes to the channels and programming that they are paying for.

“By requiring that cable operators offer a la carte programming in conjunction with any other packages they wish to offer, the power of the consumer’s pocketbook can be unleashed to begin to help lower costs, increase incentives for quality fare, and give viewers the opportunity to not pay for channels they find objectionable or too expensive,” he said.

U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, serves on the House Commerce Committee and shares Snowe’s concern. He says the committee was about to consider an amendment requiring unbundling, but it was withdrawn in favor of a letter requesting the Federal Communications Commission study whether a la carte pricing is technologically and economically feasible.

“I think we need that sort of study to see what our options are,” he said. “We had testimony before the committee that raised some concerns I think the study will answer.”

Brian Dietz, senior director for communications with the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents the large cable companies, said a General Accounting Office report last year concluded that unbundling could lead to fewer channels and higher prices for consumers.

“We believe that an FCC study would further confirm that a la carte pricing would be very harmful to ad-supported cable networks and consumers by reducing programming diversity and driving up the cost of cable and satellite television,” he said in a statement.

But there is dissension within the industry. The American Cable Association, which represents small cable companies, welcomes both the study and the concept of choice in programming.

“The committee’s bipartisan letter to the FCC will initiate much-needed scrutiny into the harms caused by the media conglomerates to cable operators and consumers and give Congress important information it needs to evaluate these harms,” wrote ACA President Matt Polka in a letter to the House committee.

Snowe said while the study is important, she believes Congress will move forward on the issue if the FCC does not. She said the public is outraged at escalating bills and lack of choice.

“We have to make sure there is proper oversight for consumers, oversight that they deserve,” she said.