I don't think they are grasping at straws, the cable subscription model just means there are lots of people willing to fund what ends up being relatively cheap "original" programming.
I suppose a simple step forward would be to require that a broadcaster that is owned by a cable company must offer the channels individually (which probably wouldn't impact Disney, but a Comcast subsidiary shouldn't be using channel bundles to extract revenue from Comcast competitors).
Comcast would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. Comcast Sports Net is a huge contention point in negotiations with Verizon, RCN, etc. As far as it impacting Disney, ESPN is the most expensive cable channel you have. Debundling that would lose Disney a lot of money. Disney wouldn't let that happen.
Sure, I'm not saying the big industry players would enjoy it, I'm saying I think it would be reasonable regulation (there aren't really big technical efficiencies from integrating production and distribution, especially once you are already doing outside distribution).
I think it wouldn't impact Disney because they aren't really a player in traditional distribution (but they play online with a stake in Hulu and other efforts, but those are sort of already unbundled, I think because they envision better revenues that way).
What grounds would regulators have to tell these private businesses they have to distribute that way? Would it just be the creation of a new law requiring it, and that's that? I'm not sure how those sorts of things work, it's well out of my expertise, but I'm legitimately curious. In that scenario, could the company appeal the law?
This was actually a big deal a few years ago ( http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/12/your_cable_bil... ). The FCC thought it could create this requirement under its existing authority to regulate the airwaves, but the Supreme Court ruled that it would require a new law.
The economics of cable (and satellite) aren't obvious: it really doesn't cost any more to offer 150 channels instead of 100. The signal for every channel the cable company offers makes it to your house, and the cable company's equipment filters out the channels that you haven't paid for.
There's no reason to think it will cost less to get those channels filtered out one at a time instead of as bundles.
It would probably take legislation. The companies could certainly appeal the law, but I don't think it would be a massive expansion of antitrust authority.
I suppose a simple step forward would be to require that a broadcaster that is owned by a cable company must offer the channels individually (which probably wouldn't impact Disney, but a Comcast subsidiary shouldn't be using channel bundles to extract revenue from Comcast competitors).