This wave may be too big for channel surfers to stay afloat.

Dubbed "a la carte programming," this system would allow consumers to pay for their cable television on a channel-by-channel basis instead of a bundled package of channels.

It's being pushed in Congress as the result of a Federal Communications Committee study, which claimed a la carte programming would save customers money and allow for better parental supervision.

Essentially this would change television from what Associated Press television writer Frazier Moore called an all-you-can-eat salad bar of a medium to dainty desert tray hosting the channels craved by the biggest audiences -- the only ones it still makes financial sense to churn out.

And those people who use the medium to "try a little bit of everything" will be left with the kid's menu of television. A la carte will kill the channel surfing star. The system is supposed to improve the quality of the menu served by cable programmers, but it will ultimately make television bland and people will miss the open-bar approach previously offered by television.

Imagine pre-ordering your next months worth of drinks tomorrow. Eventually we'd all get sick of Captain and Cokes.

But our culture is on an ongoing march toward complete customization; we want personalized pens and custom-made Nikes. Burger King will even make a Whopper "your way" but after enough of them, there's a chance you'll eye up the rest of the menu.

Made-to-order television will be in the same boat but the menu changes might have permanent effects: Quality programs that don't deliver the right-sized audience to advertisers will be gone for good, and we'll be stuck holding the bag with the same sandwich every time.

New content will have a tougher time getting on the menu, and our taste buds will suffer. Precision programming won't serve the purpose of the casual viewer, people not married to "must-see TV," people who watch television just to "see what's on," you know ... normal people. Television will no longer be a sampler platter, but a monotonous recycling of the same three square meals a day.

On the soundtrack of life are just a few songs enough? Or do we want the option of tuning in to any bandwidth and picking up tunes we forgot we loved?

If we want a diversity of voices in the media -- a cornerstone of democracy -- we can't allow for something that will limit the voices to the select few conglomerates that already dominate the boob tube.

At least now there is a semblance of diversity among television voices; alternative shows and upstart programming get a chance to be taste-tested while they ride on the coattails of their successful counterparts.

Viacom probably couldn't have created Logo, its new channel for gays and lesbians, if it weren't for the previous success of its household names, such as MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Showtime and a slew of others.

And these different channels serve different niches: one man's garbage is another man's Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

But a la carte advocates claim this would be the equivalent to selling Blues Clues hosted by Jenna Jameson.

They show how their program serves as a filter protecting family interests by allowing parents to curtail content line-ups to family-approved programming. What happened to that other filter, an old term we call parenting?

A la carte may save some people a little money, but the true cost will be what is taken off the airwaves. The presence of opposing views is the gerbil running the wheel of democracy, without those views individuals will create an echo chamber of what they already think and like-minded-individuals will be segregated into factions furthering both social and political divides.

In the short term we'll get exactly what we think we want, with no frills or extras.

But if we want to deviate from the self-imposed regulations of what we've chosen to see, there will be no where for us to go.

And the channel surfer drowns in the process. Surf's up!