The FCC news was met with mixed reports in the popular press. As always, it depended on the newspaper. Papers in smaller cities and towns tended to jump on the a la carte bandwagon, while metropolitan dailies generally fleshed out all sides. The Providence Journal painted cable as the big bad wolf: "Don’t expect Cox Communciations to anytime soon give its customers the option to pick and choose only the channels they want, a cable industry model known as ‘a la carte’ service." That lead sentence doesn’t look so great when it’s followed by a paragraph explaining how the FCC "found that most consumers would be better off" with a la carte. Cox was allowed to say a la carte would be more expensive, but was quickly followed by RCN saying it was "gratified" by the FCC’s report. An AP story in The Washington Post and other papers was a bit more balanced, noting many industry analysts are skeptical about a la carte, citing 1st Amendment concerns. The NY Times gets credit for realism: "Despite Mr Martin’s use of his bully pulpit, industry analysts say that Congress is unlikely to pass any laws to force cable companies to sell channels piecemeal."