His article claiming that the internet will not disrupt television is flawed. He engages in a sleight of hand by talking about ala carte vs. aggregators. He lumps in Netflix with the cable and satellite companies, as both are aggregators. That's true, but only in a sense. Netflix offers us a lot of content for a reasonable price, it doesn't force us to buy a whole lot of stuff that we don't want in order to get anything at all. With cable, it's $60 a month in my area. Want C-Span 3 or ESPNU? Then you need to upgrade to an even bigger package.
The internet is in fact disrupting cable and satellite by giving customers alternatives. Cable and satellite are just methods of distribution, and so is the internet. It's not about ala carte vs. aggregators, what is being disrupted is the oligopoly of cable and satellite. Netflix may not be ala carte, but's it's a lot more like ala carte than is cable or satellite.
He also claims that 20 somethings are going to not going to consume media in the same way that their parents did when they get older, and then goes right ahead and claim that they are in fact going to keep consuming media that same way that their parents do, as soon as they grow up. He claims "I’m going to let you in on a secret. The only 20 somethings that are going to consume media in 10 years the way they do today are the ones without a job, still living with their parents." This implies that 20 somethings are unemployed and living with their parents. That's a rather ridiculous blanket statement. He might be surprised to discover that 20 somethings do manage to remain employed and have their own places.
I'm in my 40's, ditched cable, and haven't looked back. He claims that as the 20 somethings get older, they will be too tired to do the difficult work of getting their media, and will just want to sit in front of cable. I don't find using Netflix, web content or OTA TV difficult at all.