The problem with bundling

Megan Geuss on arstechnica reports on a study that found "On average, Americans get 189 cable TV channels and only watch 17." 

To many, this may seem surprising, especially considering another finding of the study, which is that while the available channels to consumers has increased steadily since 2008, the average number of channels actually watched has remained relatively constant around 17 (source: linked article above).

So what does this mean? To me, this means that it's time that cable change format for delivery. I'm not calling for their change to pay-per-show model like many popular downloading stores like Amazon or iTunes. Rather, I am calling for a change in model to a pay-per-channel model.

Here's the justification: I am a huge football (soccer for Americans) fan. I would gladly be paying for Fox Soccer Channel right now, if it weren't for the fact that said channel comes bundled with a bunch of other channels I just don't care about. Yes, I want Fox Soccer, but I don't also want to be getting NFL Network, CBS Sports, and ESPN U, because I just don't care about the content that they air. I would be willing to pay more for a per-channel basis to only get what I want than to pay less for a bundle of crap.

This is where cord cutters are stepping in. This is where the cable industry is starting to falter and look to other means of keeping their ridiculous profit margins.

The content producers themselves would prefer this model, I would think, because they'd be serving their content only to a dedicated user-base who actually watches it, and would be paying directly for it. There would be far less of fighting to get into a bundle in hopes of being watched, and then being excluded from the magic 17 channels.

Just my two-cents on the subject, though. Let me know what you think in the comments. Do you like having more channels than you watch? Is that value to you?