I think everyone is really off-base on thinking like the second paragraph. Removing the "bundle" does not automatically reduce revenue/spell the destruction of TV. People have an insatiable need for content. It is just that the revenue sources will become more varied and more personalized.
I currently spend $90 on TV/mo. If my bundle breaks up, I would definetly spend 50 on ESPN/SPORTS, $20 on a monthly UCONN network, $10 here or there for AMC/FX/HBO. The money will still be there to spend, it will just be encumbent on LAZY TV EXECUTIVES TO ACTUALLY WORK. you know, like other industries. Innovate, offer creative programming, compete for ACTUAL REVENUE.
The difference in this setup is that my money goes directly as patronage to the prodcuts/channels that deliver the content that interests me, making for a much more instructive, informative buying process. ESPN produces great content, so it has great, loyal subscribers.
Mystifying that people believe some networks wont absolutely make the change and thrive. and the ones that dont, them they will be replaced by new content providers.
too much doom and gloom. Every other industry I know of says " Change is good". Same applies for TV but for some weird reason everyone is scared of change.