Pay-per-channel cable TV

I wonder why the pay-per-channel model has not been given a serious try by any cable company. Out of the hundreds of channels that we get on our cable TV, 75% of them are nonsense for us. I'd prefer to pay for specific programming than accept everything as a bundle if there were such an option. I am sure there are so many people like me who would opt-in for cable TV if they could choose specific channels and pay according to their choices instead of paying the ridiculous monthly Comcast/UVerse bill.

Here are some articles that talk about it.

http://ideas.theatlantic.com/2009/07/make_cable_tv_pay-per-channel.php

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/26/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110826

I would love to see MBA folks do some research and come up with a convincing, logical argument that the pay-per-channel model would or would not be better for providers as well as consumers. To me the first common-sense conclusion seems to be that it would be better. Here is my reason: By paying money for stuff that people don't consume, time and resources are wasted. If people had that money in their pockets because of the reduced price, they could spend it on a more worthwhile product, and that keeps the economy ball rolling, jobs for more, more money in the hands of people, more GDP.

I am considering dropping cable TV in a couple of weeks and instead buying a Roku + HD antenna + reactivating Netflix. Cable TV is not worth $80 per month.