This misunderstands the market. I would pay for the History Channel but I wouldn't pay for ESPN. And I won't pay for a bundle because then 'analysts' will think I'm getting it for ESPN.
History Channel is cheap to make compared to sports, would definitely be able to pay for itself with cheap subscriptions.
Cable TV with bundling is just a local maxima established decades ago. The long tail of interest that drives regular youtube is the proof.
If this misunderstands the market, I'd be interested in a positive proof of a channel like History making it as an independent offering. I don't personally know of any.
History Channel is cheap to make compared to sports, would definitely be able to pay for itself with cheap subscriptions.
Cable TV with bundling is just a local maxima established decades ago. The long tail of interest that drives regular youtube is the proof.