Less channels to get costs down is great in theory but broadcasters are going to fight every step, look at how they do deals now where they lump all the channels together, for example if you want the Disney Channel on your service, you have to also have to carry Disney Jr and Disney XD, if you want CBS you have to carry POP, AMC you have to carry BBC, etc, etc.
Broadcasters get fees and Advertising money from all those channels and will not want to give it up, if Disney lumped all 3 channels ( content)into one, then they increase the fee for that one channel.
Yep, that's all true. But if anyone has the negotiating power to get the networks to agree to slimmer bundles, it would be AT&T and Comcast, the largest MVPDs in the nation. I'm not expecting miracles. But look at what AT&T did with Viacom last spring when they added some (not all) of their channels to their Plus and Max packages. Some, including Nick, Comedy Central, MTV, BET and VH1, made it into both packages while others, like Paramount Network, CMT and TV Land, only got put into Max. Others, like NickToons, MTV2 and Logo, didn't make it into either.
The bigger deal, I think, is to push off as many of those expensive sports channels into upper/add-on tiers as possible, so that they can offer a package that includes as many of the
top 40 most popular channels as possible at the lowest possible cost. And the only sports net that ranked in the top 40 most-watched channels last year was ESPN (#6). NBCSN, FS1 and ESPN 2 ranked at 56, 59 and 61, respectively. Actually, those four are the only all-sports nets included in AT&T's Plus package, making it sufficient for casual sports fans. To get RSNs, college conference nets (e.g. SEC Network, Big Ten Network), and more niche sports nets (e.g. Golf, Olympic, MSG), you have to upgrade to Max.