So "only one-third" is "insignificant". So, using that illogic, I'm starting a service with no channels whatsoever. Since no single channel gets anything close to one-third of people, they are all "insignificant'.
Email me and I will set you up with a totally content free package, an absolutely blank screen, 24/7/365. For only $40/month. You show em. Why should you pay for channels that are "only" every third person in the country?
Content free television. The wave of the future.
--
Meanwhile in the real world, among those of us who understand the TV business, we understand that anything that upwards of 1/3rd of people, given the absolute choice to have or not have (DirecTV vs. Dish, DirecTV Stream or FUBO vs, cut-rate streamers, and, of course, cable in most all cases) will pay for is, perhaps the most valuable thing in TV today.
The RSN problem is not in its popularity. It is the most popular thing in TV today, if you take the 1/3rd figure as accurate, except for the NFL itself. The problem is the old paradigm, of "everyone" paying a little, has been breached, mostly by Sinclair not using retransmission of the local stations to insure 100% RSN carriage, but as I have said, Sinclair is a horrid company, so why should you expect it to make a pro-consumer decision like that. The new paradigm of choice means that the people that don't like it (and, newsflash, in a diverse country EVERYTHING is only liked by a minority of people) don't "have" to pay for it.
The challenge for baseball is that it must find a way to get the cost of the local team's coverage, now done by the RSNs, down. One way, the only way I see, is to make sure that if you want ANY baseball (aside from the handful of games on Fox or TBS) you must first pay your fair share for the local team. No local RSN, no MLB.TV.
Failing that, all baseball goes away.