$1.99 is not even close to a realistic price the channels would charge if they all went a la carte. They would immediately LOSE access to tens of millions of households (hundreds of millions of potential viewers) and so would receive a lot less in advertising revenue. So, the current $10-$20 per month is far more likely as a whole lot of people will choose NOT to subscribe. And those are before we get into how ESPN and Regional Sports networks are going to bend us over and drill us from the rear for their content. Easily $20+ per month. And don't think it will just be ONE channel. They very well could force a suite of channels upon you. A la carte as many imagine won't happen for many reasons, including the effect of squeezing out smaller niche channels that are targeted to traditionally oppressed ethnic minorities, and some in Washington don't like that, or at least hear it from those minorities. So, both Repubs. and Dems. have their constituencies to look out for against a la carte.
However, a separation of Sports networks and non-sports networks could be economically viable for the networks and would bring down the bills of many who would never watch a sports network, and it is the sports networks that have high costs, not stupid channels like The Hub. But even that is not likely to happen.
First off I agree, I doubt you would ever see a blanket $1.99 per channel offering. What possibly might work would be tiered a la carte. This way the provider can pick what tier they will agree to for a sub to that channel.
But the only way I see the current entertainment players doing this is if they are forced to by customers getting tired of the all or nothing option. When customers flip to the nothing only then will you see movement by broadcasters.
Broadcasting groups right now need bundling of their product, why, because its the only way they can keep some channels on the air. Example. A couple of weeks ago I came across an article about AMC networks. AMC is trying to figure out how to get more viewership to IFC and especially Sundance. They are even considering moving some of the AMC hit shows to IFC and Sundance. They also are considering channel multicast for some hit shows. And one consideration was to even move The Walking Dead to Sundance to boost ratings. That was from what the article said was their last resort option.
So you see why their are disputes, its not just about a sub price, its about carrying what the networks want the retransmission businesses to carry and what tiers their programming is placed.
As for sports pogramming, what a wake up call that would be for them. Then it would be a choice sub, not a forced sub. Their ratings/subs would drop like a rock.
One good thing that would come out of a la carte would be the networks would be forced to provide better quality and quantity of programming or become extinct.