This has been analyzed repeatedly over the last twenty years at least, and so far there is no evidence that the average consumer will be better off with a la carte as compared to bundled service. As a matter of fact, the analysis continually shows that the average consumer will be no better off and will be no worse off. Deeper analysis shows that that's effectively by definition. Value pricing means that how much people pay will be a more so reflection of how much they make use of rather than how much of what they get they don't use, and whether you pay $100 for the six channels that you use or pay $100 for 140 channels that include the six channels that you use, you're still paying $100.
The story people who support a la carte tell is the story of the very light user - the person who truly only watches four or five channels and never turns on any other channels. Those folks would benefit. And the extent to which those folks would benefit happens to equal the extent to which heavy users would suffer. Again, the end-result is a net-zero. It is actually worse than that. Not only is the zero-sum game in effect, but the zero-sum game has a deteriorating impact on choice, especially choices that serve minority interests. So while there are few winners and few losers in the first round, subsequent rounds of play has more and more losers as compared to winners.
The flip-side is that a la carte would be fairer, in the same way that survival of the fittest is fairer - fair and cruel in a way that contradicts the rationale for civilization, itself.
Furthermore, the bundling you're referring to isn't the bundling that causes the issues you're may think bundling causes. The real "culprit" is wholesale bundling. If you want consumers to benefit from unbundling, you really want to get rid of wholesale bundling. We saw a reflection of wholesale bundling this week, in the wholesale agreement between Verizon and Cox Communications. Cox capitalizes on its control of the Fox broadcast television network affiliate forcing MVPDs like Verizon to carry, for example, FXX, on the basic tier. That's the actual source of anti-consumer pricing.
The problem with getting rid of wholesale bundling is that you're effectively re-regulating the industry, and many people don't like that idea. They don't care that aspects of the free market are anti-consumer, viewing the consumer as no more important to the system than the profiteer. Again: Fair and cruel.
I know you were focused on bundling, but there is actually another angle here that is far more important to consumers than bundling: Competition. Competition is what makes things better for consumers. However, there are many barriers to competition in this marketplace that arguably shouldn't be there. For starters, there are rules against government stepping in to compete with commercial enterprises even when the marketplace isn't profitable enough to foster a number of strong competitors. In addition, even when the market is profitable enough, there are barriers put in place to market entry beyond the financial, including rules franchising authorities impose on franchisees, some of which amount to a form of legal extortion. If the consumer was the paramount concern, the law would allow anyone willing to string cable the right to do so, without the town or city exacting tribute.
One final note about "too many channels". The channels folks mention most as examples are typically the channels that actually reduce the cost of provision of the other channels, i.e., home shopping networks. IIRC, QVC doesn't charge cable companies to carry their channel, and I bet they actually pay for the privilege of being carried. (Avoiding having to pay to be carried on cable is why some home shopping networks try to abuse Must Carry, by buying small UHF channels and carrying their home shopping "programming" thereon.) The other set of channels typically referred to as examples of "too many" are channels that the person making the decision doesn't care about because of their own personal appraisal of value, without regard to the appraisal of others, especially with regard to the appraisal of those with minority interests. It did use to be fairer - true - and crueler.
Goes to prove that nothing is as simple as it seems.
