Packages exist because its win win for everyone. People hate them because they think they can split them apart and pay proportionally for the channels they want. But that's not how it works.
Take an example of cars. Any user buying a new car would almost always pay for all the safety features if a “safety bundle” was available that had all the safety features. Instead they split apart all the features into different bundles along with luxury features to make you buy stuff that you don’t care about. Want blind spot detection? Great we have our pro bundle that gives you that with seat heating (driver only btw) and all weather mats. Want collision warning? Here’s our pro plus that gets you that with heated steering and seat heating for front passenger.
Cable bundles were exactly that. After spending $200/month, I still couldn’t watch all the football games from my couch and that was a travesty. But I did have 200+ Spanish channels. So it was a win win right?
If you want more than one thing, and paying for both together in a package saves you money, or is a worthwhile convenience for the price, it's a win-win.
If you don't want all the things in a package, and the price is more than you'd pay for the things you want, it's not a win for the consumer.
The sports channels (ESPN, etc) are the most expensive but were bundled with anything more than the most basic package. With streaming they're split out.
The Disney bundle example in the article shows you can save by going a la carte.
The thing is that there is essentially zero cost to providing channels to you that you are not watching. There are costs to sending the signals to your house but that doesn't increase based on how many channels you have access to. There also costs to producing content, but those costs are independent of the number of viewers. Add to that the fact these channels typically have advertising which is a good chunk of revenue, they aren't paid for by your cable service fees.
The result is that the costs involved don't correspond simply a cost per user per available channel. Consequently, it doesn't make sense to charge users that way.
how is it a win if I don't watch them?
But maybe you don't see it that way. Fine. Perhaps the availability of these other channels is neutral. I think they key point is that it's not a loss.
I realize I can't pay $1 per channel (20 channels for $20), but I'd be willing to pay $5.