Sure. they tried. Couldn't make enough money to make them abandon the existing model. Ther'es no overwhelming need or demand for this, and it's not proving to be all that profitable. Businesses need both of those things to shift paradigms. All you have now is a small number or people kavetching yet still paying for the current model.
I also find it interesting that you point to the internet as the pipe. I find a great potential for hypocrasy there. On one hand - you want to pay for only what you consume when it comes to video distribution, but how many Internet video a la carte advocates would apply that same pricing model to their data consumption?
And Sirius XM is extremely successful. It's got over 20MM subscribers, which is comparable to Netflix. it's also more profitable, while delivering slightly less revenue. I bring up Netflix because it's the largest most prominent player in the cord cutting a la carte on demand movement. You've shown no data to support your assertion that broadcast is dying.
Your model is far too complicated, and requires too much planning and pre-work to watch television. It might work for you, but it's not going to work the the legions of average people that just want to watch Jay Leno for 30 minutes before falling asleep. Or what about when i just want something on in the background - call it the news - that i don't have to pay close attention to.
And it certainly won't work for Sports, which are DVR proof and have to be watched live.
People are increasingly unhappy with the cost of the current model. If that continues - and real alternatives become available...
I measure dying by looking at the future based on trends. Growth in broadcast has been slowing for some time, is sputtering now with some quarters in decline, and will eventually move towards only declines. It's the kind of thing that causes future investment in the model to pause more and more. The industry can continue to spin it all they like.
That is not to say that all broadcasting will cease in the near future. The transition will happen but it won't be as fast as music was.
Does anyone doubt that OTA has been in decline for some time? Sure, there are still significant numbers of people using it. They drove many away with the forced hardware upgrade during the transition to digital. I suspect the biggest value of OTA now, to the broadcasters, is that it requires no extra investment to supply the area cable systems with their feed.
Of course there are many people that still watch live stuff. But what is the trend? Given the industry (and these forums) it seems that many people have moved to DVRs and only watch live for certain kinds of programs like sports. As others have said - Sports isn't DVR proof. Being a few minutes behind live has significant value. If absolute live is important then people shouldn't be using satellite since it's delayed several seconds behind OTA.
Trend is not in favor of broadcast.
As for data costs... aren't most the complaints about a la carte about wireless? Never gotten anywhere close to the wired threshold in our house. But if my data volume and bandwidth needs rise I will gladly pay more for the service. I can buy a lot of data capacity for what satellite costs. You think my local data provider will have any complaints taking my money and upgrading their pipes? I happen to use cable for data - to them they are just stealing a DTV customer and they won't care if I get programming via traditional cable or over the internet.