You've completely missed his point. Anyone who's watched TV for the last 70 years knows how advertising is the life blood of TV (not to mention ANY kind of media). Nobody is disputing that. The argument for a la carte pricing is that it's cheaper to bundle 5 channels together (even though some are low viewership) than it is to charge for each, thus if everything is a la carte, they you will pay more for channel. Imagine if you had to pay separately for TBS, AMC, USA, your locals, ESPN, and other popular channels. That would add up. You might pay for JUST those channels you want, but you'd end up paying the same for say 20 channels as you would for 85 (just throwing out arbitrary numbers). So even though you might want to just watch TBS, you will also get a few channels you don't normally watch. Would you rather pay $5 for each of those 20 channels or get those 20 channels plus 60 more you may only occasionally watch for the same cost (and perhaps discover an obscure channel you might enjoy that you wouldn't pay for otherwise)?
We are even seeing it play out somewhat in the streaming world. Disney bundles it's three major channels for less than paying for all three separately (and perhaps the same or less than paying for TWO of them separately). We'll see other forms of bundling just like that. Why? Because it gets you to watch content you might not (and if it includes advertising even better), and it is cheaper from a logistic standpoint to offer it that way.
If you go strictly a la carte, a few things will happen:
1) You'll pay more per channel and get less content
2) You'll get less channels because the channel provider might decide that they don't have enough subs for a channel and just end it, and that channel might be one YOU watch. For example perhaps you watch Discover Channel and History Channel and Discovery Networks which own both, decides that not enough people are watching History so they disband it. Now you lose a channel you enjoyed. if they were bundled, you'd still get both.
3) You'll get much more consolidation of content, so not as many opportunities to watch a show because now 3 channels worth of content will be on only one channel.
For you a la carte lovers, think about how that's working with streaming services (which many right now are a la carte). You have to shell out $10 per service to get all of the content you want (yeah, you can play the monthly game of picking and choosing but not everybody does that). Eventually you wind paying the same as cable/sate for ONLY what you want, but now there's a service that has THIS show, or another that has THAT show, so you sub to more and more services, and it costs a fortune to watch all that stuff. That's where something like what Disney is doing by bundling help lower the cost. Discovery will most likely bundle their streaming content as well once they figure out their model after buying Warner.