Bundling has been discussed here and elsewhere in the forums before, a lot.
You might be missing the economic point here. TV program conglomerates will charge Sling more, NOT less, if they eliminate some of their bundled channels, under the current system. And because it creates a greater barrier to entry for other potential competitors. Which in turn would mean that you would pay more. E.g., because they can more effectively use one channel to advertise other channels. It's also part of the reason that some popular TV shows, especially on some media conglomerates, combine episodes for certain programs shown on different channels - e.g., if you want to understand the full Supergirl storyline, you also have to sometimes watch Flash and Arrow, on different channels controlled by the same media conglomerate (in that case, CW, which in turn is owned by several media conglomerates).
The only type of unbundling that is conceivable yet potentially economical is for an MVPD like Sling to group channels by media conglomerate. But many of the big media conglomerates own pieces of each other, and share ownership of media companies with each other. And they may also have contracts to distribute each others' programs - contracts which we as the public, and possibly the government regulators, might not be able to see, guarded by non-disclosure agreements. And most of the MVPDs, including Sling, are controlled at least in part by the those conglomerates. Furthermore, they also own Internet Service Providers and Internet Backbone, so they all benefit from people doing more video streaming.
Canada tried to force channel unbundling. Supposedly, TV watching Canadians mostly end up paying more than USA residents as a result. Perhaps the U.S. is a big enough market that wouldn't be true - but the big companies are doing everything they can to fight it. And they have a lot of political clout, for a lot of reasons.
Perhaps you have a particular reason for hating TLC (e.g., some of their shows may offend your political, philosophical or religious beliefs). I happen to dislike FNC - but still happily watch at least one other show produced by the same conglomerate. And I think, for pedantic reasons, that the History channel should be renamed the Historical Fiction channel. And I wish for complex reasons that the U.S. would go back to the idea that MVPDs would pay an hourly fee for each program episode watched by a customer, as used to be true for cable companies, at least for OTA broadcasters (and might still be true for some), instead of a negotiated bundled fee. I'd also like to see the FCC increase rather than decrease the bandwidth available to OTA broadcasters, and for in-country antenna sharing networks, whether they be wired, optically cabled, Internet distributed to be legal and not require a fee or license. But I don't expect the media conglomerates, or the FCC, to go along with my beliefs. I am but one TV consumer, with very little economic or political impact.
That said, you are welcome to organize a group that supports unbundling legislation. While I'm fairly certain it would fail, you might get donations if you advertise in the right places (GoFundMe??), and maybe make a living from it.
In any event, back to the main point of the forum, some of us find Sling useful, even if we would prefer to change some aspects of its design - including the way it is bundled. Assuming you aren't interested in starting such a group, as a consumer, you can perhaps best influence MVPDs by voting with your pocketbook - i.e., choosing another MVPD (e.g., Fubo does not have TLC), or trying to start one (same comments as for starting a pro-unbundling org). Or building a really big tall OTA antenna, if your location allows it.
Last edited by MRG1; 03-23-2019 at 08:22 AM.