There was talk (I was in the room) of using it, or a successor, as the transport of the Internet.
Imagine replacing IP with ATM, and paying a telco every time you created a virtual circuit for the things we use TCP for today. That was the grand vision.
What you're implying is that transport providers would've charged more than the market can bear, as compared to the flat-fee typical of ISPs in these United States. It's interesting to note that in other parts of the world, such as the ones which used ISDN, Internet usage has been metered, albeit not per-server-connection.
You're also implying that there's something special about the technical design and implementation of ATM that enables monetization based on per-connection events. Well, let me introduce you to TCP, which sets up virtual connections... circuits... at the transport/session layer. There is no technical reason that ISPs (many also happen to be telcos) couldn't charge on a per-TCP-session level in the same way as ATM's SVCs weren't used.
What I'm saying is that the consumers have been monetized anyway, via data mining, engagement, and tracking, and while it's not cash coming out of our pockets, it's still us trading something of value for access to those resources. In fact, the consumer has resources so valuable, that there are whole classes of malware like coinminers, who literally capitalize on them, and there are parallel benign apps which do the same, only with consent.
Perhaps if the telcos had been willing to charge per-VC, our attention and PII would still be monetized, and they'd get us coming and going. Perhaps it's a false dichotomy. I don't know.
It lost to ad-supported websites, affiliate links, third-party cookies, tracking and fingerprinting?
Also, ATM was an integral part of SONET/SDH PSTN backbones for decades, so unbeknownst to the consumer, we were using ATM "for everything".