Doesn't the trend of "cutting the cable" partly stem from having too many channels to choose from?
No, exactly the opposite, it's from LACK of choice. Rather than letting you choose a dozen channels you would want to watch, they charge you an arm and a leg for 400, none of which you'd ever watch except that dozen you'd like to pay for. Picture a bucket of dogshit with a dozen small diamonds in it. They charge diamond prices for the dogshit you have to search through to find the diamonds. A La Carte would result in my not having to pay $5 for ESPN because I don't watch sports, and you paying $25 for ESPN because you do. Why should I subsidize the god damned jocks?
Plus, the quality of cable channels has been steadily dropping since 1985. There used to be no commercials in the cable channels, now not only are you paying with money but with your eyeballs, often while the content you're paying for twice is on (If I'm paying for content, ads are theft).
And then you have the content itself going into the toilet. Empty-V used to play music videos, now they play the same kind of bullshit "reality TV" OTA shows. Discovery used to have science and technology, now it has "Trick My Truck". History Channel used to have WWII and ancient Greece, etc, now they have "Ice Road Truckers" and "Visitors for Outer Space".
People are cutting cable because it used to be $10 a month for quality, now it's over $100 for garbage. I got rid of cable years ago, OTA and DVDs and the computer using the TV as a monitor works for me. Cable is just too damned expensive for what you really get.