That's a pretty severe case of cherrypicking there. Sure, you could order those channels a la carte if you felt the need to spend extra money for no reason. Or you could just get CBS OTA like people have been doing for the last 50 years, and spend $35 per month for HBO, A&E, and 20-something other channels for good measure. That would leave you without Cinemax and Showtime, but the entire point of cord-cutting is to stop paying for crappy, overpriced channels like those ones in the first place. If you want those channels, then by all means you should have cable. If you only watch a third of the channels you pay for, then cord-cutting is likely already feasible, and if not it probably will be in the nearish future. As for the data caps, that's an entirely separate issue that anyone can get around if they want to. Just have to get higher-tier internet, which is worth it in its own right.
Also, the main point that you seem to be overlooking is that I said it's becoming feasible for everyone. It's already feasible for me and people like me; for the rest of you, just give it time. As cable networks continue to feel the squeeze from cord-cutters and see their carriage fees shrink, they'll have to find a way to reach that crowd that they're no longer reaching through cable. It's an existential threat, so ignoring it simply won't be an option.
Will cable providers strike back? Sure, they might try to. They already lost the net neutrality battle, though, so if they do it'll have to be so draconian that it pisses pretty much everyone off. And if it does get to that point, then that's where Google Fiber or Elon Musk's next big project or something else of that nature will have to come in.