Umm . . . are you under the impression that MSO's are holding back on their bandwidth? Because that's fairly ridiculous.
It's perfectly obvious to me that providers are stuck in a tug-of-war: better PQ versus more channels. You get one or the other, not both.
The central problem here is technical: trying to put next-generation transmissions, HD, on last-generation technology, i.e. the existing cable infrastructures and satellite transponders. Picture a snake that's swallowed a bowling ball.
It's further compounded by the lack of a standard that defines the minimum level of quality for a high-def transmission. Sure, there are numerous resolutions like 1080i and 720p that are called high-definition, but what makes an HD show look great is how high a bitrate the MSO can give it.
And the minimum bitrate changes every second; consider an ESPN show like "Sportscenter" that has studio shots of talking heads intercut with fast-moving game highlights. How can a network demand a minimum level of bandwidth when that minimum level is such a moving target?
Frankly, I'm pessimistic about ever seeing huge improvements in HDTV, for the simple reason that "picture quality" will never be a huge economic driver for the MSOs to worry about. Consumers will ALWAYS be more receptive to a service provider that has more channels, versus one with fewer channels that are better quality. Consider DirecTV's advertisements: the claim that they will have 150 HDTV channels next year is trumpeted loudly (and will only get louder next year after their new satellites are up). But the part where it says "For picture quality that beats cable, you've got to get DirecTV" is more of a throwaway than anything. And Dish doesn't even make any kind of similar claim, although they could just as easily.
Maybe if HD DVD takes off, people will see what their HDTVs are really capable of. But can anyone come up with an example of the American public voting with their dollars in favor of fewer, better-quality choices instead of more but lesser options?
