A USA Today article this week suggested that consumers’ increasing clamoring for high-definition TV content gives satellite and telephone companies an ever-growing advantage over Cable due to Cable’s bandwidth capacity constraints. The capacity issue is a real one, for sure, and the article made several accurate points. However, we reach a much different conclusion on the issue.

The reality of constrained capacity is not new. In fact, at Cox Communications, we’re well into a renewed focus on increasing bandwidth and are confident there will be more than enough to support growing demand for HDTV and for all the services pushed through our pipes into customers’ homes and businesses. We’re actively pursuing several “levers” to increase capacity, including switched digital broadcast technology, node splitting, utilizing 256 QAM and upgrading more of our networks to 860 MHz. We’ll be able to pull those and other levers, as needed, to meet demand.

Will there be short-term challenges? Yes. Will bandwidth building require money and intense effort? Definitely. But we firmly disagree that Cable is at a two- to three-year structural disadvantage to competitors on HDTV capacity.

One accurate point from the article is that devices equipped with a cable card (which performs some limited functionality of a set-top box when inserted into equipped TVs) would be unable to receive HDTV channels transmitted via switched digital broadcast technology. Switched digital is a two-way interactive solution, but the cable card was specified by the Consumer Electronics industry as a one-way device. In fact, cable card-driven devices can’t access any two-way services, including video on demand and interactive TV, because the CE industry (not cable companies) limited functionality to one-way.

Yes, the switched digital option for increasing capacity would limit current cable card devices from receiving additional HDTV signals. (A two-way card compatible with switched digital is in the works, but first-generation consumer devices would not be forward-compatible—i.e., you won’t be able to put a two-way card in a one-way device.) While we would maintain those customers’ current level of services, and they would lose none of their HDTV channels, they wouldn’t have access to additional HDTV channels enabled by switched digital. But you don’t have to look far into the history of communications to find numerous similar examples—including the fact that TV sets, equipped with VHF and UHF tuners, necessitated the birth of cable set-top boxes so viewers could receive the scores of new cable networks launched in the ’70s and ’80s. And there are no shortage of parallels from the PC world, where devices and applications that are adequate one day are rendered obsolete the next by technology advancements, powerful new operating systems, etc. The fact is that consumers are accustomed to the reality that technologies grow more sophisticated in all dimensions all the time—but deliver them more content and options for their trouble.

Speaking of trouble for customers: Satellite TV providers do have a small advantage in the sense that, as long as they have satellite capacity, they can drive new content to their customers relatively easily. However, satellite set-tops based on MPEG-2 technology will have to be switched out with MPEG-4 boxes in order for satellite customers to enjoy expanded HDTV options, meaning disruption for the majority of satellite subscribers.

As USA Today pointed out, analog channels require more bandwidth than digital channels, so replacing some analog channels is one of the levers cable companies can use to reclaim capacity for additional HDTV signals. However, there’s no single cable industry approach on analog reclamation; some companies are planning to be more aggressive than others. (Cox Communications is in the less-aggressive group on analog reclamation, as we want to maintain a robust analog tier for our customers). But, again, companies have a handful of options to meet their individual capacity needs market to market; there’s no need for a single one-size-fits-all solution.

So, yes, HDTV content is expanding, requiring more bandwidth than standard-definition signals. Yes, the one-way cable card developed by electronics manufacturers will limit some customers from receiving future HDTV channels, but they will lose none of the services or channels they enjoy now. Yes, some telephone companies are deploying fiber to compete with Cable, but so far they’ve mainly just delivered a lot of “aspirational” press releases touting future HDTV capacity. Yes, Cable—but satellite, too—has work to do to ensure sufficient capacity. But, no, this is not a new revelation—it’s a challenge that has been known for some time and is being adequately addressed thanks to several viable options. And, yes, we will meet customers’ current and future needs for HDTV and for all of the cable, high-speed Internet, telephone and other services they can get from a single, trusted source: their cable company.