If you're like me, you're dying to direct in wide screen, looking forward to cutting "CinemaScope," aching to see your editorial vision played out in a 1080i arena.

If you take a look at my editorial columns from about a year ago, you'll notice that I had high hopes for high definition television, and looked forward to a near future ("here. now." I said) where we'd all be shooting and editing those pristine 16x9 HD productions. Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part. If you're like me, you're dying to direct in wide screen, looking forward to cutting "CinemaScope," aching to see your editorial vision played out in a glorious 1080i arena. Yep, those old fashioned standard-definition TVs would be a quaint relic of the past. Well, guess what? This magnificent metamorphosis just hasn't happened. Yet. Why not? What's the holdup?

I think the problem is, fat cats who own broadcast TV stations don't share my enthusiasm. The FCC is pushing them hard. Beyond that, viewers don't seem too enthusiastic, either. It's as if the government decided to throw an expensive party, and nobody showed up. Some party. The government decides it's going to happen, and then all the guests have to pay their own way.

Let's start with the viewers. Many industry observers thought that as soon as the cost of HDTV sets fell to below the $3000 mark, the floodgates would open, and everyone and his brother would race out to buy an HDTV set. But sales of HDTVs started out looking like a classic price-gouge -- two years ago, you'd have been hard-pressed to find one for less than $8000. That's certainly not an impulse item. These stratospheric prices were no doubt a wet blanket on hot sales. Now, wide-screen HDTV can be had for as little as $2300. But the American public is not interested. They've bought only 230,000 of the monitors so far, but along with that, only 40,000 of the digital receivers necessary to view broadcasts. Receiver? There's nothing to receive! Can you blame them (us)?

Go ahead -- buy an HD monitor. You'll be all dressed up with no place to go. Sure, you could subscribe to Direct TV, the satellite service that has one HDTV channel, HBO, and a smattering of pay-per-view offerings in HD. But heck, the former Soviet Union had only one channel to watch, and we used to make fun of them for it. Or, you could watch HDTV via broadcast. There are now over 150 stations broadcasting digital TV across the US. But wait. These are stations broadcasting in digital TV, not necessarily high definition TV. On the stations that have made the conversion, there's hardly any HDTV to watch. The reception is awful, and lots of those poor souls who bought the new receivers and live in large cities are not happy. Forget about using rabbit ears -- numerous tests of HD reception over the past year have proven that reception of the signals is about as easy as picking up a New York station when you live in Chicago. So, we can't blame viewers for not flocking to the local TV store, just to pick up an expensive TV that can't display anything but more of the same claptrap TV we've been getting for the past half-century.

Well then, let's shine our spotlight on the broadcasters. Oh, they have a hard luck story. That mean old government is making them convert all their stations to digital television. Lending them an extra frequency (that some stations are already figuring out how to keep forever through a loophole). Making them buy all new equipment. Boo hoo. Fact is, these stations will be able to broadcast four or more standard definition digital television signals instead of broadcasting only one HDTV channel. Face it -- if you were a broadcaster, what would you do? Sell ads on four stations and drag your feet on HD? Sure. Or rent the extra frequencies to some deep-pocketed interloper? Thought so. They're great business plans that quadruple the broadcasters' license-to-print-money that they've enjoyed for the past fifty years. There's a problem with that, though. Those airwaves they're using to earn all that cash are supposed to belong to us, the citizens. The fat cats are charged with using them "in the public interest." Well, good ole' boys, I have news for you: The public is interested in HDTV.

So, lo and behold, here's something crazy: The government comes to the rescue (?). FCC chairman William Kennard decided to kick some broadcaster ass last week, telling them he's wise to their game, and urging Congress to hammer out some tough legislation. Hey, Kennard says, we gave you these frequencies so you'd broadcast digital television, not rent the airwaves to send audio-video streaming media to personal computers equipped with digital over-the-air receivers! Tells 'em this transition isn't happening fast enough. He's talking about charging TV stations squatters' fees that will increase each year if they keep their extra frequencies beyond 2006. Well maybe, for once, the government will actually do something useful. But I'm not holding my breath.

I think it's broadcasters, with all their vast resources, who are the ones to break this deadlock. Sure, it's a chicken-and-egg situation, where viewers are waiting for HD programming and stations are waiting for HD viewers, but something has to give here. How can these broadcasters just whine their way out of providing HDTV to viewers? Bring it on -- via satellite, the airwaves, DVD, FMD videodisc or whatever. However you do it, make it happen! If broadcasters stall long enough, the world will pass them by. Given the technological progress we've seen in recent years, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw streaming HDTV over the Internet within a few years. Then the whole issue of broadcasting HDTV would be irrelevant.

We, the digital content creation community, are ready to edit and produce the stuff -- in fact, many of us already are. But we want to get beyond the experimental-novelty-banking-HD-for-the-future stage. Great strides have been made in computer editing throughput, making it possible to edit HD video uncompressed with systems like the Pinnacle CineWave or Softimage|DS HD. Even better editing systems for HD are on the horizon. I still think HDTV is inevitable, but it'll just take longer than we would like, similar to the drawn-out adoption of stereo TV in the US. In the meantime, think 16x9. Think about different framing and how you'll edit your productions in this awesome new format. Think HD! But make yourself comfortable. Because for a while, until this HD mess gets untangled, most of us will be doing a lot of thinking, but not much doing.

Charlie White has been writing about new media and digital video since it was the laughingstock of the television industry. A technology journalist and columnist for the past seven years, White is also an Emmy-winning producer, video editor and shot-calling PBS TV director. Talk back -- Send Chazz a note at cwhite@digitalmedianet.com.