There is also the matter of bandwidth requirements - how is a greater-than-1080p picture going to get to you? Satellite has issues with merely 720p - while fiber optics CAN deliver 1080p by the trainload, it's expensive to deploy. (Ask Verizon OR Google - better yet, ask their bondholders.) The demand will appear in computer displays WELL before it arrives in terms of TVs simply because of the shortness of the delivery path - for a computer, it's just feet, if not inches. Even if OLED solves the burn-in and scaling problems, why would it be needed if the bandwidth to take advantage of it isn't there?
Uh, no it doesn't, downlink satellite has extremely good bandwidth, maybe your provided has really bad old satellites, but there's no truth to that.
Terrestrial however does have issues with 720, they have limited frequencies and bandwidth, and have to run few HD channels max 720, and at high compressions.
Over here we have two satellite companies, Canal Digital which I believe has their own satellites, they run 1080, at very high image quality and great audio, they score highest on both, and they have enough bandwidth to run as many HD Channels as they want. and we get new ones all the time as the tv channels upgrade. The other one, Viasat, I'm not sure if they have their own satellites or if they rent space, but while they run full HD, they have far lower image quality, even on SD, they use much higher compression on the image, and comparably crappy audio.
Cable of course offers comparable quality to that of satellite, because they use satellite as a source.
Also, you're assuming bandwidth requirements scale linearly with picture size. which it doesn't. Compression actually gets better on bigger images, since there's bigger surfaces of identical colors and shades and shapes and patterns to compress in the same space. so you can get 200% the picture, and as little or lower than 150% the size/bandwidth.
And then we haven't even accounted for the new super effective compression technology they're demonstrating now.