If you're talking about 1080/24p, as someone mentioned, that's actually possible today. And in fact, it'll look marginally better than 1080/60i made via 3:2 pulldown, since each frame can be slightly less compressed at the same bitrate.
For 1080/60p, though, you're going to have issues. Current US broadcast is limited to 19.4Mb/s... if you want 1080/60p, you're going to in short need twice the bandwidth, or accept half the quality, or change something. But in fact, 1080/60p isn't a legal ATSC format, so anything here is really post-ATSC, far as terrestrial broadcast goes.
For cable/satellite, it's possible essentially "whenever they feel like it", which also probably means not anytime soon. Satellite has already moved most HD content to H.264 rather than MPEG-2, and they're using modulation schemes that deliver 30-60Mb/s per analog channel, rather than 19.4MB/s. But satellite "real estate" is expensive, and even with the far greater coding efficiency of H.264, most HD content is likely downsampled, more likely 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 than the full 1920x1080, all at 60i. Don't expect any dramatic changes here.
Cable systems have more bandwidth, and FIOS TV more still, but they're also a competition where something just barely HD is often considered acceptable, and quantity wins over quality, after a point. As well, unless there's a big 1080/60p infrastructure, there's little point in paying for the ability to deliver it. If TV is primarily 1080/60i, and film primarily 1080/24p, where are you going to find enough 1080/60p content to push the demand onto any service provider?