It does certainly seem kind of strange for something of this scale to happen out of the blue with no prior warning. If you want to speculate about terrorism, one could wonder if this isn't retaliation for the power problems in Iraq. Baghdad hasn't had decent power for months now; maybe someone thinks this is payback.
Nobody can prove anything right now. They keep saying "The power grid was overloaded" -- if that's true why wasn't it being reported before it broke down? Any explanation anybody gives right now (90 minutes after the outage began), is likely to be based on speculation and not evidence. Same goes for those saying "It's not terrorism" -- we don't really know that, we can only speculate.
I will say this: If this is terrorism, it's much less violent than bombings and other common terrorist tactics.
Well, true, which is why I said "no indication of terrorism", which is different from "indications are that it is not terrorism". Of course nobody seems to have any idea at this point -- it could be terrorism, or there could be a group of engineers standing around some piece of broken equipment wondering how to fix it. The important thing is not to jump to conclusions and allow a little bit of time for things to get sorted out.
Mayor Bloomberg is reporting on CNN that the black smoke some people have seem coming from the Con Edison plant is a result of an automatic shutdown process that was triggered by an outage at Niagra Mohawk Power, which feeds power to NYC as well as the other major cities on the region which have lost power.
They are not sure the cause of the Niagra outage but they do not have any indication of terrorism at this time.
This abstract from the Sep 2002 issue of Life Extension Magazine reported:
[...] All these findings pinpoint to a close correlation between the functional capacity of the creatine kinase/phosphorylcreatine/creatine system and proper brain function. They also offer a starting-point for novel means of delaying neurodegenerative disease, and/or for strengthening memory function and intellectual capabilities.
Assuming the definition of Fair Use which they quoted is corrected, it's got nothing to do with personal use, which is surprising to me. Based on their definition, Fair Use does not cover:
Timeshifting for personal use
Making backups for personal use
Making a copy for another location (i.e. copying a CD for your car CD player)
Making a copy for a friend
Photocopying a page from a book at a library
In fact, by their definition, fair use seems to only cover referencing copyrighted material in other copyrighted material, for example, a book reviewer quoting a paragraph from a book in his review of that book.
There must have been some case law that expanded the definition of fair use beyond what they refer to. Perhaps Sony vs. Betamax? Anybody know?
Average life span 100 years ago was lower because of a much higher incidence of infant mortality and death from various infections.
However, even 100 years ago, it was fairly common for healthy people to live past 80 or 90 or even 100, just as it is today. While the life expentancy curve has shifted, the top end of the curve has pretty much stayed put. We've made a lot of progress in the past 100 years in preventing early death, but we haven't really improved longevity.
I lost about 20 pounds over a year mostly by cutting soda out of my diet. I drink diet soda when I need the caffeine (although that should probably go too) and I drink a lot of water. Water = 0 calories. Soda = 120 calories (or so) per 12 oz. can. That means a 64-ounce super-size soda has 640 calories! Fruit juice is just as bad. Water is best but if you absolutely need something more flavorful try Crystal Light or some other drink with an artificial sweetener.
Complex carbs and starches are not really healthy. They have no real nutritional value, and they add up fast. Pasta, bread, etc. are mostly empty calories. Refined grains are about as bad as refined sugars.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as the Atkins diet, but in general most people could stand to cut back on their carbs. The Atkins thing is designed to trigger specific biological events in your body and you shouldn't do it unless you fully understand what you are getting into.
Fat doesn't just 'pass through' any more than carbs do, unless you consume a whole lot of it at once. Each gram of fat converts to 9 calories of energy, where each gram of carbs or protien convert to 4 calories. (Alcohol, BTW, is 7 calories per gram.) This calorie density is mostly why fatty foods have gotten such a bad rap, but carb-dense foods can pack just as many calories as fatty foods.
And I don't want to hear that "apples and oranges, a car is a thing, music is not" crap. Music is a product of some individual, group, or company every bit as much as my car is a product of GMC. The fact that the GMC weighs a couple of tons and the music technically does not have physical form is totally irrelevant to this conversation.
It is not at all irrelevant. In fact, it is the breakdown point of the entire intellectual property debate. One side argues that it is just like stealing a car. The other side laughs at this argument because it is patently obvious to them that downloading a movie is nothing like stealing a car, and in fact is nothing like walking into a store and stealing that same movie.
If I walk into a store and take a DVD without paying for it, I have deprived that store of the DVD. They paid for it, and now they don't have it. My action was clearly, without a doubt, unethical and illegal.
If I go online and download a movie without paying for it, whoever originally had the movie still has it. I haven't taken anything directly from them. Perhaps you can argue that I have deprived them of revenue because I would have otherwise bought it. Perhaps you can argue that I am increasing their revenue because after I see it I might decide to go buy it and tell my friends about it. The situation is a lot less clear.
My personal opinion is that if I'm not willing to pay what the publisher asks for it, I shouldn't benefit from it. I think it's unethical to copy a movie or a CD or a piece of software if the publisher clearly doesn't want me to. I won't argue that in most cases it is illegal. But I absolutely do not agree that copying is theft. Intellectual property is not real property, and it cannot be stolen.
The argument against copying music/movies/warez would be a lot more effective, in my opinion, if MPAA/RIAA/BSA stopped calling it theft. People who engage in this copying laugh at the notion that it is theft and you will never get through to them by calling it theft.
HanzoSan, please take the time to read and think about what Steeltoe wrote. Better yet, after you do that, print it out and tuck it away somewhere. When you happen upon it again at some point in the future, read it again and see if your perspective changes.
You said something in another message about not being able to figure life out and wishing someone would share their wisdom with you. Nobody ever figures life out entirely, but there are people in this very thread who *are* sharing their wisdom with you. But the fun part of life *is* the ongoing process figuring it out. That's true with lots of video games too -- once you've 'solved' the game, it's no longer fun.
Life is challenging, and that's what makes it good. Taking on those challenges can be quite an adventure, and when you succeed, that's one of the greatest feelings there is.
I've been where you are; I know what it's like. People have to learn to take control of their own life, make their own decisions, and not let themselves be 'victims'. It's a slow process, and it can seem impossible, especially at first, but the rewards are fantastic.
People can and do check out of real life every day. They do it by engaging in some activity that lets them avoid thinking about real life. They resort to playing online games for hours on end, or drinking alcohol, or watching tv all the time, or gambling, or any number of other activities than someone can choose to turn to. When done to excess, it becomes an addiction and it often has a negative impact on real life. I've been there, too.
The number one thing that seems to confuse non-techies is memory versus hard drive space. They are both measured in megabytes/gigabytes, they are both used to store programs and information, and they are both inside the big black/beige box that they seem to think is the "CPU".
I don't know that it's truly necessary to know what every term means. Non-techies may not know the definition of megahertz, but they probably understand that more is better. I don't know how horsepower is measured on my car engine, but I know more horsepower means a more powerful car.
And who cares how many people know what bluetooth means? If it's important to you, you will know what it means and you will look for it. If it's not, you will gloss over it.
I'm just a little concerned that this type of study will lead to the further dumbing-down of marketing material for tech products. Nothing annoys me more than product literature that talks endlessly about reducing costs, enhancing performance, saving money, simplifying your life, etc., without ever telling you what the product actually is.
Well, an unpowered plane will probably still have some control as long as there is airspeed over the control surfaces, but your point is still valid. This article is basically proposing an autopilot system that cannot be overriden. One of the problems with autopilots is that they rely on lots of other systems on the plane, all of which are fallable. When one of the underlying systems malfunctions (or is intentionally tampered with) the autopilot will no longer function correctly.
If multiple air traffic controllers are required to override the system from the ground, there's virtually ZERO chance of a repeat of 9/11.
There's already virtually zero chance of a repeat of 9/11. 9/11 relied on the assumption by passengers and crew that a hijacking would involve safely landing the plane at an unintended destination. Nobody would make that assumption today, and nobody on a plane would sit back and let the hijackers do their thing.
In order for a plane to get clearence, they would need to communicate with the air traffic controllers, which is something that never happenned on 9/11.terrorists (lets use the proper term: Muslims)
As if your argument wasn't weak enough to begin with, your racism speaks for itself.
If what you said was true I would be okay with it. But it's not. The policy claims to apply to any newsletter, site, or other form of communication which *facilitates* trading.
In other words, they appear to be trying to impose rules on individuals even if those individuals are not distributing (or, for that matter, possessing) any intellectual property that belongs to Phish.
Phish can make whatever rules they want about the distribution of recordings of their IP -- that's their right, and that they allow the distribution at all is a credit to them. But this policy, as written, appears to be stretching beyond IP and imposing rules on people they have no reason to impose rules on.
BTW, I used to run a site affiliated with Dave Matthews Band. DMB has an open taping policy similar to Phish's, but they are not so restrictive on web sites. I had a database on the site that facilitated individuals trading recordings of shows with each other (similar to db.etree.org but specific to DMB). I had no DMB IP on the site, and the band had no concerns with me having banner ads on my site. (Even when I did offer free mp3 downloads of live recordings they didn't have an issue with banner ads.) I spent hundreds of dollars per month for the servers and bandwidth to run the site and the banner ad revenue only covered a small percentage of that. I would not have been able to run a similar site for Phish unless I made it a 100% charity effort with no banner ads. Or I could have decided to challenge their probably-unenforceable rule, but there really wasn't any point in that. I just chose not to bother.
Phish puts unacceptable restrictions on fan sites -- although I'm not sure how they would go about enforcing them. For example:
"Newsletters, web sites, clubs, or any other communication forum facilitating audio trading cannot accept advertising, offer links for compensation, exploit databases compiled from their traffic, or otherwise derive any commercial proceeds in any form."
In other words, if I run a site that facilitates tape trading among phans, I can't have banner ads on that site. I can't even try to cover the costs of running the site.
There's more:
"All sites with such Phish-related content must agree to the Statement of Compliance provided below, and clearly display the following: "This site voluntarily complies with the Phish fan web site policy at http://www.phish.com/statementofcompliance.html""
Hmm... must...voluntarily... comply. That's interesting use of the english language.
"Fan sites must not contain any defamatory, offensive, illegal, and/or otherwise actionable content, nor may they allow such content from any user."
Not only is a fan-site operator's right to free speech taken away, he must also take away his users' rights.
Tis true. I was 'lucky' enough at one time to be at an ISP that didn't manage their network very well -- they didn't even know what switch port I was connected to and they apparently weren't even trying to monitor my bandwidth usage. I was paying for 256K but was getting unmetered 10mbps. Ahh the good ol' days...:)
The basic solution is to move your servers -- at least the ones that will be handling high bursts of traffic -- to an offsite, dedicated hosting facility. A facility like this will have big pipes coming in with the cost split among all of their customers, and typically offer you pricing based on burstable bandwidth use.
It's just not economical for a single company with occasional high-bandwidth requirements to bring in a pipe that sits idle 90% of the time. A co-location facility will serve many different customers who may have spikes of bandwidth usage, but their spikes will typically not be simultaneous, making overall bandwidth usage more efficient.
You have your "they"s mixed up. There are a lot of different entities with competing interests here.
There is no HDTV mandate, there is only a digital TV mandate. It will *only* affect people who receive over-the-air analog TV: those people will need a digital receiver, which they can connect to their existing TV, in order to watch TV after 2006. Their TV will not become obsolete. For everyone who watches TV over cable or satellite, the whole cutover will be a total non-event.
Some cable companies, such as Comcast, now offer local HD channels. We will probably see a lot more of this in the next 12 months or so.
It is frustrating, though, that local HD channels are not likely to be available via satellite (DirecTV, Dish) for a long time. This is where my frustration with the whole situation comes in. ABC, CBS, and NBC are rebroadcasting the same programming on hundreds of local channels around the US. From the satellite broadcasting perspective, the sat companies have to beam these hundreds of duplicate channels on their limited satellite bandwidth. It's not feasible with their current bandwidth contraints to ever offer the locals in HD, and because of FCC rules concerning network broadcasts that could take money away from local channels, the sat companies are not allowed to offer, for example, a single national HD feed of CBS, NBC, and ABC.
Not quite. 1080i HDTV uses approximately the same bandwidth as current analog broadcasts. non-HD digital TV (480p) uses less bandwidth, but bandwidth will continue to be handed out in the same size chunks as before -- the difference is that a TV company can broadcast 3 or 4 different stations in 480p on one 'channel', or they can choose to broadcast 1 1080i station on that same channel instead.
Not everybody is switching to HDTV. So far Fox offers no HD programming, only 480p. The mandate is to switch from analog to digital, not necessarily to HD, and there are zero plans to drop UHF frequencies. What is happen, is that, for example, channel 2 has been given, say, channel 19 to broadcast its digital signal from, while it continues to broadcast in analog on channel 2. When the deadline arrives in 2006, channel 2 will switch from analog to digital, and the channel 19 frequency will go off the air -- being given back to the FCC.
Slashdot Mirror
It does certainly seem kind of strange for something of this scale to happen out of the blue with no prior warning. If you want to speculate about terrorism, one could wonder if this isn't retaliation for the power problems in Iraq. Baghdad hasn't had decent power for months now; maybe someone thinks this is payback.
Nobody can prove anything right now. They keep saying "The power grid was overloaded" -- if that's true why wasn't it being reported before it broke down? Any explanation anybody gives right now (90 minutes after the outage began), is likely to be based on speculation and not evidence. Same goes for those saying "It's not terrorism" -- we don't really know that, we can only speculate.
I will say this: If this is terrorism, it's much less violent than bombings and other common terrorist tactics.
Well, true, which is why I said "no indication of terrorism", which is different from "indications are that it is not terrorism". Of course nobody seems to have any idea at this point -- it could be terrorism, or there could be a group of engineers standing around some piece of broken equipment wondering how to fix it. The important thing is not to jump to conclusions and allow a little bit of time for things to get sorted out.
Mayor Bloomberg is reporting on CNN that the black smoke some people have seem coming from the Con Edison plant is a result of an automatic shutdown process that was triggered by an outage at Niagra Mohawk Power, which feeds power to NYC as well as the other major cities on the region which have lost power.
They are not sure the cause of the Niagra outage but they do not have any indication of terrorism at this time.
This abstract from the Sep 2002 issue of Life Extension Magazine reported:
[...] All these findings pinpoint to a close correlation between the functional capacity of the creatine kinase/phosphorylcreatine/creatine system and proper brain function. They also offer a starting-point for novel means of delaying neurodegenerative disease, and/or for strengthening memory function and intellectual capabilities.
Huh? What do you base that statement on?
Timeshifting for personal use
Making backups for personal use
Making a copy for another location (i.e. copying a CD for your car CD player)
Making a copy for a friend
Photocopying a page from a book at a library
In fact, by their definition, fair use seems to only cover referencing copyrighted material in other copyrighted material, for example, a book reviewer quoting a paragraph from a book in his review of that book.
There must have been some case law that expanded the definition of fair use beyond what they refer to. Perhaps Sony vs. Betamax? Anybody know?
Average life span 100 years ago was lower because of a much higher incidence of infant mortality and death from various infections.
However, even 100 years ago, it was fairly common for healthy people to live past 80 or 90 or even 100, just as it is today. While the life expentancy curve has shifted, the top end of the curve has pretty much stayed put. We've made a lot of progress in the past 100 years in preventing early death, but we haven't really improved longevity.
I lost about 20 pounds over a year mostly by cutting soda out of my diet. I drink diet soda when I need the caffeine (although that should probably go too) and I drink a lot of water. Water = 0 calories. Soda = 120 calories (or so) per 12 oz. can. That means a 64-ounce super-size soda has 640 calories! Fruit juice is just as bad. Water is best but if you absolutely need something more flavorful try Crystal Light or some other drink with an artificial sweetener.
Complex carbs and starches are not really healthy. They have no real nutritional value, and they add up fast. Pasta, bread, etc. are mostly empty calories. Refined grains are about as bad as refined sugars.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as the Atkins diet, but in general most people could stand to cut back on their carbs. The Atkins thing is designed to trigger specific biological events in your body and you shouldn't do it unless you fully understand what you are getting into.
Fat doesn't just 'pass through' any more than carbs do, unless you consume a whole lot of it at once. Each gram of fat converts to 9 calories of energy, where each gram of carbs or protien convert to 4 calories. (Alcohol, BTW, is 7 calories per gram.) This calorie density is mostly why fatty foods have gotten such a bad rap, but carb-dense foods can pack just as many calories as fatty foods.
And I don't want to hear that "apples and oranges, a car is a thing, music is not" crap. Music is a product of some individual, group, or company every bit as much as my car is a product of GMC. The fact that the GMC weighs a couple of tons and the music technically does not have physical form is totally irrelevant to this conversation.
It is not at all irrelevant. In fact, it is the breakdown point of the entire intellectual property debate. One side argues that it is just like stealing a car. The other side laughs at this argument because it is patently obvious to them that downloading a movie is nothing like stealing a car, and in fact is nothing like walking into a store and stealing that same movie.
If I walk into a store and take a DVD without paying for it, I have deprived that store of the DVD. They paid for it, and now they don't have it. My action was clearly, without a doubt, unethical and illegal.
If I go online and download a movie without paying for it, whoever originally had the movie still has it. I haven't taken anything directly from them. Perhaps you can argue that I have deprived them of revenue because I would have otherwise bought it. Perhaps you can argue that I am increasing their revenue because after I see it I might decide to go buy it and tell my friends about it. The situation is a lot less clear.
My personal opinion is that if I'm not willing to pay what the publisher asks for it, I shouldn't benefit from it. I think it's unethical to copy a movie or a CD or a piece of software if the publisher clearly doesn't want me to. I won't argue that in most cases it is illegal. But I absolutely do not agree that copying is theft. Intellectual property is not real property, and it cannot be stolen.
The argument against copying music/movies/warez would be a lot more effective, in my opinion, if MPAA/RIAA/BSA stopped calling it theft. People who engage in this copying laugh at the notion that it is theft and you will never get through to them by calling it theft.
Well said, Steeltoe.
HanzoSan, please take the time to read and think about what Steeltoe wrote. Better yet, after you do that, print it out and tuck it away somewhere. When you happen upon it again at some point in the future, read it again and see if your perspective changes.
You said something in another message about not being able to figure life out and wishing someone would share their wisdom with you. Nobody ever figures life out entirely, but there are people in this very thread who *are* sharing their wisdom with you. But the fun part of life *is* the ongoing process figuring it out. That's true with lots of video games too -- once you've 'solved' the game, it's no longer fun.
Life is challenging, and that's what makes it good. Taking on those challenges can be quite an adventure, and when you succeed, that's one of the greatest feelings there is.
I've been where you are; I know what it's like. People have to learn to take control of their own life, make their own decisions, and not let themselves be 'victims'. It's a slow process, and it can seem impossible, especially at first, but the rewards are fantastic.
People can and do check out of real life every day. They do it by engaging in some activity that lets them avoid thinking about real life. They resort to playing online games for hours on end, or drinking alcohol, or watching tv all the time, or gambling, or any number of other activities than someone can choose to turn to. When done to excess, it becomes an addiction and it often has a negative impact on real life. I've been there, too.
Didn't your research say anything about "IBM Compatible"? I heard that's really important.
The number one thing that seems to confuse non-techies is memory versus hard drive space. They are both measured in megabytes/gigabytes, they are both used to store programs and information, and they are both inside the big black/beige box that they seem to think is the "CPU".
I don't know that it's truly necessary to know what every term means. Non-techies may not know the definition of megahertz, but they probably understand that more is better. I don't know how horsepower is measured on my car engine, but I know more horsepower means a more powerful car.
And who cares how many people know what bluetooth means? If it's important to you, you will know what it means and you will look for it. If it's not, you will gloss over it.
I'm just a little concerned that this type of study will lead to the further dumbing-down of marketing material for tech products. Nothing annoys me more than product literature that talks endlessly about reducing costs, enhancing performance, saving money, simplifying your life, etc., without ever telling you what the product actually is.
Well, an unpowered plane will probably still have some control as long as there is airspeed over the control surfaces, but your point is still valid. This article is basically proposing an autopilot system that cannot be overriden. One of the problems with autopilots is that they rely on lots of other systems on the plane, all of which are fallable. When one of the underlying systems malfunctions (or is intentionally tampered with) the autopilot will no longer function correctly.
If multiple air traffic controllers are required to override the system from the ground, there's virtually ZERO chance of a repeat of 9/11.
There's already virtually zero chance of a repeat of 9/11. 9/11 relied on the assumption by passengers and crew that a hijacking would involve safely landing the plane at an unintended destination. Nobody would make that assumption today, and nobody on a plane would sit back and let the hijackers do their thing.
In order for a plane to get clearence, they would need to communicate with the air traffic controllers, which is something that never happenned on 9/11.terrorists (lets use the proper term: Muslims)
As if your argument wasn't weak enough to begin with, your racism speaks for itself.
If what you said was true I would be okay with it. But it's not. The policy claims to apply to any newsletter, site, or other form of communication which *facilitates* trading.
In other words, they appear to be trying to impose rules on individuals even if those individuals are not distributing (or, for that matter, possessing) any intellectual property that belongs to Phish.
Phish can make whatever rules they want about the distribution of recordings of their IP -- that's their right, and that they allow the distribution at all is a credit to them. But this policy, as written, appears to be stretching beyond IP and imposing rules on people they have no reason to impose rules on.
BTW, I used to run a site affiliated with Dave Matthews Band. DMB has an open taping policy similar to Phish's, but they are not so restrictive on web sites. I had a database on the site that facilitated individuals trading recordings of shows with each other (similar to db.etree.org but specific to DMB). I had no DMB IP on the site, and the band had no concerns with me having banner ads on my site. (Even when I did offer free mp3 downloads of live recordings they didn't have an issue with banner ads.) I spent hundreds of dollars per month for the servers and bandwidth to run the site and the banner ad revenue only covered a small percentage of that. I would not have been able to run a similar site for Phish unless I made it a 100% charity effort with no banner ads. Or I could have decided to challenge their probably-unenforceable rule, but there really wasn't any point in that. I just chose not to bother.
Phish puts unacceptable restrictions on fan sites -- although I'm not sure how they would go about enforcing them. For example:
"Newsletters, web sites, clubs, or any other communication forum facilitating audio trading cannot accept advertising, offer links for compensation, exploit databases compiled from their traffic, or otherwise derive any commercial proceeds in any form."
In other words, if I run a site that facilitates tape trading among phans, I can't have banner ads on that site. I can't even try to cover the costs of running the site.
There's more:
"All sites with such Phish-related content must agree to the Statement of Compliance provided below, and clearly display the following: "This site voluntarily complies with the Phish fan web site policy at http://www.phish.com/statementofcompliance.html""
Hmm... must...voluntarily... comply. That's interesting use of the english language.
"Fan sites must not contain any defamatory, offensive, illegal, and/or otherwise actionable content, nor may they allow such content from any user."
Not only is a fan-site operator's right to free speech taken away, he must also take away his users' rights.
Tis true. I was 'lucky' enough at one time to be at an ISP that didn't manage their network very well -- they didn't even know what switch port I was connected to and they apparently weren't even trying to monitor my bandwidth usage. I was paying for 256K but was getting unmetered 10mbps. Ahh the good ol' days... :)
The basic solution is to move your servers -- at least the ones that will be handling high bursts of traffic -- to an offsite, dedicated hosting facility. A facility like this will have big pipes coming in with the cost split among all of their customers, and typically offer you pricing based on burstable bandwidth use.
It's just not economical for a single company with occasional high-bandwidth requirements to bring in a pipe that sits idle 90% of the time. A co-location facility will serve many different customers who may have spikes of bandwidth usage, but their spikes will typically not be simultaneous, making overall bandwidth usage more efficient.
Lots of hosting providers offer this, including Verio, Dynamic Hosting, Superb Hosting and many others.
hmm, that's FUD
Kind of like the web site in your sig?
Whether you win or lose is random, but the symbols that come up are not.
Losing spins often deliberately appear to be "close" to a very good spins (such as all three 7's are showing, but not lined up).
You have your "they"s mixed up. There are a lot of different entities with competing interests here.
There is no HDTV mandate, there is only a digital TV mandate. It will *only* affect people who receive over-the-air analog TV: those people will need a digital receiver, which they can connect to their existing TV, in order to watch TV after 2006. Their TV will not become obsolete. For everyone who watches TV over cable or satellite, the whole cutover will be a total non-event.
Some cable companies, such as Comcast, now offer local HD channels. We will probably see a lot more of this in the next 12 months or so.
It is frustrating, though, that local HD channels are not likely to be available via satellite (DirecTV, Dish) for a long time. This is where my frustration with the whole situation comes in. ABC, CBS, and NBC are rebroadcasting the same programming on hundreds of local channels around the US. From the satellite broadcasting perspective, the sat companies have to beam these hundreds of duplicate channels on their limited satellite bandwidth. It's not feasible with their current bandwidth contraints to ever offer the locals in HD, and because of FCC rules concerning network broadcasts that could take money away from local channels, the sat companies are not allowed to offer, for example, a single national HD feed of CBS, NBC, and ABC.
Already done.
Low Power FM
Not quite. 1080i HDTV uses approximately the same bandwidth as current analog broadcasts. non-HD digital TV (480p) uses less bandwidth, but bandwidth will continue to be handed out in the same size chunks as before -- the difference is that a TV company can broadcast 3 or 4 different stations in 480p on one 'channel', or they can choose to broadcast 1 1080i station on that same channel instead.
Not everybody is switching to HDTV. So far Fox offers no HD programming, only 480p. The mandate is to switch from analog to digital, not necessarily to HD, and there are zero plans to drop UHF frequencies. What is happen, is that, for example, channel 2 has been given, say, channel 19 to broadcast its digital signal from, while it continues to broadcast in analog on channel 2. When the deadline arrives in 2006, channel 2 will switch from analog to digital, and the channel 19 frequency will go off the air -- being given back to the FCC.