"to avoid paying their fair share"

That phrase "fair share" is dishonest. It is vague and subjective, while pretending to be objectively normative.

... or campaign to get the feds to bud out of this issue entirely, so that there would be no lobbyists to be feted by, and no telco companies to bail out.

It's not "always wrong, no matter what". It merely lacks incentives and feedbacks to produce what the people actually value. It has power without responsibility. It can be wrong, and suffers nothing. (Was the FCC wrong to make the "standard" 3/1M so long? How has it suffered for that? A business wrong for too long would die.)

"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent,"

So the FCC gets to change its own standards, then impose its jurisdiction on the new stragglers. Typical regulator. No skin in the game, but always knows what's good for everyone else.

more like 11.4 years

In those few cases, they may need to take the bullet. Or use other technologies to protect themselves while politely inquiring at the doorstep.

"I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid."

I thought the TFA (which you "actually do read") and this subthread is exactly about reasons for that.

Taking the situation seriously ... ok.
Staging a raid ... not ok.

"seem like"

There's the problem there. The burden of proof for "seeming" is pathetically low, and yet the police create huge risks to the lives of the people they raid, and their own lives, by acting on such impressions.

"the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."

That sounds like appropriate advice for apprx. all addresses.

... becomes subjective bias-reinforcement when using the phrase "even worse" in comparing numbers

"It's just not something we talk and think a lot about ..."

While to you and me, that makes perfect sense, to others it is a signal that you are at best in denial and at worst a party to the Evil Patriarchy. Sorry.

If you want to produce your own goods, purchase or grow your own raw materials, mix in your labour, and go for it. No one will shoot you.

(If you're limiting your concern to the bootstrapping question of how someone who has nothing can get something ... well, such people can do unskilled labour or rely on charity, -then- purchase those raw materials. This isn't rocket science, and it describes a vanishingly small fraction of the population.)

"and either everyone works for you or starves or you will kill them ..."

You must feel very cautious every time you frequent a grocery store, taxi, computer company, landlord, bank, airport, even the guy who sells you underwear, if you think they're secretly planning to kill you if you don't purchase their goods.

"those that scream the loudest about government are always the ones who want to be the sole controller of government"

Au contraire, many of us would simply yell "laissez faire", and not control government nor you.