P.S. - the short version of this story should be:

"Politicians with little knowledge of computers are talking about the internet again."

I don't expect the FTC chairman to be tech savvy, but there isn't anyone at the FTC that can tell him what is and isn't technically feasible?

No, he was exactly right. He said, "not air pressure". It's not air pressure. It's the hydrostatic pressure of the liquid being siphoned, which as you understand, is a result of gravity. A siphon would work just as well in a vacuum (both ends at vacuum, of course).

Siphons don't work in vacuum, and they don't work if the distance between the two containers is greater than 10 meters (one atm of pressure at sea level). You can transfer liquid between two containers in a vacuum, but its a completely different principle, not nearly as efficient (molecular cohesion) and places additional requirements on the materials of the tube.

The problem is, how did the market become "uncompetitive" in the first place?

Oh yeah, Government interference. First by creating and enforcing local monopolies rather than simply selling right of way space to anyone that wanted it, and second by scooping up several billion in taxpayer money and just GIVING it to the big telcos to create and infrastructure.

Nice attempt at revisionist history. Ma Bell became a regulated monopoly after they were sued under antitrust law in 1913. They were sued because AT&T started buying up all the competition in 1907. They became "uncompetitive" all by themselves by functionally eliminating competition and purchasing as much right-of-way as possible to prevent new competitors from entering the market.

Gravity makes a siphon work, not air pressure.

You're right and wrong. Siphons work because the pressure at the end of the tube is greater than the surrounding pressure in the receiving container.

You're wrong because it's definitely caused by pressure.

You're right because gravity causes pressure.

Ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation, and those others are burns.

No it's not. At least not in the common usage. Extremely high frequency UV is indeed ionizing, but what is typically considered UV light is not. In order to be ionizing, the field or particle must be capable of stripping electrons from atoms. Standard "UV light" does not have enough energy for this.

In Japan things are more expensive in general (because quality is higher), but on the other hand I don't get people trying to triple-dip either.

Things are more expensive, generally, in Japan because demand is high (and supply is limited, in some cases). It has nothing to do with quality.