like evidently obtuse? -- j
.

I know what you mean, but I think it's whatever the opposite of an oxymoron is. A common one is "distinctly different". I don't know what the word for that is.

yes, that's one of my favorite oxymorons --
government largesse!!! -- j
.

TDS HQ is 3 miles from my office.

They're mistaken to vote D or R to get gov't largess. Both parties have equal records on spending and borrowing.

I've heard that youngsters want free stuff everywhere
they can get it, and that many vote D to get it from
the rich folks' heavier taxes. . so, when costs rise
for anything electronic, they complain.

we're with TDS, a strange company headquartered
up north (I'm in TN) and we do have a Cu wire. . Thank
You for the link!!! -- j
.

"complaints by many youngsters and others about the high costs of Charter..."
As I think you're saying, those youngsters will be disappointed if they expect the gov't to provide those bits more cost effectively.

"my service arrives on a telephone line (POTS) and may continue more than another decade."
I've heard 2018 as a target for the last year of POTS. Maybe it will go on a bit longer. They're transitioning people to VoIP devices that simulate landlines, but the calls go directly over the internet:
http://bit.ly/EndPOTS

I thought that the feds were using the excuse of the
complaints by many youngsters and others about
the high costs of Charter (and others) cable for
high-bandwidth service -- to smooth out costs and
availability in spite of the increased demand for this
high-bandwidth service for online, on-demand movies
and the like. . my service arrives on a telephone
line (POTS) and may continue more than another
decade. . who knows? -- j
.

I do not know enough to agree/disagree, but this may be related to the end of the Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). The system operated for decades with it only being profitable if 30%-40% of the people in an urban area had them. My understanding is it wasn't profitable in rural areas, but urban subscribers subsidized it. It was a monopoly, and the theory was the value increased for everyone if everyone had access, so they subsidized rural customers.

The POTS will be gone by the end of this decade, replaced by the Internet and mobile phones. I suspect the FCCs is applying the POTS rural subsidy reasoning to its successor. I would be more in favor of letting prices rise for rural customers, perhaps increasing slightly the cost of rural living and causing innovative people to think of ways to get them cheaper service. The trouble is those people are already complaining about increased costs, and I suspect this is a way to appease them.