> The existing laws defined them as a cable company. They were not very smart to think otherwise. The laws may need to go away, but that was always the correct interpretation.
The existing laws did no such thing. The existing laws did not even address them. Furthermore, they were going out of their way to conform to what legal precedents have been set.
The "legal theory" used by the Supreme Court in this case was a national embarrassment.
Sometimes, it doesn't matter so much if you do the "right thing" or the "wrong thing" but how you do it. This was done in such a wrong manner that the consequences of that could be far more harmful than the general "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".
"Walks like a duck" should embarrass anyone posting here.