It is interesting how old laws are interpreted in strange ways. I was watching a documentary last week. A Canadian historian was doing some primitive archaeological work in a farmer’s field field in France, looking for some WW1 Canadian artifacts. He got the farmer’s permission, but not from the French government. The civil servant who stopped the project used a law created by the Vichy Regime in 1942, meaning a law from the Nazi puppet days. I suspect if the historian pushes forward, the issue will be resolved. But there are many pesky laws on the books that can be misused.
As for your article, I know the telecom laws are fairly extensive. I think you needed to explain things better to demonstrate there was some racist intent. If Comcast is relying on a 1866 law to base the denial, there just might be some racism. I think that is the jest of your story; I’m not sure.
This sentence confused me:
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in a case involving Comcast and entertainment executive Byron Allen.
The way this is written, I got the first impression that “Comcast” and “entertainment executive” were the same person: i.e. Mr. Allen also worked for Comcast. I had to read that paragraph three times to sort this out.