This article seems like fear-mongering/muckraking. The voices in the article complaining about the FCC ruling are saying that it's impractical to share in-use

This article seems like fear-mongering/muckraking. The voices in the article complaining about the FCC ruling are saying that it's impractical to share in-use home wiring runs, so of course the Article 52 law shouldn't be read as requiring MTE building owners to allow such sharing. Okay, except that DirectTV had petitioned the FCC to do exactly that in the past - multiplex their signal over an in-use home run to a tenant unit. The FCC said that the feedback they received at the time on DTV's proposal cast doubt on the ability to do this cleanly, so they would not accept DTV's proposal to require it. In this present ruling (subject of the article), the FCC is agreeing with the MBC petition that the City can't now require this. The City says their law doesn't require this. The FCC responds that okay, then no problem; but if someone were to try an interpret it this way (since we have providers on record trying to do exactly this in other venues) just know that it would be invalid. So what's the problem? Why try and frame this as an oppressive FCC crushing the benevolent City's intentions? It's a boring clarification unless someone has interest in actually doing what the FCC is prohibiting, which the City says it's not, so.. someone's making much ado about nothing, probably to fan political sentiment. And Ars Technica is being a stooge or complicit.