Speech on TV or radio is still speech. There is some justification for the feds to regulate broadcast TV, because the signals can't help but cross state lines, and because there is a relatively limited ammount of bandwidth, or there was before the UHF channels came along. (But the principal was put in place before TV, when AM radio, which has more range and less useable station slots available than even VHF TV). No justification at all for regulating what you can say on your local cable system, but this law does that. Naked ladies are OK, but critising politicians is not? No justification at all for regulating the political content, in fact a prohibition on doing just that. Regulating the frequencies, power, location and other technical factors is a reasonable exercise of the commerce clause.
And is text on the screen still a printing press? Is that the clear, uninterpreted meaning of the founding fathers?
I still think you're trying to have it both ways - using interpretation when you feel they are needed, but opposing interpretation when it is done by the Supreme Court.