I take slight issue with your characterization of Aereo's legal position, though (mostly having to do with your #2). The issue (as I understand it) was whether Aereo was infringing on the copyrights of the owners of broadcast TV content. Aereo was arguing neither that they were or were not like a cable company, because it could not possibly have helped them. If they were a cable company, they were SOL because they hadn't been paying the compulsory licensing fee by which cable companies get the license to broadcast content. If they weren't, this still would leave them in search of an explanation of why they weren't infringing on broadcasters' copyright. Their strategy, therefore, was to argue that they were simply, in essence, renting a broadcast antenna to allow home viewers to time/place shift broadcast TV. The analogy to cable operators came into it because the Supreme Court concluded, on the basis of the treatment of cable companies under the Telecommunications Act, that congress intended for any such service -- regardless of what technological contrivance they might use -- to require a license.
Under this approach to the case, I think the outcome is a bit clearer against Aereo. This is not to say that I think the issue is at all an easy one.
1. Cable companies offered a particular kind of service, and were subjected to a regulation which specifically calls out that it governs anyone using a particular technology.
2. Aereo (having read the law) decided to offer the same service using a different technology, so as to sidestep the technology-based regulation.
3. Aereo was sued on the theory that while the law says it governs those using a particular technology, it means that it governs anyone offering a particular service.
The law as written is much closer to Aereo's view of things, but they weren't seen as a slam dunk regardless, largely on the court-watching theory that judges don't like weaselly loopholes. But all of this is to say that this particular case was not seen (in the circles I read) as having any obvious outcome in any direction. It could be a textbook case illustrating the absurdity of "discovered" law.