He's differentiating between a rule put forth by an administrative agency like the FCC, calling it a "regulation", as opposed to a law passed through conventional means. Laws are sometimes considered "more valid" because they've, at least hypothetically, been through the process designed to allow the people's voice to be manifest on them (approval from elected reps + elected prez), whereas rules put forth by agencies are promulgated by unelected presidential appointees and their staff.
You are correct that in the general sense, the term "regulation" applies equally to laws intended to restrict some commercial behaviors as well as rules put forth by agencies with regulatory powers like the FCC.
There is a semantic difference between a law i.e. something passed by Congress and signed by the president versus a regulation promulgated by a regulatory body. That regulatory body dervies it's power to regulate from law. But in a purely technical sense it is not a law.
There are multiple categories of things which have the force of law. Referring them generally as "laws" is acceptable when technical hair-splitting about their precise origin is unnecessary.
