Even if the fairness doctrine hadn't been eliminated administratively, it's very plausible it'd have been overturned by SCOTUS anyway. Not that'd I agree with that, but given the way the court has gone on corporate "free speech"...
The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum). Cable TV, newspapers were not affected and the internet likely wouldn’t have been affected either.
That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown any FD-style restriction on political speech in parks.
The nature of each "public good" could be evaluated to determine what was appropriate to ensure all citizens equal access to a public good.
FD just required a media outlet to make sure the media basically gave another candidate the opportunity to access, it didn't actually require equal time, not unless that candidate wanted to, or in the case of advertisements was willing to buy them.
Certainly parkland should be equally available to members of different political parties, but it's not like you have to use the same standard either: the nature of a "public good" would determine the nature of what fair equal access meant. For airwaves it's one thing. For a limited physical resource it's another.
So is radio spectrum. Regardless, as I said, you determine for each "public good" what appropriate fairness means. You don't back down from it just because doing the right thing isn't as easy as doing the easy thing.
The broadcast spectrum is considered a limited-supply public property, so the FCC (or other national equivalents) issues licenses allowing organizations (or standards) to use parts of it.
Wires are not limited supply in any meaningful sense (just install more), and in many parts of the world, not even public property.
It's so hard to take that seriously (e.g., exactly how many sets of cables per home is reasonable? and how often can people be expected to change them?), but even if I somehow do:
How is that different from, say, electric power, as far as constitutionality goes? We have the Federal (Water) Powers Act, FERC, etc. that regulate power distribution (among other things). I would've thought these are all easy to constitutionally justify the regulation of based on other clauses (like the Commerce Clause).
"more" in this context can mean "reach more locations" or "increase the bandwidth to existing locations". I'm not aware of bandwidth issues requiring much more than an update maybe once in 50-100 years. For example, where I live in rural NM, the houses around here presumably got paired telephone wires on the order of 50-100 years ago, and then within the last 10-15 years they got rewired with multi-twisted-pair cables that easily get to 50Mbps. While in 80 years that might not be considered sufficient, I doubt anyone will seriously suggest another round of recabling within that time frame.
But anyway, you really seem to be missing the fundamental point here: there is no limited "spectrum" for wiring in the sense of multiple possible parties who want to use "parts of it" for various purposes. If you assign the XMHz to YMHz band of the electromagnetic spectrum to some purpose, it's gone, it cannot be used for anything else, by anyone else, across a potentially vast geographic area. There's no equivalent for this in the context of digital (or analog) data moving down wires.
We gave up on the fairness doctrine because it didn't work. It forced news media to give equal time to the 1% of crackpots who disagreed with the 99% of scientists on a number of topics, including climate science. It was always going to go this way, regardless of the fairness doctrine existing or not.
