There is a peculiar problem with the FCC, it has two roles to play: one good and one bad. The issue is that strengthening one, essentially strengthens the other so something entirely different needs to be done.
In the fervor over FCC Commissioner, Copps's statement that the US media having a bad case of "substance abuse" we need to remember that the FCC has two roles to play, one legitimate role and one illegitimate.
The Illegitimate Role
Most people know it by the illegitimate role, the FCC acts as the de facto censorship arm of the US government.
This is first of all, dubious with regards to the first amendment but is also done in an unnatural way, often allowing for gratuitous violence but clamps down on sex. In a twisted fashion, CBS is allowed to show bodies being mutilated in Dexter (albeit edited) but showing the slightest bit of a nipple would be unthinkable.
It also has the potential to bully news outlets just as Nixon did during his presidency (and to a much lesser extend Bush did too).
The Legitimate Role
On the plus side, the FCC has the positive role of combating corporate concentration of the media. It's the only source which has the authority to protect consumers with Net neutrality and, by limiting concentration of corporate power, it can actually open up debate and press freedom in general.
Having a media system controlled by corporations creates an inherent conflict of interest, it allows the owners of media companies be more interested in their profits then what matters in the news.
For instance, in a study it was found that 40% of journalists self-censored themselves from writing stories that hurt corporate profits. Another study found that in the debate over NAFTA, pro-NAFTA sources outnumbered anti-NAFTA 3 to 1 in the media despite overwhelming public disapproval. Much of this is chronicled in The Business of Media.
The Solution
Because both parts are within the same institution, strengthening regulation over ownership and protecting consumers with Net neutrality could also increase the potential for regulating speech and vice versa.
The only real solution is to split the FCC into two entities (or eliminate one of them) so that one regulates ownership and (possibly) have one that insures content standards on public television.
In this way, we can have corporate power be limited in how much it can stifle debate, and keep the media from being unconstitutionally violated by the government.