Here is my argument that we should, or why we should at least get rid of licenses (which the FCC issues).

I don't think a licenses should exist to access a constitutional right. You shouldn't need a license to practice the first Amendment on the same level as everyone else. What is a license anyway? It's a restoration of most of someone's first Amendment rights as a result of an agreement to not say shit or piss on the government's radio highway. Except this isn't a road. It isn't something the government built. It's literally the fabric of space and time itself more fundamental than matter. More fundamental than air. So if I can yell what I want into open air and create sound without a license, anyone should be able to yell what they want into the other medium government didn't create.

Then this already broken concept got translated into the wired equivalent, all made of wires and glass tubes laid by private companies and owned by private companies. The government has no business regulating any of it.

If I have a right to travel the only thing that makes a road an exception where I need a license to do it in that space is that the government built it. Many road infractions aren't even criminal acts. They are agreement violations in your use of something you agreed to use a certain way. This is why traffic court and criminal courts are different.

So if the government can't make travel illegal, and can only create a quasi-law system attached to use of their property in the case they built it, then how can they make constitutionally protected speech illegal, depending on the means used, by accessing something the government didn't build?

I get that someone could argue, "it is in the public interest that broadcast lanes are segmented and that people don't say shit or piss on them." But it could also be argued it is a public benefit if I never say shit or piss in any context. But the public interest doesn't matter. That's what it means to have constitutional rights. In theory everything the government does is in pursuit of a public interest. We'd hope so. So what does it mean for a government to have limitations? It means they can pursue a public interest up until the point they come on a restriction. And those restrictions are constitutional rights. This is why the "public interest" argument for exceptions to the constitution make no sense whatsoever.

So the fact that there is a public interest is a non-argument from a constitutional point of view. At least that would be true if our interpretations of the constitution had any sort of logical consistency at all. I should be able to say what I want when I want on natures medium without signing any forms.