The FCC regulates what goes on in our communications commons -- traditionally, the electromagnetic airwaves, but others too (think publicly-owned, -funded, -subsidized, and/or -monopoly-granted cable/Internet/telephone infrastructure). Since these are owned by (or owed to) the public, they must be regulated for the public good. You have the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to do whatever you want to alter, pollute, or dominate our commons. And just because some have built huge businesses on the model of taking advantage of the abuse of our commons doesn't give them the right for that situation to continue. They're our commons, and we have the perfect right to say what constitutes abuse and to enforce prevention of that abuse.
Now, the Fairness Doctrine -- saying that you have to give equal time to the opposing viewpoint -- is an admirable, but unworkable goal: how do you define what the opposing viewpoints are? If Fox News lets Bill O'Reilly have a say, what is the "opposing" viewpoint? Couldn't Fox put Chuck Norris on and claim he's the opposing viewpoint because he advocates armed insurrection and O'Reilly doesn't? Or would it be someone advocating the US adopt a Soviet system? Extreme examples, but illustrative -- you have to define what the center is to determine where its negation falls. And any such definition is bound to be arbitrary, or, worse, itself abused.
However, at the very least, you can go a long way toward preventing domination by a single viewpoint, or a single entity, by limiting ownership, the way we used to. Concentration of media ownership is, I think we can all agree, a bad thing. Getting more access to more people -- people, without preference for legal fictions like corporations -- is a good thing.
Looking at the article you linked, I see only good things coming from the vaunted Bogey Man called Mark Lloyd. It's all about re-democratizing the media, and attenuating the complete corporate big-money domination of it we have now. Things like Net Neutrality only serve to prevent the further erosion of media equality, and so are no-brainers. But he wants to -- rightly so -- go further toward this ideal, in other media too. I say more power to him, and I'm glad we have people like him in the machine now.