I would have to disagree in part. The network infrastructure is owned by the carriers; they've invested millions of dollars in the development, security, and improvements in those networks. The FCC has to walk a thin line when it comes to regulations. Yes there is statute law that governs communications, but there is constitutional law that supersedes that. The FCC can write and modify regulations that will seem to be in line with the statute, but inadvertently run afoul of the Constitution. In other words there is a fine line about what the US government can or cannot to. More regulation is not necessarily better.
Let's say the FCC comes down and says, "Carriers. You shall not block updates to phones, because it violates the fair use clause. You will also allow devices from other carriers to be allowed on your network, regardless of hardware or OS configuration." By doing that, the government has now added a huge financial and logistical burden on to the carriers. They would be required to support pretty much ANY device made. There is a reason the carriers support a limited amount of devices. It would be like McDonald's being forced to make Whoppers for anybody who asked for one. McDonald's would have to stock the ingredients to make Whoppers on top of the ingredients to make Big Macs.
To the average person, it seems "black and white." In reality it is much more complex and to be a bit clich?, there is a "50 Shades of Gray" when it comes to the dance that is done between the carriers, the customers/end users, the government(s), the OEMs, the OS and software developers, and how best to balance it all out.