That's a nice portmanteau of "fallaciously" and "maliciously"; thanks for that. You seem to have concerns about "credibility". My suggestion would be not to worry too much about that. Paying attention to what is said, what is believed, and what is intended is asking to be fooled. Instead, pay attention to what is done. The USA polity has functioned in substantially the same fashion (even if at inexorably increasing scale) for about 150 years. One might imagine that voters can't always predict the consequences of their actions, but legislators certainly can. In 1934 a majority of legislators had concluded that telecommunications should be provided by a single monopolist, despite the fact that there had been a thriving market in previous decades. So, they wrote a law that enshrined that preference. In later years typically Panglossian economists would be inspired by FCC policy to misread Mill's discussion of "natural" monopolies. We're still dealing with this.

Leaving politicians aside, perhaps this is too harsh a judgment of FCC personnel? To an extent, yes, because some of them are janitors or IT helpdesk folks. However, most people at FCC have at least an inkling of how things really work. At the minimum, they know where the third rails are. They know that asking "why can't more of the spectrum be unlicensed like the wifi band?" is a career-limiting speculation. They know that every Chairman Wheeler will be soon followed by a Chairman Pai.

You should read the Kingsbury Accord and the history of the FCC. The origin of the FCC is fascinating.

I assume you're referring to the Kingsbury Commitment? I'm familiar with it and the creation of the FCC a decade or so later to take over responsibilities of the FRC and ICC but I've not read anything that delves into the politics surrounding it all or how closely they're related.

Do you have any recommendations?