Fighters are pretty easy to counter already, just broadcast for reps.
Or outrun them they only move at 2500m/s.
Or shoot them, they're sig radius is 400m, for comparison a sabre with MWD is only 300m.

In the battle against PL last December we (HERO Coalition) destroyed fighters so rapidly that PL stopped launching them. If fighters generated killmails our isk efficiency would have been through the roof.

But nothing will stop people from complaining if they can't solo a carrier with their vagabond.

So your suggestion (part of which already applies, fighters can't be assigned from inside a pos) is another round of nerfs rather than a fix that doesn't reduce a carriers capability further?
Simply changing the "fighter assign" mechanic to match "drone assist" (not in drone control range = not assigned) would be the best fix and would make carriers / supers 100% vulnerable to attack.

Balancing fighters to suit one particular fit (skynet), would render them all but useless for any other purpose.

I am unsure what you mean by "appropriately sized drones". I use heavy drones on small ships, I have even used light drones on battleships. So what exactly are "appropriately sized drones" for a given target.

With a combat fit carrier, fighters don't one shot small ships, in fact they have great difficulty hitting small targets without the addition of 2 or 3 omnis. Even then to apply anywhere near full damage the target needs to be webbed.

Best solution all round is to render the Skynet fit obsolete in its current form.
If a carrier pilot wants to gate camp to get kills with fighters, they should be forced to take the same risks as the rest of their fleet and those they are fighting.

Using the carriers role bonus to fighter control range allows them to be on grid but not right in the midst of things.

The skynet fit is only applying damage like that because he can "afford" to fit all drone application/damage mods. Just requiring the carrier/super to be within drone control range would mean nobody use fit like that unless they want to field suicide skynet carriers because some day, someone will go there with more than 6 HACs and that skynet boat will burn.

I'm not sure you understand what you are suggesting - Titan style damage scaling would leave a carrier using fighters unable to hit anything smaller than another carrier or possibly an MWD battleship.

I've been using assigned fighters for at least 4 years and yes recent changes have made them more effective but that really begs the question - Do CCP look at what effects changes they make a likely to have or is it just a case of - Lets do it and see what happens.
Assigning fighters has been around a long time but now because Devs gave Carriers and Supers a much needed damage buff, they are on the line for a range of nerfs to reduce their effectiveness due to the use of one particular fit in a fairly limited scenario.

I take it you believe carriers should be immune to any conflict whilst they have fighters assigned - Why should this be the case?

You say it would be a significant nerf for them to sit 400k off a gate with fighters assigned, why? Should we remove all risk from Eve?

What variety of reasons is going to hide assigned fighters? The carrier or super may not be in view but the fighters it has assigned certainly would be.
If you wait until the fight has begun to assign them (the only way it would not be obvious) what you are assigning them to, is likely to be dead by the time they arrive.

And yes, when I looked at dps it was on a lower skilled carrier toon, (my bad). A little over 1100 for my max skill Thany

I've never seen a group using fighter assign that has ships in reserve, hiding somewhere off grid "in case they are needed". Who is going to sit idle in a pos or safe while a few others are getting kills, with or without fighter support?
You may get a support fleet turn up if a fight escalates but then both sides have the option to call for backup..