Biden Renominates Gigi Sohn, Net Neutrality Advocate, to the FCC
Net neutrality is an unnecessary and failed policy.

President Joe Biden has renominated Gigi Sohn to fill the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) now-vacant fifth seat. This is the third time Sohn has been nominated. Should she gain the Senate's approval, she will break the agency's current 2–2 Democrat-Republican logjam and allow the agency to re-enact Obama-era net neutrality regulations, which are economically nonsensical and largely unnecessary.
The FCC's 2015 regulations forbade internet service providers from blocking content or discriminatorily slowing specific content and banned the practice of paid prioritization—i.e., a company paying an internet service provider (ISP) to favor its content. Left unregulated, Sohn and other proponents insist, greedy ISPs would create a two-tier internet that benefits the rich and powerful to the detriment of everyday internet users. The FCC rolled back its net neutrality regulations in 2017, and the two-tiered hellscape Sohn predicted has yet to materialize. On the contrary, today's median download speed for fixed broadband is nearly 200 megabits per second; in 2015, the average speed was just 55 Mbps.
Net neutrality advocates falsely assume that artificially inflating prices is a business's surest path to profit. "It's a zero-sum mentality that assumes private businesses will conspire against consumers to expand their market share in the absence of direct government regulation," Reason's Eric Boehm explained last year. Economics is, in fact, positive-sum, and market forces incentivize ISPs to provide quality services to the widest possible user base. "From 2010 to 2020, average data consumed by U.S. households rose 37-fold," economist Thomas W. Hazlett wrote for Reason in 2021. The rapid growth in consumer demand and consumption was enabled and catalyzed by ISPs' ever-improving offers of cheap and speedy internet.
In fact, the regulatory burdens imposed in 2015 slowed investment in broadband. "In the two years after the FCC's decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6%—the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession," then–FCC Chair Ajit Pai wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2017. According to comments submitted by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, a survey of the trade group's members found that the FCC's 2015 rules had "caused delay or reduction of network expansion and services, and/or allocation of significant financial resources to comply with the new rules."
It's unsurprising, however, since unadulterated net neutrality is undesirable. "Different applications have different sensitivities to congestion," Daniel Lyons of the American Enterprise Institute argued in 2017. "A small delay in packet delivery may be imperceptible to someone browsing the web but can erode the quality of a video stream or a telemedicine app. Prioritizing these packets could improve the experience for Netflix users or rural doctors, without adversely affecting users of congestion-insensitive services."
Mandated net neutrality was the worst sort of technocratic overreach. Bureaucrats dreamed up an overbroad market intervention to ameliorate an imagined crisis—to the detriment of innovation and consumers.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Half the women in Biden's administration are women. This person is in the other half.
But if the same applies to the men, it all works out. Problem solved!
●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started..........
See this article for more information————————>>>http://www.dailypro7.com
Without the administration having designated a Biologist Laureate, how can anyone meaningfully say which of the officials are and which are not women?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
how about an Italian American woman Corn Pop? the Biden admin seems to be ahhmmmmm not very diverse in terms of religion. A few more Italians or Irish or German Americans in Foreign Policy might not be obsessed with the czar and ukraine.
The whole "discriminating against poor internet users" narrative is spurious in the first place! Almost every aspect of American socioeconomic activity favors the wealthy over the poor in almost every way imaginable. If you cannot afford to pay for faster internet, you'll simply have to settle for slower internet. If you cannot afford to pay for neutral content, you will simply have to settle for promoted filtering. The do-gooders have simply failed to make the case for their version of "fairness" in this or most other cases. In order to justify regulation they have to - or SHOULD have to - prove an overwhelming public interest.
" If you cannot afford to pay for neutral content, you will simply have to settle for promoted filtering"
And ISPs aren't doing this, or even talking about doing it, because competition in the market means they'd lose customers to other ISPs that don't do promoted filtering. The massive amount of bad PR they'd would likely cause them to roll back quickly too.
Not to mention the legal Sword of Damocles, if they tried, it could cause one of the Rs on the FCC to flip due to the public backlash and allow them to impose neutrality, or motivate the Senate to confirm the new D, or Congress to pass legislation addressing it.
On the contrary, today’s median download speed for fixed broadband is nearly 200 megabits per second; in 2015, the average speed was just 55 Mbps.
By the way, saying nothing about net Neutrality specifically (which I disagree with) the advertised speed of your connection would have little to nothing to do with how fast you could get various services if… IF the ISPs decided to create this much ballyhooed two-tier system, or throttle specific services based on type, etc.
Its a two-way street also, I can have 1gb speed from my ISP but if the service I connect to only allows 50mb per connection I'm still throttled from that side.
Gigi makes more money from her Only Fans site than the above bot who "Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month".
Trolling bots. How did you arrive at this sad state of affairs?
“today’s median download speed for fixed broadband is nearly 200 megabits per second; in 2015, the average speed was just 55 Mbps.”
A lot of that is due to a queueing theory expert named Dave Täht quietly working behind the scenes on a personal campaign to remove latency from routers, wi-if routers, etc.
Oh, and this has been a long-time in coming. If you reluctantly voted for Biden, you reluctantly voted to have Net Neutrality back, front and center.
Yes, but mean Tweets at completely congestion-insensitive speeds!
Because there were only two choices and if you voted for one you must have absolutely agreed with absolutely everything they have done. That's how democracy works.
p.s. I wrote in Vermin Supreme, but I am told that was the same as a vote for Biden. Whatever.
I voted once for the Dead Kennedys guy (Jello Biafra?) just for the name and his band's name. Coulda been a ragin' Marxist for all it mattered.
I wrote in Vermin Supreme, not out of protest against the squishy LP candidate, but because PONIES! OMG PONIES!
Must be sad to see the letters "If you reluctantly voted for Biden" arranged in that order and not have the least fucking clue what they mean.
Paging squirrbil. This is in your wheelhouse. Go nuts!
Net neutrality is an unnecessary and failed policy.
Unnecessary for *who*? It is an absolutely necessary policy for the little Stalinists in charge.
If they nominate another lesbian, it's going to throw their DEI quotas way off.
that dude's a lesbian?
Only lesbians can wear glasses like that. I'm sure Reason covered that in one of the Crime Squad videos.
0.1 seconds on the web:
Accompanied at the hearing with her wife and daughter, Sohn is the first openly LGBTQ person to be nominated to the FCC.
It’s Pat has not aged well.
I hope she gets the Internet back up. It's been down ever since Ajit Pai got rid of Net Neutrality. Everyone predicted it would break and crash and implode, so of course that is what must have happened.
It would be nice to surf the intarwebs again...
Reason: against net neutrality, against CDA, but for Section 230 of the CDA.
Why? Who knows.
Why? Who knows.
But, without section 230, who will mindlessly retweet Tweets and ignore the factual corrections of disinformation already retweeted?
Has a Democrat EVER met a regulation they do not like? Ever?
I suspect there were a few who weren't happy with Trump's "repeal two for every one you create" regulation.
I hear they don't like the current licensing requirements for probability/multiverse travel because it lacks specificity on which methods of doing so (sorcery vs infinity stones vs portal guns) are allowed at what levels of certification.
In the confirmation hearing, someone should ask this person why preventing ISPs with small market shares from filtering what their customers can and cannot see is necessary for the survival of the Net/Democracy/Human civilization/United Federation of Planets, while at the same time the software platforms which do have monopolistic market shares once users get online need to be required to do even more ideological filtering than they've already admitted to and/or been exposed to have been doing since before the first era of "Net Neutrality".
"Bureaucrats dreamed up an overbroad market intervention to ameliorate an imagined crisis—to the detriment of innovation and consumers."
Because that's what Nazi's (National Socialists) do.