I think DNS aspects are mandated by ICANN, the governing body that
controls the .com/.org/.net domains . Net neutrality is more a factor
in traffic shaping - for example, VOIP traffic being prioritized over
bit torrent. While this may seem like a good idea, there is some
concern that some ISPs would prioritize their own content over that of
outside providers, so that accessing a server that is connected to
another ISP is slower or downright impossible. Australia already deals
with this, since there seem to be only one or two providers that
control the international backbone to the country.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Sean Breheny <shb7@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I think the basic idea is behind net neutrality is to regulate
> internet service providers (at all levels) so that they do not alter
> network routing, DNS, etc. to suit their own interests. For example, I
> think that today it is perfectly legal for a service provider to
> direct you to joesshoes.com when you type shoes.com into your browser,
> and then get kickbacks from joesshoes.com.
>
> How likely is this to be a problem? I don't know. It would seem that
> competition could prevent this - as long as you regulated agreements
> between ISPs. There are probably also much more subtle aspects like
> search engine results.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, NOPE9 <yes@nope9.com> wrote:
>> I just presume that any new government powers are bad.
>> I don't understand what the act is supposed to accomplish....
>> Gus
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist