Meh. Freetards seem excessively hung up on metonymy (eg “Software Freedom”). Attack a phrase (eg “Net Neutrality”) and they think you’re attacking a whole complex system of which it is only part.

Personally I could care less about Net Neutrality. Big deal. It breaks, and some things get delivered faster, and some slower, and lawks, you have to pay. This may affect the seminal Granny’s TV Website Channel, but so what?

The logical conclusion of this argument is that we should all get fibre-to-the-door, for free. Actually that would be far higher on my wish-list.

You might be amused by the latest Dr Roy effort on this subject (it’s huge and incoherent: search for “net neutrality”): http://techrights.org/2010/08/09/innovator-of-abusive-hypocrisy/

From gorgeous, pouting, Pamela Jones of Groklaw:

“Just because someone throws some mud at a Microsoft competitor, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true,” she wrote. “Haven’t you noticed that pattern?”

So, nothing at all to do with Google and Verizon, then. Obviously, it’s all Microsoft’s fault. I’ll bet that Ballmer even writes the contract!

The article doesn’t spread any FUD about Linux but it sure dose spread FUD about Google though. Has anyone one read the document besides this journalist?