In an earlier entry today commending Sen. Stevens' bill for not mandating net neut* but rather requiring the FCC to study the issue and report to Congress, I explained why no longer (at least for now) will I be using the emotion-laden label "net neutrality" when net neut* mandates will, in fact, neuter the net. Here is what I wrote:

I believe that imposing anticipatory broad-brush mandates preventing any differentiation of services on the net will diminish investment in new high-speed facilities and innovative applications, thereby neutering the net. So, in my view what the proponents of new Internet regulations are arguing for is Net Neutering, not Net Neutrality. Henceforth, I refuse to go along with the name game the Net regulators are playing by accepting the use of the "neutrality" claim. I say it's Net Neutering. But in the interest of being, uh, neutral, I am willing just to refer to the issue as "Net Neut*" with the universal asterisk indicating anyone can complete as they prefer ....That way, maybe we can strip the emotion out of the debate, and look at the economic realities.

Maybe all of us who are against regulating the Internet should join together and start using Net Neut* when discussing this issue. That way, at least the English language will not be employed as an aid in distorting discussion of an important public policy issue.