Earlier this month we discussed how "research firm" Nemertes Research had returned once again with their Chicken-Little prognostications that the Internet would soon start facing an Exaflood, or Internet capacity collapse. As we argued then, the entire Exaflood idea is a myth cooked up by carriers to help scare lawmakers and the public into believing that bandwidth is a dangerously limited and precious resource, and if you don't give carriers what they want (the right to metered billing, fewer consumer protection laws, no neutrality laws, removed price controls) the Internet will explode and you'll all be sorry.

Nemertes co-founder Johna Till Johnson has done a particularly stellar job consistently writing editorials for Network World that sound scary, but aren't based in any perceivable real world science. Her latest unscientific screed attempts to argue that network neutrality laws would result in the collapse of entirely unrelated peering arrangements, something we argued made little to no sense. Ars Technica's Nate Anderson pens an article that essentially mirrors our two week old post:One amusing thing is that every time Johnson opens her mouth to let loose a stream of unscientific fear mongering policy gibberish, other Nemertes analysts come to our comment section to post more reasoned policy positions that almost sound like science, while lamenting that Nemertes positions are being distorted. But if they're so concerned with Nemertes being taken seriously, they might want to talk to Johnson about toning down the nonsense. They might also inform her how "scientists" let the data dictate policy positions -- not the other way around.