I'm not quite sure why you broke out into an inane babbling rant, but the rebuttal article on ZDNet is failed apologism because even the author admits he has no idea what information Microsoft is collecting. He's assuming (because he trusts MS, you see) that the data is anonymized and only used for this or that, but notice how many times he says "possibly", "could", etc.? It's all speculation.
No, it is not. It is a successful critique of the claim that there were "thousands" of attempts to contact Microsoft to allegedly report nasty telemetry data, when at least 2/3rds were not telemetry data. That's a significant fact to the rest of us.
TFA: of all, 602 connection attempts were to 192.168.1.255, using UDP port 137. That's the broadcast address where Windows computers on a local network announce their presence and look for other network computers using the NetBIOS Name Service. It's perfectly normal traffic.
If you can't even figure out that non-routable broadcast traffic cannot report information back to Microsoft, why should we accept the Forbes speculation while rejecting the ZDnet non-speculation concerning that broadcast traffic, similar DNS lookups to a local router, etc.? If the frequency of the supposed attempts was unimportant, then why was it the focus of so much of the reporting?
Don't accuse others of "insane babbling rants" when you not only have no idea what Microsoft is collecting, but actively refuse knowledge of what is going over the wire. The ZDnet author didn't extend much trust to Microsoft, but simply reported that the huge number reported in connection with the telemetry issue was primarily sensationalistic claptrap.
TFA: And yes, there is certainly some telemetry data in there.
* * *
But we don't know, because Mr. Crust didn't actually do any traffic analysis.
So do some, instead of engaging in your own chicken-little-like repetition of others' insane babbling rants.