Kill the Internet!

[Umbral]

What kind of legal and possibly technological changes would it take to stop the internet from developing into an entity like the one we got IOTL?

In other words, keep it as a curiosity for researchers to exchange data, mainly a university thing, etc?

What kind of commercial and cultural changes would this cause?






I want my used bookstores back, damnit! And my free time.

 

[Alternate History]

I don't think it's possible without total state control. The Internet is too useful for people to willingly give up on it, once they get a taste of it. I mean, the thing is, if the technology exists, somebody is eventually going to figure out a way to scale it up and make a worldwide network out of it. People are way too innovative for them not to realize the potential in an untapped invention.

 

[tenthring]

Some other way of distributing porn and pirated music?

 

[AlternateHistoryFan]

I don't think it's possible without total state control. The Internet is too useful for people to willingly give up on it, once they get a taste of it. I mean, the thing is, if the technology exists, somebody is eventually going to figure out a way to scale it up and make a worldwide network out of it. People are way too innovative for them not to realize the potential in an untapped invention.

And even with government censorship of the internet today, like in the PROC, citizens are still finding ways to get around it :-D.

 

[Umbral]

I don't think it's possible without total state control. The Internet is too useful for people to willingly give up on it, once they get a taste of it.

Hence, some way of stopping it developing in the first place. Today, we have superfast broadband all over the place, but that actually was a lot of work to develop and set up the infrastructure for.

And...most countries didn't develop the internet.

Im thinking a few legislative changes, possibly lobbied for by a fearful AT&T or similar who sees only competition...or something a bit earlier related to something else. Just making the initial profits not there.

 

[Johnrankins]

Very unlikely in the long run, the advantages are too big and obvious.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Very unlikely in the long run, the advantages are too big and obvious.

I agree. You could already sort see the embryonic beginnings of the internet in the 1960s with academic computers being networked together, as well as the emergence of government and defense computer networks, like ARPAnet and NASA's Deep Space Tracking Network. Once that happens, the internet or something like it is probably inevitable.

 

[von kressenstein]

I agree. You could already sort see the embryonic beginnings of the internet in the 1960s with academic computers being networked together, as well as the emergence of government and defense computer networks, like ARPAnet and NASA's Deep Space Tracking Network. Once that happens, the internet or something like it is probably inevitable.

Arpa and DARPA are the Internet .. I first got on the net in 86 with my Amiga via bbs access and later via amigaux and amitcp ...

There were earlier solutions and ideas I think from magnificent or someone that was delivered to your tv during he 70's

The real thing was the late 80s were an age of convergence .. Technology and computers were improving quickly .. Networking was always key in business .. Only natural to extend this ..

The thing that made it cool for the masses was the World Wide Web and all of those compuserve, prodigy, aol cd's that flooded mailboxes ... There was no pressing need for the Internet ... Media made one .. People got on board .. The web exploded and hide all the back stuff in a nice neat easy to use interface ..

I think you would get something similar no matter what once you connect the first two computers together it's only a matter of time and scale and bandwidth..

You want to kill it.. A virus that is unstoppable would work.. Avoid the multimedia leave it more the domain of email and text based tools like Lynx, gopher, ftp, mail, Usenet, and Unix operating systems and I think you will find it not so popular

 

[Colonel Levnekov]

Nuclear apocalypse. That way, nothing's going to work for years.

Alternatively, in a 1984-esque setting, where technology is basically stuck at a pre-home computer tech level.

 

[agrajax]

Bad POTS

Maybe if the telephone system was really really bad and dialup wasn't possible. By the time broadband became available there wouldn't be the demand because nobody would understand what it was for.

 

[Monter]

The internet is a chaotic, decentralized mess of protocols, networks and servers that are all around the globe.

You can't "kill" the internet because if a server survive, the WWW will survive.

The only way is really nuclear apocalypse.

 

[Just a Rube]

How about a different approach, with many internets with limited inter-communication? Have a bunch of different internet-like networks develop around more or less the same time using very different protocols? So instead of the "World Wide Web," you have the Soviet Web, the American Web, the French Web, the Japanese Web, etc. Have disagreement on standards/conversion last long enough (with enough nationalism/paranoia) to limit the sharing aspects. The ability to convert back and forth will still happen eventually, just make it awkward enough that it delays things, and makes e.g. international internet transactions more impractical.

You'll still get something akin to the modern Web eventually, but delayed and with a significantly different culture.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

One simple way, make the browser history of everyone, particularly porn sites made public and couldn't be erased. Imagine the embarassment and scandal of the Ashley Madison site expanded 100 times. Just think of how many politicians and religious leaders lost their congregations or electorate support once their fetishes were discovered.

 

[Blue Vein CHEESE]

Standardisation has helped the internet grow into the beast we all know and love, so one way to neuter/prevent the internet would be to hamper standardisation.

Have many different networking technologies competing on many layers persist until the present day somehow. A few large contracts going to different companies here and there, a few mistakes being made or not made, a network gear company decides to use a different set of plugs on their kit...all of this could contribute to a variety of difference across the first four networking layers - physical, data link, network, transport.

You'd still end up with large networks. There would be a lot of large services like compuserve, and BBSs may be popular for longer. Mobiles & tablets would suffer, TV and other forms of media would be more popular and home networks not as prevalent.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Have the FCC rule the other way on Carterfone (perhaps the POD is they weren't already in trouble for making the stupid Hush-A-Phone ruling).
As a result, acoustic modems don't become available until Reagan orders the FCC to allow them in the 80's.

But by then, cable TV is already in homes, and instead of Prodigy, consumers get their computer games, chat, and other interactive content from cable-based services like QUBE .
Naturally these are proprietary formats, not open.