[sentientmachine]

Perhaps it's a good idea to have random take downs of the internet in large areas for extended periods of time so that there is more motivation for people to create a second, non-centralized single-point-of-failure single-point-of-control internet.

We have to prepare for the inevitable future reality where many layers of government can terminate the internet connection of any person based on what content they are providing, or what service they are serving.

When an evil agent discovers the power to shut down my internet connection, or the internet connection of an entire area based on what people are doing on it, it is only a matter of days or weeks before that power is wielded to expand their power and create money from thin air through it. If the internet is to become a medium through which people think through, it must be as reliable and un-stoppable as two people talking and listening in a private room.

[krapp]

>Perhaps it's a good idea to have random take downs of the internet in large areas for extended periods of time so that there is more motivation for people to create a second, non-centralized single-point-of-failure single-point-of-control internet.

That's not a good idea. That's a very bad idea, considering how much critical infrastructure, globally, depends on the internet working -- what you're suggesting, to even work as "motivation", would be akin to randomly poisoning pharmaceuticals to discourage overdependence on antibiotics.

That said though, if such a change could be pulled off without essentially destroying the economies of whole countries, I would be all for it.

[pessimizer]

>considering how much critical infrastructure, globally, depends on the internet working

This is the very bad idea.

[krapp]

Perhaps. But solving one evil with a greater evil can't be a valid solution.

[lbruder]

Already done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet

It's just a memory of its former self, but still in use today.