Was thinking about this recently - having 'Net vs not.
Back in the early 80s my days were just as full. Read a lot, physically went to the library, watched TV, browsed book stores, read two newspapers
every day.
On the PC, I read, look at .pdfs, and write things. But without the 'Net connection, it takes some adaptation.
Most people have plenty of DVDs, things to read, VCR and tapes for the TV, but when power goes out, like after bad weather, there is a feeling of
isolation. Usually I take a nap, haha.
So, for me, lack of 'Net is mildly distracting, mostly b/c I'm not sure what's going on - is it my ISP, or my telephone line (wife forgot to pay
bill?) or what.
If PC and TV are still on and I know the 'Net is off, no big deal.
There is a big difference between having, essentially, a 'dumb' terminal and being connected, even if it's just bulletin boarding or using a shell
account.
Most agencies have backup plans and practice them, but banking and other things would slow to a crawl, I think. So the worry is less the individual
user than businesses and banks.
Backing up the 'Net is kinda pointless. It's not the data, as in websites like ATS, it's the connectivity.
That's why I think it's pointless and even retarded to read that IBM wants to host the 'whole internet' on some giant multi processor machine. You
need the network and the massively distrib parallel hub structure.
2 cents.