Bryant Gumbel Was Right

Remember Bryant Gumbel? Back in the mid-90s, as the digital world began its explosive growth, the then-Today Show co-host famously dismissed the internet as a passing fad. "I'm online, and I think it's a fad," he declared, suggesting we'd all soon forget about it. History, of course, seems to have mocked him. The internet is now the bedrock of modern life.

But what if Gumbel wasn't entirely wrong? What if he was just looking at the wrong internet?

Gumbel's perspective wasn't unique. For millions of early adopters, the "Internet" wasn't the sprawling, interconnected digital continent we know today. It was AOL. It was MSN. It was a handful of corporate-controlled, meticulously curated, and heavily guarded enclaves. This was the internet presented to the mainstream: a walled garden where users navigated pre-approved channels, chatted in designated forums, and consumed content vetted by corporate gatekeepers. Access to the wider, wilder web beyond these walls was often obscure, difficult, or actively discouraged.

This "Internet". The siloed, guard-railed, corporate enclave was indeed a fad. And it died.

AOL's iconic "You've Got Mail!" became a nostalgic relic. MSN's ambitions as the portal faded. Why? Because outside these carefully constructed gardens, something far more powerful, chaotic, and ultimately resilient was thriving: the real Internet.

This was the open web. The independent websites, the blogs, the open-source projects, the peer-to-peer networks, the unfiltered forums, and the user-led innovations. This was the digital Wild West. It was messy, sometimes dangerous, but incredibly fertile ground for creativity, connection, and genuine technological leaps. It was here that the foundational protocols of the modern web solidified, where search engines like Google (born outside the walls) rose to prominence, and where the user, not the corporation, ultimately dictated the experience.

This open internet didn't just survive the collapse of the siloed model; it consumed it. Users, once they glimpsed the vastness and potential beyond the guard rails, overwhelmingly rejected the limitations of the curated list. They demanded access to the whole thing. The value shifted from controlled convenience to open exploration and participation.

Yet, the allure of the walled garden never truly vanished for corporations. The dream of controlling access, monetizing attention within a closed ecosystem, and minimizing competition remains potent. We see persistent attempts to resurrect the siloed model:

"Free Basics" & Walled-Garden Plans: Initiatives like Facebook's "Free Basics" explicitly offered limited internet access – primarily to Facebook and a few partner sites, masquerading as philanthropy. Similar carrier-specific plans offering access only to select social media or messaging apps have been trialed in various markets.

Platform as Portal: While not as restrictive as AOL's physical discs, modern tech giants like Meta, Google, Apple, and TikTok strive to become self-contained universes. Their algorithms keep users within their ecosystems, consuming their content, using their services, and interacting primarily within their walls. They aim to be the only internet many users feel they need.

Fragmentation & Closed Ecosystems: Proprietary messaging apps, exclusive streaming content, and hardware-specific app stores all chip away at the open web's universality, creating digital fiefdoms.

However, these modern walled gardens, while powerful and pervasive, have largely failed to achieve the complete dominance of the early AOL model. Why?

Because users know the wider internet exists. The cat is out of the bag. The expectation of access to information, services, and communities beyond any single corporation's control is now ingrained. While people spend vast amounts of time within platforms, they also navigate between them, seek information on the open web, use independent services, and value the ability to bypass gatekeepers when needed. Attempts to offer a truly restricted internet experience (like Free Basics) have faced significant backlash and limited adoption precisely because users understand they are being offered a pale shadow of the real thing.

Bryant Gumbel was right. The internet he saw, the corporate silo, the curated list, the guarded enclave, was a fad. It flared brightly for a moment and then faded, unable to compete with the raw energy and infinite possibility of the open web.

But the struggle isn't over. The open internet that survived and thrived is constantly under pressure. Corporations, now vastly more powerful than the AOLs of the 90s, continue to build higher walls and more alluring gardens. They chip away at interoperability, net neutrality, and open standards. AI swallows content from all the open web and spits it out as if it came up with it.

Remember: The vibrant, innovative, user-driven internet we value today wasn't born within corporate walls; it flourished despite them. It survived the first attempt to cage it. Vigilance is required to ensure that the open web, the true internet, doesn't become a historical artifact itself, replaced by a constellation of disconnected corporate fiefdoms. The silo was a fad. Let's ensure its resurrection remains one. The future of the internet depends on remembering which version actually died, and which one we chose to keep alive.

---