There's the inherent problem with multiple screen names. You create and use multiple names, very forcefully and vehemently deny that you're doing it, and then get caught doing it. You then do it again, trying to be all slick about it, but get caught again. You scream denial, but the more you protest and challenge the charge, the more you are in effect crying wolf, and nobody believes you. And thus, the credibility of your original screen name is reduced to zero.
As for Omaba taking control of the Internet, with the current infrastructure it is all but impossible. There are too many redundant and alternate pathways for data to be routed. There are six primary and eight secondary backbones in the US, all operating independently (and redundantly if need be) that would prevent such a takeover. However, if a law were passed, that independency would be eliminated so that all backbone traffic would pass through one or more "super routers" that could be controlled by the government.
The problem is that currently, we are quite defenseless against widespread organized cyber attack on our Internet information technology infrastructure to the point where everything is vulnerable to attack. Think Wall Street and banking, all voice and data communications, as both cell and land line phones depend on the same infrastructure, heck, look at how dependent the trucking industry alone is on the Internet and telecommunications. In the case of an attack, the ability to shut it down to prevent or limit the damage is critical. Currently, security is effectively left of to individual computer users and system administrators, and all it takes is a handful of unsecured system to leave everything wide open.
Giving the president the power to control the Internet could be crucial to the security of the country. Of course, with great power comes great responsibility, and the government has proven time and time again that the more power they get, the more irresponsible they become. It's a double-edged sword that will, absolutely, cut both ways.