Internet control implies that it has become worthless as a medium for commerce or discourse and that would lead to it being replaced by something else.
Governments had it easy when all they had to deal with was one state owned telecommunications provider. The explosion in connectivity options and the associated increase in traffic far outstrips that capacity of any intelligence agency in the world to accurately monitor and process.
The result of that is that the real data falls right through the cracks when at the same time innocents the world over have their 'profiles' built up in ridiculous detail (maybe on the off chance that they will commit some future crime).
It's security theatre, just like what you get when you go about your daily business at an airport, lots of hassle for extremely little - if any - gain. Some believe even the smallest amount of gain is worth an incredible amount of discomfort and should require giving up any semblance of privacy.
But it's a ridiculous stance, in the end the terrorists (or whatever the bogeyman is called this year) will simply up their game to disappear even further into the background noise.
A terrorist is a person with a problem of the mind, education and spreading the worlds wealth more evenly will do more to combat it than any amount of legislation to forbid encryption and dragnet surveillance will ever achieve.
If terrorists really wanted to blow up commercial airliners they could do so with impunity, I can think of several ways in which they could achieve this and none of those would require communication via the internet or the telephone.
So my conclusion is that the terrorists aren't really the target here.