While shutting off internet access didn't phase the protests in Egypt, except perhaps to further inflame the people, my first thought was "Could it happen here?" Of course, for Egypt and its people, the action, fortunately, was too little too late; the protest wave was well underway and that train wasn't going to be stopped.
Of course, Egypt isn't the only country that has the controls in place to effectively shut off communication, or to limit the flow of information. We saw the same ploys utilized in Iran leading up to their elections and again during their protests. China regularly censors the flow of information to their own population.
More below....
In December 2010, Syria enacted a new law designed toward limiting internet access:
Demonstrating how government control over the Internet gateway enables increased censorship, a new law in Syria could seriously curtail online media use in the Mideast nation. The law allows police access to editorial offices in order to arrest journalists and seize their computers. Arrested journalists will then be tried in criminal courts.
Syria maintains a very tight grip over its Internet traffic and shows little tolerance for “unauthorized” Internet use. According to Reporters Without Borders, Syria is “an Internet rights violator,” an “enemy of the Web,” and “the biggest prison for cyber dissidents in the Middle East due to its number of arrests and the frequency of mistreatment of online activists.” http://www.heartland.org/...
Other countries, such as Vietnam have the same sort of control.
http://www.asianews.it/...
Which leads me back to my own question of "Could it happen here?" and I believe it could, given the right set of circumstances, and that "set of circumstances" could be the same as what Egypt is encountering, i.e. widespread protest designed to make the government (there mainly its "I am not a dictator" President) step down.
Several articles have discussed the possibility:
Whether or not other governments—for example, the U.S. government — are able to shut down the Internet is "a regulatory question," said Clark. "In a time of crisis, does a government have the powers to compel the ISPs to take such an action?" In the U.S., the answer is no — not only does President Obama, or any president, not have access to a physical "switch" that turns off the Internet, he also has no control over ISPs.
That could change, however, if the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset" bill, introduced in the Senate last summer, ever passes. The bill would effectively give the president an Internet kill-switch to be used in cases of national cyberemergency, which presumably would stall the operation of this country's ISPs. Rather than blocking free-speech, the bill is intended to protect the economic infrastructure from cyberterrorists; still, it has many free-speech advocates worried — especially in light of the recent turn of events in Egypt. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
An article on how easily Egypt accomplished the feat can be found here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
or
http://www.businessinsider.com/...
Of course, from the "outside" others were providing some help, and this short article discusses using dial-up as an alternative (this assumes phone service is still in place):
http://www.businessinsider.com/...
In the "war on terrorism", we saw passage of the Patriot Act, which gave our own government powers which we never thought possible, all without even requiring some judicial process. Even checking out a book at a library could make an individual the subject a "person of interest". Any thought of privacy flew out the window, as did many of our rights under the Bill of Rights. Private companies willingly, and much too easily, provided information upon simple request. Why wouldn't these same companies shut down service?
I do not even pretend to understand the technology involved in exercising such control, and simply shutting down all communication, but I certainly believe it is possible that it could happen here.