Egypt went into information lockdown last night as the regime cut off internet access along with SMS and BlackBerry messaging ahead of today's demonstrations, with the apparent aim of hampering communications among the protesters. There are also reports of mobile phone systems being turned off selectively in some places.

One access route to the internet – Noor – is said to be still working because it is used by banks and the Stock Exchange. This chartshows the sudden decline in internet traffic yesterday.

The renesys blog gives some technical details of the internet shutdown and describes it as "an action unprecedented in Internet history" (there's also a more recent technical report from bgpmonhere.) The Enduring America blog comments that "not even the Iranian regime, at the height of the challenge on the streets to its legitimacy, took such a step. It slowed down the Net to hinder communications and to try to monitor activists, but it never carried out a shutdown".

Rather than offering change (as advised by the United States), the Egyptian regime has clearly decided to try to tough it out. The extremity of the measures it is taking on the ground shows it is seriously worried and probably recognises that it is now engaged in a battle for survival. Even so, the regime is taking a huge gamble: the harder it cracks down, the more public anger it is likely to generate (as we saw in Tunisia). 

It's still hard to grasp the enormity of what is happening in Egypt. On Tuesday morning, I wrote about plans for the Police Day protests and included a note of caution. Although more than 80,000 Facebook users had declared their support, opposition parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, were less eager to give official backing. In any case, Egyptians had been protesting for years but their protests never really got anywhere. 

On Tuesday, though, something clicked and they poured out on to the streets in unprecedented numbers: it seemed that a tipping-point had been reached.

Today's demonstrations, unless the authorities have some new surprise up their sleeves, are likely to be even bigger. Some are talking of a million or more protesters.

The plan, as I understand it, is that after midday prayers people will go out in groups of 10 or more to the nearest square and, hopefully, join up with others. In theory, that should provide the security forces with the worst nightmare they have ever had.

The Atlantic has published details of a pamphlet circulating in Egypt which gives guidance for protesters. It advises:

1. Crowd together with friends and neighbours in residential streets far from the presence of security forces.

2. Cheer in the name of Egypt and the freedom of its people (cheer positively).

3. Organise residents of the buildings to join (in a positive manner).

4. Exit in groups into primary streets to gather as large a crowd as possible.

5. Sneak into important government buildings (with positive cheers) to occupy them.

Unconfirmed reports on Twitter claim that undercover police have been pouring petrol on the ground in Cairo squares, with the apparent intention of setting it alight if protesters try to enter.

There is a general expectation that today will be decisive, one way or the other. If the protesters win the day, it will set the course for a new Middle East: Egypt is not Tunisia – it is the most populous Arab country and a real heavyweight. The outcome will have even greater influence than it did in Tunisia.

My hunch, though, is that today will signal the start – in earnest – of the Egyptian revolution rather than its culmination. In Tunisia it took a month; Egypt is a much bigger fish and this has only been going for three days. The regime won't give up easily and will try to  fight on, even if mortally wounded.

But evaluating all the signs as honestly as I can, think Mohamed ElBaradei was right when he said yesterday that the situation has passed a point of no return. For all practical purposes, the Mubarak – father and son – era is finished and the only question left is whether or not its death throes will drag on until the presidential election scheduled for October.

Even so, I keep wondering if I might be wrong. I have read the article on Ynet assuring Israelis that it's going to be fine: that the friendly dictator will remain in place, that "nothing will be changing" in Egypt and that "when the situation calms down and the streets empty, those who provoked the 'day of fury' will be taken care of".

It's a point of view, and it's what always happened in the past. But I really can't see the situation calming down now until Mubarak goes. The atmosphere is electric – in a way I have never seen before. As Ahmed Moor writes in an article for al-Jazeera, "the Arabs are alive".

Where does the United States stand in all this? We know that it has helped to sustain the Mubarak regime over many years, and a lot of people believe it will continue to do so. 

Yesterday, a White House spokesman said: "This is not about taking sides. What is important is President Mubarak and those that seek greater freedom of expression, greater freedom to assemble, should be able to work out a process for that happening in a peaceful way."

That is considerably less supportive than Mubarak, as a long-standing ally, would have expected. In fact, it suggests the US could be preparing to abandon him. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton 
also spoke of "not taking sides" in connection with Tunisia on January 11. Three days later, President Ben Ali fled..

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 28 Jan 2011.