Of course not. Thats' because we have net neutrality.

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

‘Kill switch’ bill approved, moves to Senate floor

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, June 25, 2010
President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open Internet,[16] "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:"
access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
These points are often summarized as "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, and any provider". President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called for an investment of $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure and included an openness stipulation. During the FCC's hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness.
In 2008, when the FCC auctioned off the 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum in anticipation of the DTV transition, Google promised to enter a bid of $4.6 billion if the FCC required the spectrum operator to adhere to four conditions:[17]
Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms;
Open networks: Third parties, such as Internet service providers, should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
These conditions are broadly similar to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (FCC's applications and content are combined into a single bullet, while an extra bullet adding a requirement for wholesale access for third party providers was included). The FCC adopted only two of these four criteria for the auction, viz., open devices and open applications.[18]
In September 2009, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to add two additional rules on top of its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, which requires that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers. He also argued that wireless should be subject to the same network neutrality as wireline providers.[19]
In October 2009, the FCC took the next step by approving a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality.[20]
In May 2010, after it was believed the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced that they would continue their fight. It was believed they would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast. However, under commission chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC has proposed reclassifying broadband internet access providers under the provisions of Title 2 of the Communications act in an effort to force the providers to adhere to the same rules as telephone networks. This adjustment is meant to prevent, "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities or services."[21]
On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved new rules banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. Republicans in Congress have announced plans to reverse the rules through legislation.[22]

What would be the excuse or reason for such a bill, and what would be the excuse to do such a thing?

The very idea smacks of dictator control.

Did you not notice what happened in Egypt? I was in Japan and still followed it. They basically used the internet (facebook) to organize protests against the government. So the government shutdown the internet.

The US doesnt want the people to be able to organize against them when we realize how much they screw us over so they are getting their ducks in a row.

So, do you believe that the kill switch bill would be different depending on whether there is net neutrality or not? I don't see what it has to do with net neutrality. You need to keep your eye on the ball. You seem easily distracted.

Well, OK. I'll enlighten you. The FCC didn't auction off wireless spectrum until 2008. Well I'll let this Wikipedia article describe the history of the concept for you for you.Interestingly, the subsequent section of the article tells us how the concept of net neutrality dates all the way back to 1860.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

I take it from your opposition to net neutrality that you would be OK if ISPs were allowed to discriminate in their handling of internet sources. Yes?

So, do you believe that the kill switch bill would be different depending on whether there is net neutrality or not? I don't see what it has to do with net neutrality. You need to keep your eye on the ball. You seem easily distracted.

Doesn't matter. We went on a tangent. We can talk about what we like. It doesn't have to relate to what you want to talk about. For example I can ask. How is the weather where you are? See how that works? Nothing to do with net neutrality at all.

Not according to forum rules. You are supposed to stay on the topic.

For example I can ask. How is the weather where you are? See how that works?

Technically your example above does not apply.
Yes, you can type anything you want. You can also get a gun and shoot anyone you want. But there could be consequences, and there are laws and rules.

with net neutrality you don't have to choose. You have equal access to any website, any time with nobody making you pay more for this or that bundle of websites. Sort of like how it is now.

Do you really want a governmental agency 'regulating' your internet.

NO