I'll preface by stating that I do believe in "positive" rights - more specifically, I believe that "negative" and "positive" rights sit on a continuum rather th

I'll preface by stating that I do believe in "positive" rights - more specifically, I believe that "negative" and "positive" rights sit on a continuum rather than in separate domains. However, it just doesn't make sense to claim that access to the internet is a fundamental right, any more than it makes sense to say that access to a radio frequency band or a newspaper is a fundamental right (though I'll note in passing that "freedom of the press" strays into this territory insofar as the operational definition of a "journalist" for the purpose of press freedom is someone who writes for a publication - hence the kvetching over whether bloggers qualify as journalists). Having written that, we are getting to the point at which the rights to expression, association, secession and so on are effectively tied to internet access - for the simple reason that huge swaths of human activities predicated on such rights happen over the internet. As such, it makes sense to regard internet access in parallel to access to education and health care - necessary prerequisites to the widespread exercise of fundamental rights.