My personal view of this is that the internet is no different than access to a telephone landline or a mobile network, a bicycle, a car or public transport. No

My personal view of this is that the internet is no different than access to a telephone landline or a mobile network, a bicycle, a car or public transport. No one denies you access to transport or communication - you have a human right to them - but someone has to pay for the actual services in the end. The reasoning that internet should be a human right is semantically the same as people suddenly being given the right to claim someone else's vehicle or someone's phone at their convenience - read: their human right to it - or to claim a free ride on a public transport system. Cerf differentiates these parts in a pretty clear way that I like, in a way that seemingly very few others manage to do. For some reason people partaking in this debate often feel that it's sane and logical that use of the internet should be a human right in a free-of-charge sense without a second's thought about the costs, while they realize the ridiculous err in their reasoning when you put it in the context of transport or communication. Somehow, in that context, they understand that these things cost money, and that it's neither violation of human rights nor denial of access to ask for payment prior to use.