But what right is being recognized? I think there is a distinction to be made between the internet as material infrastructure and the internet as a medium of ci

But what right is being recognized? I think there is a distinction to be made between the internet as material infrastructure and the internet as a medium of civil discourse. The former is only relevant in as much as totalitarian control of infrastructure can be used as a means of denying the latter - that is civil discourse critical of a regime. Vint Cerf is arguing for a higher, abstract, freedom of uncensored communication which should not be confused with a civil obligation to provide a certain infrastructure. The idea of "a right to internet access" is dangerous if it is understood too narrowly, focusing on a current means rather than a properly recognized timeless end. Internet access is a public good, as is the physical existence of material printing presses. But that doesn't oblige a government to build a certain communications infrastructure (although a wise government might well chose to encourage such). A "higher" right to uncensored communication does oblige a just government to never censor the internet or deny access to it. A right in this sense might be better understood as a restriction on government: "Congress shall make no law ..." rather than "Congress shall ensure the provision of ..."