QOTD: Is Internet Access a Fundamental Right?

Telephone isn't a right, internet access isn't a right either.

However, for low income families there should be a low-speed discount/coupon. As contradictory as this may sound, I think that children need to grow up somewhat exposed to the internet\computer, or their chances of adapting to non-blue collar job are slim.

No, it is not a "basic" right. A basic right is something that cannot be done without. Speech, religion, not being beaten, those are basic rights. Internet access is a luxery.

I'd much rather my country give us free water. Water should be a right. Electricity would also be nice, but that's asking a lot.

What does "fundamental right" mean? Is that everyone should have it access to obtain it, or everyone should have it for free? I don't think everyone should have it for free, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't all for a 100-megabit connection for everyone. I just don't know if I would say it is a "fundamental right."

In a way, yes. Things like education, healthcare, basic nourishment and accommodations are fundamental rights in my opinion. The internet is now a major part of education though so it is a fundamental right in that regard. However, by that I mean that internet should be freely available at public libraries and in schools. Internet at home isn't though. To have benefits such as internet at home, being able to buy textbooks rather than borrow them, to watch tv etc - those should be earned.

However, on the other side of things, the ability to have internet at home within reasonable costs if you can afford it *should* be ensured. Fundamental right maybe not but in a modern country run with taxpayers money, it should be ensured that where you live doesn't determine whether you can get internet or not - i.e. rural places should maybe have caps on how much they need to pay to have internet installed. For example, if you're a farmer living in the countryside then you shouldn't have to pay more than say $1000 to have a line installed rather than the 10s of thousands that such people can be charged.

It's surprising to me that so many people feel that internet access should be a "fundamental right," along with the right to marry, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, etc. It certainly doesn't fit nicely into the category of rights recognized as "fundamental."

What does this "right" entail? Right to in-home access? If so, who's going to implement a program so that the "right" means something, and who's going to pay for it? Or is it a more general right to access - for example, by using public terminals or libraries? And what does it mean to even *have* a "right" to internet access? Does it mean a right to purchase access, or does it mean a right to have it provided?

It's a nice thought, a right to internet access - effectively, a right to information and communication - but it starts looking a lot less appealing to me when you start thinking about implementation, oversight, and a vastly higher degree of government involvement in what has, historically, been a largely private industry. Obviously government oversight has been increasing as the internet has become a greater part of our daily lives, but it would skyrocket in the event that it was characterized as a "fundamental right." But let's be realistic - that's happening anyway, whether it's a right or not.

I don't know about what happens where all the posters who said no live, but where I live a lot of jobs are only available on line. I'm not saying that every home should have free internet, but i do think that everybody should have somewhere they can go to access free internet, be that a library or a community centre.