said by "fiberguy":
I don't think it's a utility, a luxury, and ESPECIALLY a right.
I will add this, though.. I think that with more business pushing people to use the internet for services, in some cases penalizing people for not using the internet like the airlines do (...)
Here's an interesting question - what if the primary means for a citizen to interact with the services of their govt', is through the internet? Doesn't or wouldn't that change your view of whether or not such network-based access, is a "luxury" versus a "right"? Every citizen should have the basic right to access / interact with their gov't. They should have to pay a fee to do so. (The "poll tax" was found to be unconstitutional, if I have my history right. It was originally intended to deny the right of sufferage to slaves, because they couldn't afford to pay the tax in order to vote, while rich white slaveowners of course had no problems in doing so.)
Should the majority of gov't services be moved primarily or exclusively "on the internet" (and many already are doing so), then for internet (broadband) access to remain the province of the wealthy (as a "luxury"), then a significant portion of the citizenry would be effectively defacto disenfranchised, and this would end up being a modern-day "poll tax", under a different guise. For the good of the stability of society, that cannot be allowed to happen. (That is more-or-less what the "digital divide" is truely all about, btw.)