Internet access will need to be a right as more & more businesses and government departments turn away from having physical offices to websites instead, however it is entirely dependent on the country in question & like the right of freedom, taking it away as punishment should be perfectly acceptable.

"If you live in a rural community, a jungle, a desert or Antarctica and there's no internet access, you can't exactly complain about your fundamental rights being violated."

Depends. You can also argue that water, food and shelter is not a neccessity to life because some people do not have them, i.e. extreme poverty. Secondly, rurals, jungles, deserts and Antarctica can have internet access like satellite. I'm relatively certain places like research bases, army camps and rural farm area etc usually has internet.

"We have freedom of expression, but the means by which we convey that expression is not a given right - the internet is such a means." That's a fine difference. Given that method of expression is not a right, does this mean that a government can forbid people from talking and writing their sentiments?

You’re right, the internet is not a right, and it’s a privilege, a somewhat overused and abused one now.

It’s an epic tool and resource but trolling lolcats is not a right.

The internet is a right to the extent that you have the right to get it if its available and if you can afford pay for it. I recently spent three weeks in a country with little internet, and yes the group that I was with would religiously hunt out the nearest internet cafes. But it was no drama if we couldn't find one. And in fact all anyone did was e-mail. And maybe a bit of checking of local news. The rest of the net could have gone up in smoke.

You adapt to what you've got.

But saying that, I'm not in favour of the copyright changes retaining disconnection from the net as a potential multiple offence penalty. That's the low-grade equivalent of saying you can't have a cellphone if you've been using it to arrange meth deals. Its confusing the medium with the message. Except we have no way of blocking the message without breaking the medium. Or moving to the XT network.

Not only is it not a right, neither are the electricity and phone lines (or cable or radio, etc) required to make it work!

However it is pretty much indispensible :)

For most people the internet is their connection to learning and education. As a software developer it is essential. Is it a right?

The question would be like asking someone 20 years ago whether access to the library is a right. I would expect most would say yes, however as with the internet, a reasonably large percentage of the world would not have access to one.

I think the answer is reliant on how much they needed it. I bet you would get the same kind of answer about cars or TV. Remember the saying: "there are 3 types of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics"!!

The Finnish government has become the first in the world to make broadband internet access a legal right.

I think access to, (or the lack of) the internet in today's urban environment has a direct impact on your quality of life. This is especially true in societies with high connectivity penetration rights.

The government there recognized this and a 1Mbps connection is now a legal right in Finland, with the plans of making it 100Mbps by 2015.

The Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/14/finland-broadband

R.I.P. failed article.

Isn't free calling in a metroplitan area from a residential phone line a legal "right" in New Zealand? This could easily be translated into a legal right for internet access.

I agree it's not a right, but it is so readily available to most people who aren't living in the 3rd world that it could easily be considered as one.

By comparison: www.cellphone.org has interesting statistics on cellphone usage - I'll bet a lot more than 1 in 4 people have a cellphone.

I think another problem is the definition of a "right" has become skewed. A right should be something any member of the human race is entitled to - regardless of gender, age or ethnicity. Perhaps the people from the BBC poll are referring to what they think "should" be a right in an ideal word. But I don't see how internet access would help people who don't even have enough to eat or drink.