I would have thought that a right is something someone MUST grant you. The internet is becoming that way in some countries. In Australia, the high school curriculum is requiring students to access the internet more and more each year. In school libraries, reference books are making way for computers, as they are in many public libraries. It's getting to the stage where the internet is becoming the ONLY place students can readily undertake the research they need to gain an education. If education is a human right then it follows that the internet is heading that way.
My point still stands. It was an interconnected arguement and you nitpicked 5 words out of it
Times change and access to fundamental human needs also changes. The internet has become one of the backbones of culture and commerce and those who don't have access to it do lose out in big ways. It's the equivalent of having access to newspapers in the 19th century or to television and radio in the early 20th century. Making it a "right" is simply a way of saying that people shouldn't be denied access to the means of participating in culture and commerce. People also tend to confuse "natural rights" with "legal rights." I don't think the UN is claiming that people have a natural right to the internet, only a legal one. But whether "natural rights" even exist remains controversial. Rights in general only seem to exist abstractly in the context of human governments. Now whether people should have a legal right to the internet remains the decision of governments and - hopefully - citizens. It's a moral claim with no real right or wrong answer. But it does seem "wrong" to willingly deny people access to the internet in the 21st century. It seems unfair and unjust to do so, that's how I interpret the internet being a "right."
I agree with Ewomack and Orangey -- I'd hesitate to call internet access a right. But in many places, society is moving in the direction where it will be increasingly difficult to participate as in many major parts of life (employment is a good example) without it. So things certainly seem to be moving in that direction. The internet isn't all that fundamentally different from ten years ago (barring speeds capable of streaming video, perhaps -- but that's not the issue), and ten years ago nobody would have given much credence to the idea of internet access being a right. Now... it's at least a valid question. Ten years from now? Twenty years from now? I'm betting that it'll be much more accepted as a "right".
When it really comes down to it though, I think that the listing of rights is oftentimes too specific. Something more along the lines of a general, fuzzy concept of equality of opportunity, self-determination, prioritization of meeting basic health needs (including water, etc.), and legitimate participation in society seems like it should be good enough. Perhaps too idealistic of me.