A couple months I wrote about our government’s plan to spend more than $7 billion - part of the big economic stimulus package - promoting Internet access in rural and underserved areas.

The basic idea is this: People living on farms, in poor inner city areas and sparsely-populated subdivisions need to have access to high speed Internet. Without it, they’ll fall behind the rest of us.

Of course $7 billion sounds like a lot of money. But some experts say that’s just tiny piece of what it’s going to cost to get everyone in this country up to speed, so to speak.

I know some people think this is a waste of money. That there are better things to spend our scarce dollars on.

But have we reached the point where Internet access has gone from luxury to necessity to fundamental right?

The French seem to think so, according this article at ReadWriteWeb. In striking down a French law, the country’s highest court essentially ruled that citizens have the right to access the Internet. The article questions the implications of other countries adopting a similar position. And what it could mean for people who simply don’t have Internet access.

Conversely, are peoples’ fundamental human rights being violated when they don’t have access to the internet? It’s tempting to consider internet access a luxury, but consider the increased quality of life that comes with the huge jump in access to cultural and logistical information the internet brings. We think this is an important opportunity to think about expanding our understanding of human rights.

So which is it? Luxury? Necessity? Fundamental right?