I feel that human rights come in groups. There are survival needs (food, water, health care, etc.). There are sanity needs (freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to marry, etc.). And then there are the things that a society expects people to have in order to function as members of society, such as a residence or an education. A society is obligated to provide people with the means to meet those expectations, because not doing so forcibly excludes people from society, which is dangerous as well as immoral. Following the rules must always be an option for everyone, or else the system is unacceptably flawed for pushing people out of bounds and then blaming them for being out of bounds.
Internet access is moving into that category. It used to be an advantage if you had it, because most people didn't. Now it's expected. And it's rapidly getting to the point where you can't do anything without it -- there are bills that can only be paid online, classes that can only be paid online, job applications, on and one. So. If it's expected to be ubiquitous, then it has to be provided everywhere to everyone; and if not, then it's not okay to expect total saturation as if it were ubiquitous. Even then, honestly, some people are just not compatible with cyberspace. I don't really think it's okay to fling them out of society for that.