We need to develop a word other than 'right' that means "not a fundamental human right, but something we collectively agree people should be able to get, if it can be made available at a reasonable cost, a reasonable price, and without forced labor". We could use it in the health care debate, too. Maybe the Spanish need it as well, although I can't tell if the PC Mag article is translating such a word into 'right'.
It seems to me that the qualifiers "negative right" and "postive right" do a decent job at this. Of course, there are some 18th century thinkers who don't believe that positive rights are legitimate, but that hasn't stopped the rest of the industrialized world from recognizing the intrinsic value of universal education, health care, public infrastructure and so on.
Whether broadband qualifies, and whether Spain's chosen method of implementing it makes sense, are of course open to discussion.
I would agree with you, but have personally found it unexpectedly difficult to get people to understand the difference between "negative" rights and "positive" rights. Maybe those words have too many other connotations?
