via the internet to the World Wide Web. This is straightforward. The problem is the user's expectation that access to this commodity (the sharing of human knowledge, experience, insight and opinion) is a basic human right analogous to the provision of sanitation and healthcare. There may, of course, be a valid argument that governments should provide internet access for free on the basis that the added tax income from the associated additional growth will provide a net economic, social and political gain. Selective free access is of course already available, for example internet access in schools and internet access in libraries (free to pensioners). The provision of such services is analogous to the right of citizens to have access to free to air broadcast content and the related public service remit to 'inform, educate and entertain'. Interestingly, most of us in the UK are happy to pay a license fee (to the BBC though not perhaps to Mr Murdoch) on the basis that this makes it more likely that the content delivered in return is 'free' from political bias or at least overt political interference. Of course, governments do not need to invest in communications networks because other people do it for them. However, the contention is that network access, broadly defined to include all forms of present connectivity, directly contributes to an increase in GDP. There are exceptions. Watching the Simpsons4 or Neighbours5 does not necessarily add signifi- cantly to the economic well being of the nation but the general principle prevails. Therefore, governments have a duty to ensure connectivity is provided at an affordable cost. Most of us are willing, if not necessarily happy, to pay 40 or 50 dollars per month for the right of access to the various forms of communications connectivity available to us. Price perceptions are influenced by what we pay for other forms of connectivity - water, gas, electricity. Emerging nations are, however, different. You cannot expect someone on a dollar a day to pay 50 dollars per month f