No, believing that human rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong to everyone does not mean I have accept that internet access is a human right. And saying governments shouldn't deny people access to the internet is not the same as saying access to the internet is a human right.
I'd like to get some elaboration of how the difference comes out in practice to you. Governments should not be allowed to block users' access to the internet - is it complete blocking of all the people (as happened briefly in Egypt in January) you're thinking of, or do you also oppose on principle the targeted blocking of some kinds of content (beyond stuff like child porn and instructions for making terrorist bomb belts, cause I reckon most people would be okay with bringing such sites to court and getting those pages offline) and/or for certain users? As for the internet being a human right, I suppose you mean while blocking is wrong, governments and public agencies have no obligation to help granting access to the web to people in general, no matter how much of the fabric of society comes to rely on the web? Is that what you're after?
Well, I admit I think governments, states and city councils are obliged to be proactive and to be a few steps ahead in catching the challenges of the future. Nobody takes part in the election of a parliament and a government to have them just sit and roll their thumbs, executing routine administrative business, without addressing what is happening in the country and in the wider world.
Do you think people should expect to be given things that benefit others? That seems to be what you're basically arguing.
First off, most of us pay taxes and the government has an obligation to use that money (and money it can borrow on good terms for large investments, beyond that) to keep the country abreast of what is going on. Just as most people can't set up their own fire brigade or their own waterworks and sewage network, there are severe limits to taking 100% charge of internet infrastructure for yourself.
The web, and access to it, is not a zero-sum operation, and hasn't been since it went fully public in 1991. In many ways, the internet has been growing by pulling masses of people in. And at the same time, as a mirror of this, the old "hand-to-hand" ways of carrying out a multitude of things have been taken down or have become embarrassingly expensive and slow to use. As Serephine pointed out, we are now expected to use digital checks, bills and money orders and despatch them ourselves online. Going to the bank to cash in a money order at the counter, or to transfer a hundred bucks to your cousin's account or to your electricity provider, now carries a big extra fee (it does in every bank I know of around here and probably in most major U.S. banks too) and there are few personnel to deal with this kind of thing. If you walk in you may well get to wait forty-five minutes while you watch the people behind the counter looking at their screens, typing, chatting and, very sparsely, taking on a customer at the counter. My time is too precious to waste on that, but customers have never really been asked if they wanted it that way: it's simply been changed unilaterally because home and office pc's have become such a fixture.
Many tv channels today have their news desks redirect the viewers to "our web site" all the time for more information. If you're constricted to analog tv only (no cable or satellite channels), what you get is essentially meager bare-bones information and some nice pictures; without web access you're simply not given anything like the full picture (I am not thinking of 24-hour news networks like CNN here, but national allround networks, but even CNN and BBC News rely heavily on the web to expand their range. You might feel that the idea of public service tv is socialist in itself, but many people wouldn't agree.
As I pointed out before, if you don't get a pc and a reliable connection at home within, at most, a year of starting - and have that kind of thing accessible at libraries or elsewhere before then - then studying at college or university today is a waste of time and of a great deal of money: it would simply be impossible to keep up with what's expected. Even in many high schools and in primary education, teachers will routinely expect the kids to do their homework aided by the internet, looking for news, facts and pictures and communicating by e-mail. If you're off all that, you simply can't achieve top results, no matter how bright a student we're talking of.
Education, to many people, is the highway to becoming an active grown-up citizen with decent prospects and a say in your own future, so if education now relies heavily on web access, then it's simply not enough to say "what you need for education is just a book collection, lecture halls, energy, pen and paper and good wits - and if you can't make it on those terms, tough luck, then you didn't have what it takes". That's plainly not true anymore, and states and public agencies need to work from the standard that the web is now an inalienable part of our lives, therefore, a human right.