I am prepared to believe that there may be some things (though not many of them) that are of such public benefit that they should be provided at the general expense. That is not to say that I think that if something is good it should be compulsory. Let alone that if it sounds like a good, that is justification for its being compulsory.
But when you are dealing with the state, "free" does not mean 'free as in free speech', nor does it mean 'free as in free beer'. It means 'compulsory'.
So what is being suggested in Britain? Why, that every child be provided internet access! With national health care, everyone pays for least-common-denominator coverage through taxes. What's being proposed regarding the internet is a little more honest:
Parents could be required to provide their children with high-speed internet access under plans being drawn up by ministers in partnership with some of the country's leading IT firms.
It's "for the children", so it must be good.
When a socialist government says you must have something, then you must. There is no freedom under such a government.