Most better-off countries treat electricity as something that if not a right, is at least a strong public-policy priority: something that we believe everyone should have access to. At least, to the extent that the country as a whole is developed enough for it to be feasible. And yes, that includes subsidizing it to improve access; rural electrification in the United States and Canada (at least) was massively subsidized.

But public policy priorities are very different than rights. A public policy priority can be modified or eliminated as circumstances dictate. In theory, anyway, a human right is absolute.

That's why people who campaign for positive rights make a grave error, IMO. It cheapens the entire concept.

> What if I can't pay for it? Do I have the right to force somebody else to pay for it? Am I going to be forced to pay for the Internet of somebody else?

That's roughly what taxes are for, yes.

> Why is the Internet a human right but electricity, which is kind of critical to running the Internet, is not?

There are a number of arguments for electricity being a human right. I'm perfectly okay with saying it is one.

That said, the interesting point is that you're imagining electricity here to be an implicit right of Internet access. That's fine, but it implies that, if Internet access did not require electricity (and who knows, maybe it won't someday), the claim is that Internet access remains a human right without a need to imply a right to electricity.