I'm not sure what "all jobs were set for 40 hours" means . . . all jobs are not set for 40 hours, and I have indeed chosen a job that is more hours for more money.

Good job opening with an insult. Really adds to your credibility. I don't understand the hostility. I do have a contract. It says that my hours are open-ended. I am expected to get the job done, and to be generally present during business hours, especially to the extent that collaboration with others is needed. The job given is one that takes me, and most others, regularly 45 to 50 hours. In "crunch time" it can be more like 60 hours and includes weekend time. My situation is the same as tens of thousands of employees at my current employer, and millions in the US in general. I'm sorry that you don't like that I've agreed to this arrangement, but I really like it and that should be what matters. I want to work more than 40 hours a week in general so that I can be more productive and thus earn more money, but I also appreciate the flexibility to work faster or slower as I see fit, and I like the ups and downs of the cycle because I always know there will be some weeks or months where I can take a breather. I really like that my employer doesn't think about my work in terms of "hours", but rather in terms of results. My relationship with my employer is positive, trusting, and not at all adversarial. I feel fortunate that this is the case for me, and I hope others who want a similar arrangement can find one. Making law to prohibit or impede people from making contracts that both parties like, but that the government does not like, is entirely illiberal and is a sad blow against freedom and prosperity.

I get paid a salary with the understanding that I am being employed to work well over 40 hours a week on most weeks. The expectations were set with a fair bit of clarity when I was hired (two times, both Fortune 500 companies). And, as my salary has risen so have the expectations of my productivity, which seems pretty natural to me. I am grateful that no government agency has yet stepped in to tell me that I cannot work as hard as I choose to, because if they did my employer would be forced to lower my salary to compensate for the lower contribution. And I'm grateful that no government agency has stepped in to say I must be paid overtime, because then not only would my base wage be reduced to match my actual hourly contribution, but my employer would likely prohibit or restrict my ability to work extra hours, which today I use sometimes to prove my value, and sometimes to give myself some flexibility to work slower or faster. No one should have the authority to step in and dictate to me what my agreement is with my employer can or cannot be. Depriving someone of their basic right to work and reap the fruits of their labor is a fundamental human rights violation.

The article is really questioning whether internet access is an entitlement, not a right. A "right" is best defined as some action that cannot justly be restricted or stopped by a government or by another citizen, except if said action interferes with the rights of another and by due process the rights of the other are determined to take precedence. By this definition, internet access is a "right" in the sense that you cannot (generally) be justly disconnected from the internet if you have it. An "entitlement" is best defined as something which a just society must guarantee that all citizens have. An entitlement exists only if it would be unjust for a society not to ensure every citizen had it. What the article is really asking is whether it is unjust for a society to not ensure universal internet access.

. . . cause TV is what happens when you make a book into something interesting.