This article, as I infer it, is discussing poverty levels. Poverty is not the same as subsistence. Rather, it encompasses more than simply "won't die from malnutrition or exposure", it defines what a society feels is the minimum acceptable lifestyle for its citizens. Almost every first-world definition includes access to education and healthcare, for example, which would be considered outright luxuries in most third-world countries. You can assuredly survive on less than poverty-level wages, and many people do, but compassionate societies generally seek to bridge the gap with services or assistance, because it's felt people shouldn't have to endure such sacrifices.
As was pointed out, the Internet has became a pervasive part of modern society. I'm sure we all know its benefits and uses. Some countries are even defining it as a basic human right. Numerous schools require and assume that its students have unfettered access, many jobs are only listed or available online, and much of modern communication (business or personal) occurs over email. How viable is it for people to rely entirely on free Internet access at the library, while also doing everything else they need to be doing? What if you're a single mum? Do you take your kids along, when you need access for several hours, every day? Again, you can survive without the Internet, but its absence can only serve to perpetuate your poverty. I think it's well and truly obvious that it's more than just a luxury good.
