There are a great many people who have access who choose not to purchase it. In all these cases except a relative few it is a value judgment on the part of the occupant to not get it. Some simply don't see the value in having internet access. They have a point, it is not vital to living by any stretch. It provides no emergency services. It doesn't make someone in the US who is not reachable suddenly reachable (mail, phone/cell, etc. all provide this just fine). It doesn't heat the home or keep the lights on. There are myriad other sources of "information" from newspapers to books and magazines to TV and movies, many of which are available for free via public libraries or grabbing discarded items from others or at cheap rates on bargain bins in stores.
I do not want to see the FCC or some government agency/body define access by how many actually have it in their home. It isn't vital to living in any way, the education of the youth, or any other measure that has lead to declaration of common carrier or public utility status before. Indeed, as our President recently stated, it can be a huge distraction and work against the kind of learning environment some people want to set up for their children or in their own lives. Most people who do not have it simply decide they don't want it at the price it is available to them. Some few of these people can't afford any option available to them, but most of them chose other things (cell phones, cable tv, central air conditioning, to have a car instead of using public transit, to have a second car when one might do, to pay for lawn care or annual landscaping, to pay for plowing service, to pave their driveway instead, to own a boat, to collect baskets, etc.).
On the flip side, there are some who want it, but they live where it isn't available to them in a high speed, low latency form. They have satellite and dialup available to them, but no one has strung a coaxial cable or a fiber drop to their curb. Some could get access through mobile broadband options from cellular companies. WiMax and other wireless options are being developed and may offer another option before too long. Forcing companies to provide probably highly subsidized access it not a good use of money. These people choose to live out in the sticks or they live in exceptionally low income urban areas where the people have a lot more to worry about than getting a big fat porn pipe hooked up in their living rooms. Both generally have access to the internet through public kiosks, public libraries, in schools for the kids, etc. And they usually have lower speed but still broadband options, but again either choose against it for other things or can not afford it (yet still have public/free options available).
There's also the problem of the connection only being half of what's needed. You also need a computer, many of these same people chose not to get one or can't afford one and that isn't something we can really address through regulation or legislation. And nor should we try to. There are low cost options out there. Many donation centers and charity programs take old systems and make them available to low income families. Many companies will wipe old systems and give them away or recycle them, nothing stopping them from running them into these charity organizations, many already do.