I agree, but I think the "smartphones as luxury" thinking stems from a common confusion about the proper use of new technologies in society. This is really an extension of the common fallacy "new technologies are always exotic and expensive." The most important technologies all drastically reduce market expenses overall (i.e. movable type). This common fallacy results in the same people that say "home postal deliveries are a basic citizen right" can quickly with a straight face also say "Internet access is not a right."
Some of this has to do with category error and lack of goal-based thinking. I think the original signers of the US Constitution (which includes our Postal System as a core Congressional responsibility) would agree that, when the goal is universal peer media communication from home to home, the lowest cost technology should be implemented the most widely. That technology is currently wireless mesh networking, which is best represented by Internet capable wireless phones.
Most people also don't realize that computers and networks are only so expensive because government-granted monopolies (radio spectrum, pole attachments, right-of-ways, Imaginary Property, etc.) allow incumbent operators to charge rent-seeking profit margins at will. If our government takes away these monopoly grants, competitive prices will quickly fall to the point where universal minimum access is no-brainer-cheap policy.