In principle, I agree with you. Technically everyone is a total individual and there is no reason that a hunter-gatherer can't live in a city in the developed world without changing his culture. He should be able to just gather edible vegetation and/or public fauna for his meals, etc. However, it just happens to be the case that modern governments all exercise various forms of economic intervention to maintain the consumption-patterns that the middle-class has become accustomed to. So the question is, if the government is going to support the consumption-rights of the middle-class, where should they stop? Is it ok to bail out a bank so that employees can pay their mortgages and cell-phone plans for themselves and three kids but then deny someone else's rights to all but the opportunity to hunt and gather on non-private land?
You probably could, but if your parent was lying on their deathbed and you couldn't get to them, you might want to have audiovideo access if that was available. Then, the issue becomes whether someone with such a connection should ask you to empty your bank-account so you can see/hear your parent one last time before it is no longer possible.
I would say not for casual usage. The problem is that there are other issues, like whether someone will lie and give some urgent reason to use your phone just so that they can call their friend to tell them where they are. Also, do you really want to be sharing phones with anyone and everyone, with them breathing on the mouthpiece, etc.? Still, these are not the issues in question. The issue is whether government should allow businesses to use communications services exploitatively or cut communication lines during civil unrest as mass-punishment for the unrest occurring in the first place.