Late last week, the Federal Communications Commission made a step toward net neutrality by voting in a new set of rules that will make all Internet provides treat all corners of the web the same and fairly. And while the debate of net neutrality will continue on for some undetermined amount of time, the FCC made the correct and progressive move forward in demanding for a neutral Internet. However, the decision is not yet finalized.

First, the rules will have to be approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and then opened for public comment in the Federal Register. And while the move is good for Internet users, Internet providers like Verizon and AT&T have openly expressed concerns with the neutrality.

These providers make substantial amounts of profits providing “fast lanes” to certain customers who are willing to pay an extra cost. And while it seems like a profitable business model, rural areas in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, among others, where these providers don’t cover completely, are left at a loss because they can’t afford to pay for “fast lanes.”

The Internet is, or at least should be, a public utility — and the success of publicly owned Internet providers has been exemplified by Iowa communities like Cedar Falls — and therefore every member of the public should have equal opportunity and access to all that the Internet has to offer.

The FCC’s decision fits in with the kind of America we should be building. No, big-name Internet providers aren’t going to be making as large of a profit anymore — if the rules hold true — but to what reward? Small town communities will be able to gain the same access as those in metropolitan areas, meaning Internet education, among other benefits, will be able to be accessed nationwide.

The fact that there are Internet providers out there willing to sue the FCC for the neutral rules it’s trying to put into place is absurd. How can one company say its profit is more expendable than an education?

For businesses, profit margins will always be the bottom line and it is for this very reason that the lobbying efforts by private industries attempting to promote limited Internet access for individual users cannot be considered in the best interest of all Americans.

Access to the Internet is access to the entire world. Restricting access to online services would result in a cultural handicap and an illiteracy of international awareness for all those upon whom the injustice is perpetrated.

As much as we want to be able to stream our House of Cards or our One Tree Hill as fast as we can, we have to take a step back and look at the outcome. If the FCC had not put in place these rules to keep the Internet free to all users, then we would be moving down the wrong path — a path that supports a monopoly of service that ought to be free and usable to each and every citizen in America.