If you were to ask the average Internet user about net neutrality, you might get a surprising… If you were to ask the average Internet user about net neutrality, you might get a surprising answer.

Net neutrality is a concept that dictates completely equal treatment of all Web content by Internet service providers. Without it, service providers could restrict or obstruct access to certain content.

Many people would stare blankly at the mention of net neutrality.

Others would assure you that net neutrality was an inherent feature of the market and that Internet service providers could never begin restricting access in fear of a mass exodus by customers.

It might not yet be doomsday, but recent developments have called into question the existence of true net neutrality in today’s broadband Internet marketplace.

The trouble began around April 7.

The Washington Post reported that a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Comcast in a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC had previously exercised what it thought was its regulatory power and sanctioned Comcast when Comcast slowed access to a BitTorrent file-sharing website.

Comcast said its slowing of access was a tactic to reduce network traffic caused by the transfer of large files through BitTorrent.

The court ruled that the FCC did not have sufficient oversight powers to enforce net neutrality.

This may not be initially alarming. After all, the FCC lost a case specifically with Comcast. Customers can easily go to another service provider, right?

It depends on where you live.

According to the Washington Post’s follow-up article, 78 percent of Americans have access only to two broadband Internet service providers in their area. Thirteen percent are subject to monopolies. Only nine percent have access to three broadband ISPs.

If the FCC is no longer legally able to sanction companies into net neutrality, there’s no guarantee that Americans will have the available choices to pressure companies through the free market.

Both articles suggest a series of actions that could be taken to prevent the large ISPs from restricting access.

Congress could, of course, enact laws that overturn the court’s decision and explicitly give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality.

This might be difficult, however, as having more government regulation is currently far from popular.

The FCC could also reverse a decision from the days when the service providers only provided landline telephone.

Back in the day, communications companies were forced to open their physical infrastructure to others. In the days of dial-up Internet and DSL, this created a market full of small up-and-start providers, giving customers a healthy amount of choice. This concept was known as line sharing.

The FCC exempted broadband providers from line sharing by classifying them as “information services,” a new category.

If the FCC were to reverse this reclassification, it could stimulate the growth of smaller providers and allow the free market to pressure companies into net neutrality.

As it stands now, however, the primary regulator keeping the world of broadband service approximately fair has been removed from the equation.

Comcast, according to the Washington Post, stopped its use of speed reductions to reduce network traffic. This does not guarantee, however, that speed reductions will not crop up in the future.

The congressional route might ultimately prove to be the solution to net neutrality advocates.

Congress has attempted to pass net neutrality legislation. Any legislation might have to wait until after the midterm elections or until other highly contentious bills are no longer on the table.

But inhabitants of a few lucky cities could avoid this. Companies like Google are holding contests to decide which American city should be provided with high-speed wireless access.

For the lucky city or cities chosen, the marketplace will not only increase by one provider, but Google’s stated commitment to open information exchange might force the existing carriers to think twice before violating net neutrality.