The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed cable companies to continue restricting access to their broadband network may not be the bane to consumers that some are fearing.

Some are now speculating that the ruling may focus more energy on developing a third connection into the home--other than cable modems and telco DSL lines--to provide broadband connections.

“There is the law of unintended consequences,” said Andy Lipman, attorney with Swidler Berlin. “This could foster more attention on the third wire, whether that’s broadband over power line or WiMAX or something else.”

Writing in the San Jose Mercury News, columnist Mike Langberg said the decision showed the Supreme Court “really does understand how technology is changing the world.”

Langberg goes on to say that “getting more competitors on the existing networks isn't the answer. Instead, we need more networks.”

No one was denying that the decision is a boon for the cable industry, and many believe that it’s good news for telcos as well.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin hinted as much in his statement in response to the ruling. “This decision provides much-needed regulatory clarity and a framework for broadband that can be applied to all providers,” he said.

Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy was even more forthcoming. “I am hopeful that the commission will act quickly to establish a similarly forward-looking approach for competitive wireline DSL services.”

The FCC also was a big winner in the decision, Lipman said, as the Supreme Court “clearly sent a message to the D.C. court and other lower courts” that the commission is the arbiter of disputes resulting from the Telecom Act of 1996.

Many people do believe that consumers took a beating, at least in the near-term.

The Democratic half of the four-person FCC--Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps--both said they would continue to work to protect American consumers even though, as Copps said, “today’s decision makes the climb much steeper.”

The goal of promoting innovation and returning the U.S. to broadband leadership remains, Copps said in his statement.

“The Commission needs to think anew and act anew to meet these challenges, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.”

One major concern is that cable companies may limit consumers’ ability to run their own applications, including independent voice-over-IP service, according to an assessment by Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, a North Carolina law firm.

A Business Week commentary by Catherine Yang raises the same concern. “In theory, cable providers could keep consumers from buying competitors' Net access, telephony and video services--and lock them into the services offered by the local cable operator. Time Warner Cable, for example, could push its own Internet service provider business instead of independent ISP EarthLink's, or its own VoIP service instead of independent Vonage's. Though cable operators claim they won't discriminate against competitors, the likes of EarthLink and Vonage face a bleak future if the cable guys forget their promise,” writes Yang.

The FCC could still regulate cable modem service under Title I rules, “and we’ll see exactly what that means,” Lipman said.

He believes standalone ISPs will now be forced to get more creative and develop more content of their own “so consumers are willing to pay the higher margins.”

Covad Communications will continue to provide ISPs with an access line into the consumer market, said Jeff Ahlquist, vice president of corporate development and market strategy, because it has existing contracts to buy unbundled loops from the incumbents.

“Covad provides DSL services using unbundled loops and under our commercial line sharing agreements with the Bells,” he said. “Covad's ability to provide DSL services will not be affected if the FCC reclassifies DSL as an information service following the Brand X decision.”

The decision may actually forestall telecom law reform this year by Congress, Lipman opined.

”I don’t see legislation coming out of Congress this session anyway,” he said. “But this takes some of the pressure off Congress to act” since the cable companies and, most likely, the telcos are seeing a major concern addressed.