Some in the wireless industry breathed a sigh of relief when they saw the FCC's regulations on net neutrality. The agency had backed away from reclassifying mobile broadband services under Title II, dropped some of the more stringent parts of the regulations and only applied some of the rules to wireless operators.

The FCC spared wireless operators from the most burdensome requirements, only obligating them to inform consumers about data speeds and network management practices and imposing a basic rule barring them from blocking lawful websites and competing services, subject to "reasonable" network management practices.

By comparison, fixed broadband providers are banned from blocking lawful content, applications, services and non-harmful devices; may not "unreasonably discriminate" in transmitting lawful network traffic; and must meet the same transparency requirements as wireless operators about data speeds and network management practices.

Even so, Verizon and MetroPCS both filed suit over the regulations, only to have the complaints tossed out for being premature.

With the regulations set to go into effect some time this fall – likely sometime in October, if the FCC's timeline holds true – wireless operators are getting ready to deal with the new regulatory regime.

Many wireless operators aren't commenting on how the rules will affect their business – Sprint and MetroPCS declined to comment; Cricket did not reply to requests for comment; and Verizon Wireless declined to talk about the impact of the regulations on its day-to-day operations, but a spokesman did confirm that the operator's parent company planned to re-file its previous lawsuit over the regulations.

As a result, it's difficult to gauge how wireless operators think the regulations will ultimately affect the services they offer to customers and the way they manage their network. AT&T says it will be business as usual, U.S. Cellular said it's "cautiously optimistic" about the effect of the regulations, and T-Mobile USA is "comfortable" with the rules, but experts aren't so sure.

"We're not going to have to really change anything we're doing on the network side of the house," says AT&T regulatory affairs executive Robert Quinn. "We're pretty comfortable we're providing service consistent with the regulations."

The regulations aren't quite finalized yet, but Quinn maintains that little, if anything, is expected to change at AT&T once the regulations become law, since the company is already compliant with the rules.

The company already discloses its minimum data speeds, helping to bring itself into line with the FCC's transparency requirement, and doesn't currently ban any services that would cause it to run afoul of the agency's no blocking rule.

U.S. Cellular said it was too early on in the regulatory process to be able to predict exactly how the regulations would shape its business, but was not overly concerned about the consequences of the rules.

"The language in the FCC's net neutrality rules is very broad and we believe its true meaning and scope will only be known after years of fact-specific litigation before the FCC and the courts," the company said in an e-mail statement, adding it was "confident' its business would be in alignment with the regulations by the time they went into effect.

"We are cautiously optimistic that the carriers, application developers and other groups that will be the most impacted by the new rules will be reasonable in their demands and interpretations of them, and that our current policies and practices, which do not discriminate between the sources of data traffic on our network, will allow all users of our network to stay connected," U.S. Cellular said.

Kathleen Ham, vice president for federal regulatory affairs at T-Mobile, said the operator was "comfortable with the outcome of the rules."

"I think a balance was achieved to meet the commission's needs and also they had an understanding that wireless is different, it's very competitive," Ham said. "Some good things were going on in the wireless marketplace that they didn't want to disturb, and I think the commission came out in the right place."

Ham says T-Mobile, which has prided itself on being an open platform through its work with Android, was more focused on securing additional spectrum than fighting the net neutrality issue.

However, Ham concedes that it may take a while for the full implications of some parts of the regulations to be recognized, given the expected legal wrangling over the rules.

For example, the FCC defines "reasonable network management" as a practice "appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service." How that plays out in the market – and in court – remains to be seen.

"The FCC recognized a lot of innovation in wireless that was good for consumers, and given the vibrant competition occurring in the space, the commission wanted to provide some degree of flexibility," Ham says. "Terms like reasonable, yes they can be subject to future interpretation, but they give a degree of flexibility I think was needed."

A Matter of Interpretation, and Lawsuits

Frost & Sullivan analyst Mike Jude doesn't believe operators are really as okay with the regulations as they say.

"It's a very fine political game we're all playing on this," Jude says. "The carriers are scared the FCC might go there [with heavier regulations], so they're not going to tempt the elephant to squish them. The very fact that you have that lurking out there in the distance makes things very uncertain for wireless operators."

Jude says wireless operators will likely play it safe until the full impact of the rules are realized.

The FCC has not released the final rules, which could differ from what it set forth in December, so it's hard to determine exactly how operators could be affected. For instance, the agency could decide to frown upon premium data services that offer guaranteed speeds or quality of service for an extra monthly fee, or the agency could let such services pass.

Jude is concerned that the FCC's open Internet order is just a first step toward a common carrier requirement for wireless providers that would effectively turn them into dumb pipes and make it more difficult for them to make money off their networks through their own services.

If operators' service revenue becomes severely undermined by over-the-top competitors like Skype, they will be forced to rely more heavily on access charges. Not only could that raise prices, it undermines a key source of revenue and makes wireless operators a less attractive proposition to potential investors, Jude says.

In Jude's crystal ball, this uncertainty about service revenue could prompt carriers to be more cautious in their network build plans for rural areas.

"It introduces another risk into their investment. Will it stop them from making those investments? Absolutely not. Will it stop investments at the margin where the profit potential is uncertain? Yes, it will," Jude says. "If I build a cell site out in rural Montana, is it going to be worthwhile? Maybe not if that little old lady in Montana decides to use Skype to make all her calls. It's the margin that gets harmed."

However, Michael Donahue, an attorney at communications and technology law firm Helein & Marashlian, doesn't think the situation is quite so dire.

As he interprets the regulations, wireless operators have some legal wiggle room because they aren't subject to the "no unreasonable discrimination" clause and could constrain – but not block - competing services as long as they disclosed the practice to consumers and were able to justify the move as reasonable network management.

"So they couldn't block Google Voice, but they could slow it down. From the pro-consumer point of view, that's one of the potential loopholes or problems with the rules," Donahue says.

That's not to say wireless operators will resort to such measures. Donahue believes that market forces will preclude wireless operators from impeding competing services, even if they think they could get away with it in court.

"By constraining a service like Google Voice, it would be outweighed by the harm they would suffer in the marketplace from customers and potential customers who might want the service," he says. "It's really market forces that would constrain them, versus a restriction or rule."

It could take a while to tell whether the wireless industry dodged a bullet, or is still in the crosshairs. One thing is for certain, however: The legal fight over the regulations is far from over.

Ed McFadden, Verizon Communications' spokesman for federal and state regulatory affairs, said the company would re-file its lawsuit over the regulations, as promised when the complaint was dismissed on a technicality this spring.

"We indicated both at our initial filing and when the court chose not to review our request that we would be filing again upon publication," McFadden says.

The wireless industry may have been at first relieved by the limited scope of the FCC's net neutrality rules, but the full repercussions of the regulations won't be realized until they play out in real life – and in court.