Perhaps it could be the basis for something going forward.
It all still seems very vague but, rather than vague attacks on it, we should try to pin down specifics.
Many people are reporting "never any net neutrality applied to wireless".
That may not be the case.
"In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."
That doesn't sound like a permanently different state for wireless. Perhaps there could be a temporary exception until wireless networks evolve. Right now wireless really isn't a substitute for wireline broadband anyway.
It also looks like there could be room to work meaningful rules around the "differentiated services".
Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.
If it worked the way cable tv services and cable broadband work as distinct services today that could be acceptable. The goal, after all, isn't to force all future services to be internet services but simply to make sure that open internet access services are not subverted by the incumbents.
The enforcement area could be the most problematic and requires great care since, without enforcement, the rest of it won't mean much anyway.
Getting commitment from an incumbent on discrimination seems like a pretty significant step. :
"Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."