Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. 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. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Google Public Policy Blog: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet

Difficult to comprehend the entire scope of this in one sitting. Edited out snarky paragraphs for the time being.

But.

1. Wireless connectively is the near future: Both in terms of convenient home broadband, and getting internet connectivity out into the wilderness. It’s going to replace wires, and Verizon would obviously like to not have to obey any rules when their industry takes over.
2. It also does imposes net neutrality rules on the old cable companies. Which I guess suits Verizon nicely too.
3. I strongly object to “because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly”. Partly because connectivity in the United States is a joke, decades behind other parts of the world. We see service providers getting bigger and more lumbering. Parts of the US are covered by just one provider (citation needed.) And all the while the consumers who are supposed to be protected by these kind of of regulations are bound into 24 month service contracts, which outrageously restricts consumer’s ability to rebel against negative changes in service.
4. Between Android and this, Google may have displaced Adobe in the ‘open’ bullshit stakes.
5. In general, the announcement misses two things: The weasel words claim about wireless being ‘different’ is not backed up by explaining how the wireless industry would supposedly be harmed if you were to apply the neutrality rules properly. Secondly, it doesn’t hint at what kind of long-term beneficial network innovation will occur within the wireless space as a result of not being regulated.

They happily hint at the kind of generic innovation that is allowed to happen outside the rules on wired networking (“health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options”) why can’t they hint at the kinds of innovation that will happen outside the rules in the wireless world that is so fundamental as to require the rules not be applied at all?