My preferred compromise regarding the wired vs. wireless bit would have been requiring net neutrality standards for speeds or connection methods that are particularly old and/or commonplace, to be updated semi-automatically as time goes by. From what I understand, the most valid point on the conservative/no regulation/screw freedom of speech side is that broad regulations would reduce incentives for innovation and improvements to 'net access. The wired/wireless split is a cop-out based largely on what the most profitable (and growing) service methods are, which matches endorsing that motive, but it doesn't look to the future for making sure that progress of both advanced services and strong net neutrality for non-cutting-edge - i.e. the people's, rather than the elite's - services continue, rather than only endorsing it for a single old and/or fading service method.
If there were a clause about net neutrality being enforced for communication methods or bandwidth speeds that are of X age since first commercial use, have in some point been in use by X% of the population, and/or are below the Xth percentile of the national average connection speed, that'd probably address the good points of both sides. As it stands? I expect it to end up increasingly meaningless over the years as companies try to flee from older models in order to avoid having to be fair. But for a little while, it'll probably be okay. Just, there'll be another fight in a few years to update it as things change so the main point isn't lost and the obvious abusive loophole is closed.