The FCC voted 3-2 to approve its controversial proposal on net neutrality Thursday.

And while much of the conversation around the 99-page proposal concerns the new rules and the potential to reclassify broadband as a public utility under Title II, the FCC is requesting public comment on a hugely important aspect of the entire net neutrality discussion: mobile broadband.

Almost all of the discussion surrounding net neutrality has been confined to wireline (that is, cable, DSL and fiber) broadband. That's largely because the FCC's standards are different — and much less strenuous — for mobile broadband than they are for wired access.

The FCC offers up background on how it has historically viewed mobile broadband, particularly in the context of the original 2010 Open Internet Order.

From section 62 of the FCC's proposal:

The Open Internet Order also adopted definitions for "fixed" and "mobile" Internet access service. It defined "fixed broadband Internet access service" to expressly include "broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily at fixed endpoints using stationary equipment ... fixed wireless services (including fixed unlicensed wireless services), and fixed satellite services." It defined "mobile broadband Internet access service" as "a broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily using mobile stations." The impact of this distinction varied by rule. The transparency rule applies equally to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service. The no-blocking rule applied a different standard to mobile broadband Internet access services and mobile Internet access service was excluded from the unreasonable discrimination rule.

In short, although mobile broadband providers — companies such as AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon — were supposed to be transparent about how mobile broadband was managed, all other aspects of the original net neutrality law didn't apply.

The no-blocking content rule had an entirely different standard and there was no unreasonable discrimination clause. In truth, we've never had net neutrality for mobile broadband.

Last month during a media call with representatives from the FCC, the question of how the new proposal would impact mobile broadband was raised. At the time, the commission's response was that it intended to keep mobile broadband separate, just as it did in 2010.

In its proposal released today, the commission was less emphatic, but still says mobile broadband should have different rules.

We tentatively conclude that we should maintain the same approach in today's notice. We seek comment on this approach, which is discussed in more detail in the context of each of the proposed rules below.

Ignoring mobile broadband is a mistake

Here's why that's problematic: Mobile broadband is improving by leaps and bounds. The proliferation of 4G LTE over the last three years has had a transformative effect on how consumers use mobile devices.

At home, I pay for the fastest cable Internet package offered by my ISP. If connected to a wired Ethernet connection in off-peak hours, I can sometimes approach the 70-80 Mbps range. I average between 17-25 Mbps down and 8-12 Mbps up over Wi-Fi.

On Verizon's LTE service in Brooklyn and Manhattan, I consistently get over 45 Mbps speeds. In fact, I just ran a speed test that gave me 51 Mbps down and 29 Mbps up.

For a growing portion of consumers, their mobile broadband has the potential of being faster than what they get from their wired ISP. This should be great, but for most users, using mobile broadband as a primary Internet source is untenable because of its exorbitant price per gigabyte.

I pay $90 a month for 8GB of data from Verizon, plus an extra $10 for each tablet on my plan. I pay more for 8GB of data for my mobile devices than I do for uncapped Internet service at home. In fact, I pay almost as much for my wireless bill as I do for Internet, premium cable and HBO.

And if I go over my data limit — which happens if I have to rely on my phone to be my connection in a hotel or remote location — I can expect to pay $15 per GB fee.

Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T can block access to certain websites I might want to visit and can unreasonably discriminate over the performance of certain sites over others any time it wants.

If you want to get an idea of what no net neutrality would look like for wired Internet, just look at what mobile broadband gets away with.

Remember when AT&T wouldn't let iPhone users access FaceTime over 3G — even though every other carrier would allow it? AT&T's defense then was simple, "what we're doing is perfectly fine under the FCC's net neutrality law."

Just because mobile carriers aren't being as ridiculous about blocking specific types of apps from its network these days doesn't mean it will always stay that way. In fact, I would argue that the carriers have only shifted away from that type of model because data packages are now sold with specific limits and prices.

Net neutrality for mobile broadband might not be a pressing concern today, but in five years, when mobile broadband is deployed in far more areas than Google Fiber could ever hope to reach, it could be a different story.

The arguments that the wireless companies make for the separate rules between wired and wireless services don't make a lot of sense now and will only make less sense in the future.

The FCC wants feedback from the public

The FCC for its part, is at least sort of open to the idea of holding mobile broadband to stricter standards.

In its net neutrality proposal, the FCC says it recognizes that it's aware that exceptions made in 2010 may no longer be relevant in 2014 or beyond.

The proposal states:

We recognize that there have been significant changes since 2010 in the mobile marketplace, including how mobile providers manage their networks, the increased use of Wi-Fi, and the increased use of mobile devices and applications. We seek comment on whether and, if so, how these changes should lead us to revisit our treatment of mobile broadband service. Specifically, we seek comment below on whether the no-blocking rule should continue to distinguish between fixed and mobile broadband and whether, under the commercially reasonable rule, mobile networks should be subject to the same totality-of-the-circumstances test as fixed broadband.

Even better, the commission is at least willing to entertain broader discussions about the differences between fixed and mobile:

In addition, how should the definitions of "fixed" and "mobile" services be applied to a fixed broadband provider's commercially deployed Wi-Fi service that is made available to the provider's fixed broadband customers? How should such changes affect our treatment of reasonable network management for mobile providers? Similarly, how should we treat mobile services that are deployed and/or marketed as express substitutes for traditional telecommunications or broadband services? Finally, have there been changes in technology or the marketplace for the provision of satellite broadband Internet access service that should lead the Commission to reassess how its rules should apply to such services?

It's heartening to see the FCC raising these issues and asking for public feedback. Realistically speaking, however, public comment won't be enough. For now, most wireless companies have stayed quiet in the current net neutrality debate — why draw attention to themselves, right?

The combination of asking for public comment on rules for mobile broadband in conjunction with the proposal for comment on making broadband a utility under Title II will change that.

Every lobbyist for the wireless industry is going to criticize the very idea of either scenario taking place. And the wireless lobby is very powerful.

The Title II consideration will almost certainly not become law; the telecommunications lobbies are simply too powerful for that be a realistic option (Chairman Wheeler calls it "nuclear" for a reason).

But mobile broadband regulations might be a change that could actually find its way into the final law.

For the open Internet activists, I urge you not to forget about mobile broadband. Fighting against paid prioritization and for reclassification are important goals — and those topics certainly dominate the conversation.

But let's not forget about the "other" Internet. The Internet we access on our phones and tablets. Internet freedom is just as important there.