They could have proposed a USB connector which worked in either orientation to the USB implementers forum back in 2012, couldn't they?

And then wait 20 years for everyone to agree?

That is an order of magnitude exaggeration.

Lightning appeared in 2012. USB-C appeared in 2014.

20 years means we'd apparently still be waiting for another 12 years for USB-C. Hardly helps your argument.

USB-C is a complete mess. The physical appearance of the connector is nice, but the design by committee that resulted in invisible but critical differences is horrible. You cannot tell by looking at a cable or devices you are trying to connect or charge of the cable will provide the needed bandwidth or voltage. Two cables might look identical but one won't work at all for what you need and you have no way to tell.

As an example, I have had to purchase a very specific usb-c data cable for my 4K monitor so I can connect my MacBook with one cable. The standard cables which can charge are not able to carry data at the correct rate.

At the office, this was solved by giving me two cables - one for charge and one for data which connect to the DisplayPort.

The only thing as painful is the box of unlabelled hdmi cables I have that all works to varying degrees.

There is an easy solution to this, either require all cables be the same specs or require that cables have their specs labeled. It's already an improvement over the past where every device had a different cable, I can at least slow charge instead of no charge.

I don't know, I find out much worse that I might go to a store to buy a cable and then find out that it only charges very slowly and might not do data at all. I'd rather spend $15 bucks on a cable (or just carry the one that the devise came with anyway) and know it does what it's supposed to. Even after this legislation, I still need more cables anyways, since this only covers cellphones. My Kindle still uses micro-usb. Who carries around multiple phones by different vendors anyways which is the only issues this would solve. I'm generally neutral on regulation, but this is just completely pointless regulation that solves no real problem.

Presumably companies are a lot faster after one competitor is actually shipping a connector with dual orientation. What's the hurry if everyone has to wait for consensus?

I think it's a reasonable possibility that we would all still be waiting for dual orientation if this mandate had been in place back then.

It's a ridiculous waste & entirely unjustifiable environmentally, innovation or not.

Dual orientation vs carrying two sets of dongles & cables isn't a net win either, so don't think the innovation argument sticks either.