General Open Internet - bright line rules

[Jumpie]

Hmm, I've been thinking about this for some time, but now that the Open Internet is enforceable, I just want to see what some of you think.

One bright line rule states:

• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

Cydia isn't illegal (although some may use it for illegal purposes), but it does go against Apple's policies. What're your thoughts against the FCC's enforcement of allowing Cydia on iDevices just like Verizon now has to permit Google Wallet on their devices.

Talk amongst yourselves.

 

[eyoungren]

The Librarian of Congress has already declared that jailbreaking is not illegal and not a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Hence, Cydia, which is a part of jailbreaking is legal to be on a device even though it goes against Apple's policies.

Apple is not a broadband provider. Nothing in this area has changed.

 

[Jumpie]

The Librarian of Congress has already declared that jailbreaking is not illegal and not a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Hence, Cydia, which is a part of jailbreaking is legal to be on a device even though it goes against Apple's policies.

Apple is not a broadband provider. Nothing in this area has changed.

You're correct in saying they're not a provider. Google is not a "provider" either, but they have Google Wallet which Verizon forbid. But, it's a legal application. There's no difference in Verizon having to allow Google Wallet and Verizon/AT$T/Sprint etc. from forbidding Cydia. Makes no sense. We'll see.

 

[eyoungren]

You're correct in saying they're not a provider. Google is not a "provider" either, but they have Google Wallet which Verizon forbid. But, it's a legal application. There's no difference in Verizon having to allow Google Wallet and Verizon/AT$T/Sprint etc. from forbidding Cydia. Makes no sense. We'll see.

I can see your point. All I can say in Sprint's case is that there has never been any active prevention of jailbreaking or rooting. Honestly, Sprint doesn't get involved. They are too busy trying to survive as a company to even care what the customer does or does not legally do with their device.

 

[chrfr]

You're correct in saying they're not a provider. Google is not a "provider" either, but they have Google Wallet which Verizon forbid. But, it's a legal application. There's no difference in Verizon having to allow Google Wallet and Verizon/AT$T/Sprint etc. from forbidding Cydia. Makes no sense. We'll see.

I don't understand the connection you're trying to make. Jailbreaking isn't illegal. How are the cell phone providers forbidding Cydia? Apple closes jailbreak loopholes because they are security vulnerabilities. There's nothing Apple is doing in this regard that in any way relates to internet neutrality rules from the FCC.

 

[eyoungren]

I don't understand the connection you're trying to make. Jailbreaking isn't illegal. How are the cell phone providers forbidding Cydia? Apple closes jailbreak loopholes because they are security vulnerabilities. There's nothing Apple is doing in this regard that in any way relates to internet neutrality rules from the FCC.

If you think of it this way you may see what he's trying to say…

Apple is Google. Verizon has been forced to allow a Google Product on their devices. So, in turn the carriers may be forced to allow an Apple product on the iDevices they sell. This of course makes no sense because Apple controls what products it allows on it's devices anyway, but OP is correlating Cydia as an Apple product which then by extension the carriers would be forced to allow.

Of course, Cydia is Saurik's baby and not Apple's and is already legal to install, even though Apple doesn't like it. So, for me, that's where this argument breaks down.

I cannot speak for the other carriers, but Sprint passively objects to jailbreaking and rooting in their legal fineprint. But as I said earlier Sprint has never actively prevented jailbreaking or rooting (if a Sprint rep even understands the concepts) so practically speaking, the point is kind of moot.

 

[chrfr]

Apple is Google. Verizon has been forced to allow a Google Product on their devices. So, in turn the carriers may be forced to allow an Apple product on the iDevices they sell. This of course makes no sense because Apple controls what products it allows on it's devices anyway, but OP is correlating Cydia as an Apple product which then by extension the carriers would be forced to allow.

That's the problem with the OP's post. The analogy he's trying to make isn't analogous at all.

 

[eyoungren]

That's the problem with the OP's post. The analogy he's trying to make isn't analogous at all.

Assuming that I am interpreting the OP correctly. I've been wrong before.

 

[chrfr]

Assuming that I am interpreting the OP correctly. I've been wrong before.

I read it the same way you did.