General Open Internet - bright line rules

Jumpie

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 7, 2008
1,057
296
Atlanta
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

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
22,094
14,816
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Applejuiced

Jumpie

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 7, 2008
1,057
296
Atlanta
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

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
22,094
14,816
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpie

chrfr

macrumors G3
Jul 11, 2009
9,581
3,478
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Applejuiced

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
22,094
14,816
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
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

macrumors G3
Jul 11, 2009
9,581
3,478
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.