- Last Active
dannybrook said:Geez, just resubmit.
1) Show the rejection notice.
2) Why are you so late with the update request?
3) Seek clarification.
4) Accept even Apple can’t always get it right. The comparison is silly and immature, as is the public whining st this stag.
5) Perhaps it is a convenient excuse for being so late?
6) Why don’t you have someone on staff with real world knowledge and experience to write a your own simple app if you are going to editorialize about such things.
1) We did in the comments.
2) Internal business reasons.
3) Obviously, we did. It was confirmed it was because we ran a story about jailbreaking.
4) Duh. This isn't the first time we've had problems with the process. The point was to illustrate, alongside the recent faux Cuphead fiasco, that the processes is still flawed and probably could use looking into. Other app devs here can attest to that. We wouldn't have run a story if it was a one-off event.
5) It's not.
6) We work closely with our contract iOS app developer. We don't have the budget -- or need -- to employ a full-time iOS developer. We're not some monolithic entity. We're a privately owned independent company that takes no external funding, and has, at any point in time, about 8-10 people working. Most of whom are editors.
Correct; the classification difference between Title I and Title II (requiring broadcast licenses). Equality of bits is fully capable of being enforced without BL regulation over ISPs.[...]
The FTC does what it can where it can, but it doesn't have the power to address all of the concerns. The way that it defines and enforces 'unfairness', for example, would still allow telecommunication companies to create fast and slow lanes, as well as selectively block services so long as they are counter-balanced with other 'benefits'. That is not equality of bits. The FTC is not equipped to govern a 'fair' internet. They are more than happy to tell you that they are, because that means more potential funding and expanded powers for them, but it's not the truth. It's a mess. Governing everything under Title II by far makes the most sense.
The problem, unfortunately, is that “legal pressure” is the equivalent of the honor system these days. Honored, of course, for everyone but “you and yours” (meaning a given government/governmental body and its current band of financial supporters/lobbyists). It’s ironic, but what we really need is civilian authoritarianism over government operation.[...]
lowededwookie said:Forgive me for asking but I live in New Zealand so I don’t understand how America works but isn’t the FTC higher than the FCC? If so wouldn’t that be the best place to settle the issue because it has higher coverage?
In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.
Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.
I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.
The Democrats will tell you that the FTC doesn't have enough power to address all the problems that can arise from a lack of net neutrality, and the Republicans will tell you that they have more than they need. The reality is that the Democrats are more correct on this issue. The "technically correct" answer ends up being the messiest and most expensive to implement -- It involves both agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and/or expanded powers.
Right now the FCC enjoys all the power it needs, so long as ISPs fall under Title II, so that's a much cleaner and easier fix for the problem as a whole. It does come with some extra overhead, but still far less than would exist if the 'technically correct' fix were to be implemented.
sumergo said:StrangeDays said:...it's about treating all bits equally and not being able to charge more for bits from targeted websites/publishers.
So what is being claimed is patently false. The Open Internet Order only functioned via the honor system, and when that honor system was betrayed, enforcement failed when put under legal pressure. That's why Net Neutrality is even something we're even talking about.