While ECFS allows many filings to be sent electronically, it amazes me that even after the anthrax problem of several years ago some filings MUST be on paper. Examples include petitions for rulemaking and petitions for review of nondocketed items.

Also I am now involved in a restricted proceeding dealing with a petition for review of staff rejection of a complaint. There is nothing on the current FCC website that even hints that this action has been ongoing for over a year, let alone gives public access to the filings made by both sides. Indeed, if other parties were aware of it, they might wish to file comments. This is not transparency - it is more like a "star chamber".

I received an email back from the FCC, telling me that I should contact Andriod, about the issue. This may not sound clear, since I was trying to reply, but please take a moment to read, and is what I think, is extremely important point to get across!

I am talking to the FCC here! You guys are the ones who call the shots, not Apple! I do not need to contact Andriod, Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else. The Federal Communications Commission should have all rights to tell these corporate businesses and services, that what they are doing is wrong. They should not have the right, to take away certain aspects of the Internet, which is the whole point of the (Internet), Not (Intranet)! If Apple is using an Intranet based attitude, then this is like a legal worm hole, to bypass Internet rules and regulations! Yes, an Intranet is a Network based system, only accessible in a server type setting, in only 1 or more buildings, keeping structure together. But, this sounds exactly what Apple is doing! They somehow have the rights to a Wireless Intranet Infrastructure, which should be where you guys step in!  Look, like I said, the FCC is a Government agency to help with peoples rights, in any type of communications. How can one of the biggest Government agencies in the world, say that you should contact Android about the issue? All of these companies should be talking to the FCC, to ask for permission to not allow Flash, or any other Codac, from the public. If the FCC has allowed this type of behavior, then I am extremely disappointed in the FCC! Again, the FCC should be helping to prevent this, since we have rights & freedoms in this country, and not take away the Internet's core meaning. Please, this is a very important issue, that must be addressed! I don't need to call anyone, the FCC needs to call them. Am I making any sense to you? Or is it just me? I would like to know why these Companies have the right to Infringe on the way we use the Internet! 

Also, think about how much progress this would help, to our economy, if we are able to access the Internet, in all it's forms! If a device is restricting content, then it slows down business, thus the economy hurts, and fails. 

This whole message may sound funny to you guys, but someone need to step in and say that this is wrong, and to fix the issue! I am asking for the Government to help many, who are frustrated right now, especially in this economy, who would like to have our freedoms to surf the Internet, and get **** Done!

If Corporations do not listen to the people, then they will either Fail, or slow our Economy that much quicker! Which do you want? Both, sound like a Failures to me, so these businesses need to change their attitude. This is exactly what the FCC should step in, and say that this is against the Law! 
 
Thank You!
-Matt

Publish data on past, current, and proposed changes to rules, decisions and filings not only as their current versions but also as "changesets" that are both machine and human readable and can be used as a concise summary of any change as well as used to construct a "timeline" of changes to a public document, and to compare any combination of past, current, future, or proposed versions with each other.

The traditional Unix "diff" utilities, modern version control systems such as Subversion and the page editing histories on Wikipedia are widespread and successful examples of such solutions, with Wikipedia's system being a prime example of how output can be made both human and computer readable, and used to readily understand both the context and effect of any change.