http://www.thejournalofregulation.com/spip.php?article514
ENGLISH
The Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — French Telecommunications and Postal Regulatory Authority) published a document on September 30, 2010—the fruit of one years work—in which it outlines ten recommendations and suggestions for network and Internet neutrality.
FRENCH
Fiche Thématique (Télécommunications, Internet): l'ARCEP publie 10 recommandations et propositions pour la neutralité du réseau et de l'Internet.
L'Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, l'ARCEP, a publié un document le 30 Septembre 2010, au terme d'un an de travail, dans lequel elle dégage dix recommandations et suggestions pour la neutralité du réseau et de l'Internet.
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Telekom, internet): die ARCEP hat 10 Empfehlungen und Vorschläge im Bereich Netz- und Internetneutralität verkündigt.
Die Autorité de Régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, (ARCEP - die französische Telekommunkations- und Postbehörde) hat am 30. September 2010, nach einem Jahr Arbeit, seine zehn Empfehlungen und Vorschläge im Bereich Netz- und Internetneutralität verkündigt.
SPANISH
El ARCEP publica 10 recomendaciones y proposiciones para la Red y la Neutralidad del Internet.
La Autorité de régulation des Communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP – la Autoridad francesa de la regulación de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales) publicó el 30 de septiembre del 2010 un documento – fruto de un año de labor – en donde delinea diez recomendaciones y sugerencias para la red y la neutralidad del Internet.
This situation allows us to clearly observe the dialectic conception of Regulatory Law. Indeed, this situation functions as a constellation: while on the national level, the ARCEP published its recommendation, a working group is working on this issue on the European level, and a legal battle is taking place in the United States.
Is this regrettable? No. Since Regulation is a self-supervised system, each actor adjusts his positions based on those of his counterparts, not necessarily to align his positions on theirs, but at the very least, to coordinate the calendar for action.
For example, the ARCEP is anticipating that its recommendation will be followed, and has said that it will reevaluate its recommendations during the first trimester of 2011, exactly at the time when the European Commission’s working group will publish its conclusions.
This allows the ARCEP to cooperate with the European Commission, while simultaneously influencing it. This rhetorical game between different bodies, which abolishes hierarchy between them, since one never has definite control over another, and shows that the sector’s thought and decision-making process is self-supervised and extremely specialized.
Secondly, this is a very shrewd and political document. Usually, regulators are not political bodies, because they lack sufficient legitimacy to make political decisions. But, what is the nature of a recommendation such as the one that the ARCEP just published on Net Neutrality, if not political? For, Net Neutrality is an extremely political notion.
Furthermore, the recommendation states that the first of its three goals is to define consumers’ guarantees for free and non-discriminatory access to content and networks. But, this means that the ARCEP takes for given the existence of such a right of access, whose conditions must still be technically defined, and that the existence of this right has not yet been politically established, whereas the regulator presumes their existence.
We observe, therefore, that regulators permanently seek not only to anticipate the technical progress of their sector, but also, the political positions that will be taken within the sector, and that will shape it.
votre commentaire