The nature of virtual currency remains uncertain. In any case, the object is very attractive, in particular because its nature, presented as "new", implies that its handling is not regulated.
This allows, in particular for individuals or start up, to issue "tokens" to offer them in exchange of funds, by the "initial coin offerings (ICOs)" technic, tokens acquired by investors, without being banking institutions, or borrowing money , nor issuing capital securities.
Operators demand that this behavior be recognized in its novelty and be recognized as being governed only by the contract and the general principles of loyalty, commitment and information, because what it is not prohibited is permitted while what is not regulated is freely organized by the parties who consent to it.
The case is a gap. Indeed, sports activities are regulated in the most traditional way, by administrative texts, administrative supervision, delegations, judicial control. There are rules, both legal and ethical. The most sophisticated rules have been developed, notably on "permissible violence" and that which is not, for example in the field of boxing or rugby, through the notion of "rules of the game".
Video games are at first sight quite different.
They are regulated by other bodies of rules and other regulators, such as the Regulatory Authority for Online Games, when they are played in the digital space.
But the Regulator of online games does not at first sight have competence to apply the "rules of the game" in the perspective of what sport is and the particular integration of the distinction between permissible violence and inadmissible violence.
Assuming that it extends its competence to that dimension, the fact that the blows carried are only "virtually" should necessarily modify the contour and the application of the rules, transforming this regulator of games into a regulator of sports.
Conversely, assuming that the sports regulators are concerned, it is necessary that the analogy between "game" and "sport" should be strong enough for the extension to take place legitimately.
The criterion that poses the problem is precisely le notion of "violence".
The press and television Murdoch group is sued for getting information in an illicit manner, by violating the privacy of personalities, having established connections within the police in order to be informed, etc. Concerning, the television media, activity can be practised because of the prior allocation of a broadcasting license by the regulator. However, the British regulator Ofcom, said April 24, 2012 that he was studying the question of whether the operator could maintain its license in view of the findings made during the parliamentary investigation establishing phone tapping fixed by it.
The implementation of a joint service on Insurance, Banking, and Insurance within the ‘Autorité de Contrôle prudential – ACP’ (French Prudential Control Authority), raises questions as to the way in which the service will be coordinated with the ‘Autorité des marchés financiers – AMF’ (French financial markets authority’s) other activities. The signature of the agreement creating the new joint service was the occasion for Jean-Pierre Jouyet, President of the AMF, to clarify that this joint service’s principal goal is consumer protection. The coordination between the AMF and the ACP is intended to improve efficiency and credibility to further this goal.
Cass R. Sunstein is a prominent Law & Economics teacher (first at the University of Chicago, then at Harvard). Not only has he written reference handbooks on Regulation, he was also the one who inspired the Regulation policies of Obama. In his 2013 book Simpler, he expresses his stance: to be better, public policies need to be simpler.
In this essay, Sunstein explores how behavorial economics might lead to improve public decision-making processes. He bases its stances upon his experience as the Administrator, from 2009 to 2012, of the US Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; that is why anyone who cares about Regulation should read it and ask themselves if simplicity, as the author states, may or may not be an actual leading principle for an effective government.
The OIRA, under the supervision of the Office of Management and Budget placed within the Executive Office, reviews the draft Regulations that are prepared by the cabinets of various rulemaking agencies. In this view, the OIRA can be regarded as a sort of custodian of the quality of Regulation throughout the US; conversely to the mainly consultative functions granted to the Conseil d'Etat in France, the OIRA's opinions are binding. Hence, a draft project shall not be issued nor be enforced without its prior consent. Part of OIRA's defining mission is also to centralize all the information held by diverse people within the executive branch, as to enable its access and circulation between all the rulemaking agencies responsible for elaborating and producing binding regulations.
Simpler is dedicated to the detailed study of the main decisions taken under Sunstein's decisive influence by the OIRA in the Regulation field during Obama's first mandate (2009-2012). Before taking up government functions, Sunstein focused part of his academic work on the interactions that are the most likely to occur between behavioral economics, law and public policy. To him, "a general lesson is that small, inexpensive policy initiatives, informed by behavioral economics, can have big benefits" (p. 41). He namely provides that "without a massive reduction in its current functions, government can be far more effective, far less confusing, far less counterproductive, and far more helpful if it opts, wherever it can, for greater simplicity" (p. 11).
This reference to 'simplicity', from which the name of Sunstein's essay stems, aims at translating all the efforts done by public authorities, under the supervision of the OIRA, to issue rules that were clearer and more accessible than before and that provided their subjects (whether they are citizens, companies, or federal administrations) a greater freedom in the choices they were able to make.
Throughout his book and with a little help from the various situations he had to face during his term at the OIRA, Sunstein shows that there is a virtuous relationship between a better information of the agents (whether they are the authors or the subjects of the norms at stake), a greater simplicity in public decision-making process and a better quality of the regulations meilleure qualité de la réglementation in force in a State. This paper hence aims to sum up the main points of the essay (I.), before making a few comments about it (II.).
It was a time where it was easy to distinguish the container(telecommunications) and the content (transported data, called "media"). Has responded to it, the institutional duality in France of two regulators, the « Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des Postes » - (ARCEP- the French telecommunications and postal regulator) and the « Conseil Supérieur de l’audiovisuel » (CSA -French audiovisual regulatory) for the regulation of the media. To the movement of technological convergence, we symmetrically consider to merge the two institutions, especially because the digital television makes it possible to give pictures from the phone and the the telephone operators have large media activities. This logic so mechanical, that articulates content and container, as in the United Kingdom, underestimates the dimension of public freedoms and culture, strength in the institution of the « Conseil Supérieur de l’audiovisuel » (CSA -French audiovisual regulatory) and further behind in the « Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des Postes » - (ARCEP- the French telecommunications and postal regulator) which presents itself as a economic regulator. This shows that the regulation is not only a technical matter.
Net Neutrality first became news in the United States just after the year 2000. The issue arose when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took decisions regarding conflicts between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cable operators. The FCC's decisions focused on ensuring non discriminatory conditions for ISP's access to the Internet communications market using existing cable networks. These issues became the basis of the debate on Internet users' rights, namely their right to freely access the content and services of their choice. On September 25, 2005 the FCC published a policy statement recognizing these issues, and clearly defined four main principles for Network Neutrality.
FRENCH
La Neutralité du Net : une perspective économique
La neutralité du Net apparu aux États-Unis au tout début des années 2000. Les problèmes ont surgi lorsque la "Federal Communications Commission -FCC" (Commission fédérale en charge des communications) a dû prendre des décisions concernant les conflits entre les fournisseurs d'accès Internet (ISP) et les opérateurs de réseaux cablés. Les décisions de la FCC étaient axées sur la garantie du caractère non discriminatoire des conditions d'accès des fournisseurs de services sur le marché des communications sur Internet via les réseaux câblés. Ces questions ont servi de base au débat sur les droits des utilisateurs d'Internet, à savoir leur droit d'accès aux contenus et aux services de leur choix. Le 25 Septembre 2005, la FCC a publié une déclaration de principe reconnaissant ces questions, et clairement définie autour de quatre grands principes.
GERMAN
Die Netzneutralität: eine wirtschaftliche Perspektive
Die Netzneutralität ist in den Vereinigten Staaten im Beginn den Jahren 2000 entstanden. Die erste Problemen sind entstanden, als die Federal Communications Commission (FCC - die amerikanische Bundeskommunikationsbehörde) Entscheidungen über Widerstreite zwischen Internetdienstanbieter und Kabeloperatoren treffen sollte. Diese Entscheidungen bestanden darauf, dass die Internetdienstanbieter durch Kabelnetzwerke Zugang zum Markt ohne Benachteiligung erhalten. Diese Fragen haben zufolge die Diskussionen über den Zugang den Internetsverbrauchern zu bestimmten Inhalten und Diensten hervorgebracht. Am 25. September 2005 hat die FCC eine Grundsatzerklärung über diese Fragen veröffentlicht, und hat vier Hauptprinzipien für die Netzneutralität dargelegt.
GREEK
Άρθρο: Ουδετερότητα του Δικτύου: μια οικονομική προοπτική
Η ουδετερότητα των δικτύων έγινε για πρώτη φορά γνωστή στις ΗΠΑ αμέσως μετά το 2000. Το ζήτημα ανέκυψε όταν η Ομοσπονδιακή Επιτροπή Τηλεπικοινωνιών (FCC) έλαβε αποφάσεις σχετικά με διαφορές μεταξύ των Παρόχων Υπηρεσιών Internet και των φορέων καλωδιακής τηλεόρασης. Οι αποφάσεις της Ομοσπονδιακής Επιτροπής Τηλεπικοινωνιών έδωσαν έμφαση στη διασφάλιση ύπαρξης μη διακριτικών όρων πρόσβασης των παρόχων υπηρεσιών Διαδικτύου στην αγορά τηλεπικοινωνιών Internet, με τη χρήση των υπαρχόντων καλωδιακών δικτύων. Τα θέματα αυτά αποτέλεσαν τη βάση της συζήτησης αναφορικά με τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών Internet, και συγκεκριμένα του δικαιώματός τους για ελεύθερη πρόσβαση στο περιεχόμενο και τις υπηρεσίες της επιλογής τους. Στις 25 Σεπτεμβρίου 2005, η Ομοσπονδιακή Αρχή Τηλεπικοινωνιών δημοσίευσε μια δήλωση πολιτικής, αναγνωρίζοντας τα θέματα αυτά και ορίζοντας παράλληλα ξεκάθαρα τέσσερις γενικές αρχές σχετικά με την Ουδετερότητα του Δικτύου.
POLISH
Neutralność Internetu : Perspektywa ekonomiczna
Neutralność Internetu pojawiła się jako nowy temat w Stanach Zjednocznych w 2000 roku. Problemy dały o sobie znać w momencie, kiedy « Federal Communications Commission –FCC » (amerykańska federalna komisja do spraw komunikacji) musiała podjąć decyzje rozwiązujące spory pomiędzy dostawcami dostępu do internetu (ISP) i operatorami sieci kablowych. Decyzje FCC dotyczyły zagwarantowania warunków, które nie dyskryminują dostawców usług na rynek kommuikacji internetowej, korzystających z dostępu do internetu za pomocą sieci kablowych. Te kwestie stały się podłożem debaty o prawach użytkowników Internetu ; mianowicie o prawie do wolnego dostępu do wybranych treści i usług. W dniu 25 września 2005 roku FCC opublikowałapodstawową deklarację rozwiązując i uznając te kwestie, określając przy tym wyraźnie cztery główne zasady neutralności Internetu.
SPANISH
La neutralidad al acceso a la red: una perspectiva económica
La neutralidad al acceso a la red se trajo al primer plano por primera vez en los EEUU en el año 2000. Este tema surgió cuando la “Federal Communications Commission” (FCC – la Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) tomó decisiones concerniendo los conflictos entre los “Internet Service Providers” (ISPs – los proveedores americanos de servicios de Internet) y los operadores de cables. Las decisiones de la FCC tenían el objetivo de asegurar condiciones no discriminatorias para el acceso de los ISPs al mercado de comunicaciones en Internet. Estos temas se volvieron la base del debate sobre los derechos de los usuarios de Internet, especialmente su derecho al acceso libre al contenido y a los servicios de su preferencia. El 25 de septiembre del 2005, la FCC publicó un programa que reconoce estas cuestiones y que define claramente cuatro principios esenciales para la Neutralidad sobre la red.
Regulation Law, in order to recognize and draw the consequences from the specificities of some objects, has been build, at the start, around the notion of "technical sector" although their delimitation is partially related to a political choice. But, in facts, there are multiple points of contacts between sectors, actors moving from one to another as objects. The regulatory solution is so to climb over some technical borders through the methodology of interregulation which is by the way the only one to enable the regulation of some phenomena going beyond the notion of sector and related to Compliance Law.
This news takes the exemple of companies furnishing new payment services. In order to they can provide these services, these firms needs to access to banking accounts of concerned people and so to very sensitive personal data. Regulation of such a configuration needs a cooperation between the banking regulator and the personal data regulator. Legislation being not sufficient to organize in Ex Ante this interregulation, the European Data Protection Board has published some guidelines on 17th of July 2020 about the way it conceives the articulation between the PSD2 (European directive about payment services) and GDPR and has announced that it intended to expand the circle of its interlocutors to do this interregulation. Such an initiative from EDPB can be justified by the uncertainty about how interpreting both texts and articulating them.
The technique of “effacement diffus” [diffuse effacement] is when a number of electricity consumers agree beforehand to consume less electricity at certain times (effacement), which allows other consumers to use the network at peak hours. Corporate intermediaries arrange these diffuse effacements, thereby participating in the adjustment system vital to the security of the electricity distribution network. The Commission de Régulation de l’Energie (CRE – French energy regulator) organized the system of “diffuse seffacement” even though this measure was not contained in statute. The Conseil d'Etat (French Council of State)’s Voltalis ruling, handed down on May 3, 2011, recognizes the CRE’s right to organize this system. But, it also deems that the regulator exceeded its powers by mandating that the corporate intermediaries organizing diffuse effacement remunerate the electricity provider.
People playing online can pay by payment card or credit card. Licensed gambling operators created cards for prepaid usage, likely to be sold in advance to the players. On 18 April 2012, The Autorité française de régulation des jeux en ligne (ARJEL — French Online gambling regulatory authority) examined this practice. The regulator has relied on article 17 of the Act of May 12, 2010, law that organises the system of online games. It specifies that the player account cannot be supplied by the owner by an instrument of payment issued by a "payment service provider". The regulator noted that games operators are not payment service providers and concluded, in a restrictive interpretation, that this practice must be stopped immediately. The regulator confines itself in its decision to "remember this point" to the operators. This is sufficient because if they overlook, the Commission of the sanction of the Autorité française de régulation des jeux en ligne (ARJEL — French Online gambling regulatory authority) online, examined this practice will be there to raise the voice.
