The implementation of a common repertory of information on Social Security tax payments provides the opportunity to gather real-time information on a vast majority of taxpayers, but is highly criticized for its possible violation of privacy rights.
We cannot properly design and build banking regulation, or run it well if you do not have a clear idea of what a bank is and what it is for.
However, it is precisely this criticism has formulated the Managing General of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) September 5, 2012: the banks do not know who they are, what they serve.
Indeed, the regulator imputes many dysfunctional banking system and financial banking to agents that behave like ordinary product vendors, products which are financial products, in exchange for which they receive a commission. In contrary, the regulator believes that the bank does not have a sales business but a service activity: that of serving the interests of his client. It was forgotten, he said, and the cause for many ills.
The press release is short. Here is what it says: "Le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel exprime sa vive inquiétude à la suite de la décision du Conseil suprême de la radio et de la télévision (RTÜK), le régulateur des médias en Turquie, de retirer leurs droits d'émission à de nombreuses radios et télévisions. Le Conseil appelle son partenaire de longue date au sein de la Plateforme européenne des instances de régulation (EPRA) et du Réseau des institutions de régulation méditerranéennes (RIRM) à ne pas mettre en cause la liberté de communication et le pluralisme des médias, garanties fondamentales d'une société démocratique." (courtesy translation: "The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisual expresses its deep concerns following the decision of the Supreme Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK), the Turkish Media Regulator, to withdraw the broadcasting rights of numerous radios and televisions. The Conseil calls upon its long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM) not to jeopardize the freedom of communication and media pluralism, which are fundamental guarantees in a democratic society").
The press release is entitled "Le CSA s'inquiète du retrait par le régulateur turc des droits d'émission de radios et de télévision" (courtesy translation: "The CSA worries about the decision of the Turkish Regulator to withdraw broadcasting rights to radios and televisions").
____
Isn't this surprising?
One would understand that the members of a Regulatory Authority, just as many people, would worry about what has been happening lately in Turkey. One can also share the view that these events might cause them to fear for the sake of public liberties and democracy in the country.
Should a Regulatory Authority express its "worry" though?
Shouldn't it be the Government's role instead, within the framework of its 'diplomatic relations' with the state and with the use of an appropriate vocabulary, to express any 'worry'?
First of all, this is a salient example of the ambiguity of the Audiovisual Regulator. Indeed, while it itself insists on the fact that it acts as an economic regulator of a sector whose development and innovation falls under its watch and monitoring (which namely justifies the fact that he reviews candidacies to the presidency of public televisions channels), the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel had initially been created to preserve public liberties.
As such, people who still embrace the distinction that was previously assumed between public liberties regulation and economic regulation still consider the CSA - along with the CNIL - as the prototype of the former type of regulatory body.
Here the CSA expresses its "deep concern" and sends a request not to "jeopardize liberties", which is the polite version of an injunction, to a foreign regulatory authority upon which it has no authority whatsoever.
One can understand that the Regulator develops soft law about operators on which he has actual authority. But what about here? Shouldn't the adage Nemo plus juris apply?
How is the Regulator competent to issue 'releases' in which he formulates desiderata towards a foreign body whose behavior is unappealing to him? Shouldn't the Quai d'Orsay (French Ministry for Foreign Affairs) be in charge?
The Regulator took a political stance here, while it is known that a Regulatory Authority can only be legitimate when it stands as a technical authority; emphasizing on the political features of its job actually jeopardizes this legitimacy, all the more when international politics are involved (which is the case here).
However, the Regulator does preempt criticism in its press release:
It starts indeed by stating that it only expresses this sort of 'feeling' because of the old ties that exists between the French and the Turkish Regulators: it essentially considers that friends can be true to one another, express a few criticism and expect changes. Friendship in the digital media and in politics would allow for many things.
Besides, the CSA recalls the solidarity that prevails between the two regulators. Because they are "long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM)", the French Regulator is enabled to express the Turkish Regulators its view on how it is jeopardizing democracy and how it should consequently stop.
Maybe the many ties that exists between the Regulators now enable them to give more or less stringent advice to one another, whereas diplomatic embassies now play an increasing economic role: how blur do the lines get!
Ofcom (The Office of Communications), Britain’s audiovisual and telecommunications regulatory authority, revoked Teletext Limited’s public teletext license on January 29, 2010 and fined Teletext Ltd. £225,000 on May 27, 2010, for having unilaterally ceased broadcasting of teletext services on December 15, 2009, in advance of the expiration of its license in 2014.
FRENCH
Le 27 mai 2010, la Broadcasting Sanctions Committee (Commission des Sanctions de l’Autorité britannique de régulation des communications électroniques et de l’audiovisuel (Ofcom) a sanctionné pour un montant de £225.000 Teletext Limited, validant en outre la révocation administrative opérée le 29 janvier 2010 par Ofcom de la délégation de service public concernant la fourniture de services de télétexte, suite à la cessation unilatérale de la diffusion de ceux-ci par Teletext le 15 décembre 2009.
L’Ofcom (The Office of Communications — le régulateur britannique des télécommunications et de l’audiovisuel), a annulé le 29 janvier 2010 la délégation de service public accordé à Teletext Limited pour la fourniture de services de télétexte, et a rendu le 27 mai 2010 un arrêt de sanction de £225.000 à l’encontre de ce dernier, pour avoir unilatéralement cessé de diffuser les services de télétexte le 15 décembre 2009, alors que sa licence n’expirait qu’en 2014.
GERMAN
Teletext Ltd. hat am 27. Mai 2010 eine Strafe von £225.000 von der Ofcom's Broadcasting Sanction Committee (die Sanktionskommission der britischen Medienaufsichtsbehörde) bekommen. Grund dafür ist, dass Teletext Ltd. am 15. Dezember 2009 einseitig aufgehört hat, die Teletextsdienste, für die sie von einer Übertragung öffentlicher Diensten bezug, zu leisten. Diese Strafe bestätigt auch die Amtsenthebung, die am 29. Januar 2010 infolge der einseitigen Entscheidung von Teletext Ltd., verkündet wurde.
Die Ofcom (The Office of Communication - die britische Mediensaufsichtsbehörde) hat am 29. Januar 2010 Teletext Ltd. aus seiner Amt enthebt, da die Firma am 15. Dezember 2009 einseitig aufgehört hat, die Teletextdiensten zu liefern, für welche sie tätig war, obwohl seine Lizenz noch bis 2014 gültig war. Infolgedessen hat am 27. Mai 2010 die Ofcom auch eine Geldstrafe von £225.000 gegen Teletext Ltd. verhängt.
SPANISH
El 27 de mayo del 2010, el Comité de sanciones de emisoras del Ofcom (la oficina británica de comunicaciones) multó a Teletext Ltd. la cantidad de £225,000 después de que Ofcom haya revocado la licencia pública para los servicios teletext el 29 de enero del 2010, acto necesario en vista del cese unilateral de emisiones que Teletext Ltd. dio a los servicios telextext el 15 de diciembre del 2009.
Ofcom (la Oficina de comunicaciones), la autoridad regulatoria de audiovisuales y telecomunicaciones de Gran Bretaña, revocó la licencia pública teletext de Teletext Ltd. el 29 de enero del 2010 y sancionó a éste con la cantidad de £225,000 el 27 de mayo del 2010 por haber unilateralmente cesado las emisiones de servicios teletext el 15 de enero del 2009, antes de la caducidad de la licencia en el 2014.
The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) announced on September 1st, 2010 a revision to the Committee of Advertising Practice Code (the CAP Code), in order to handle consumer complaints and sanction non-compliant advertising on British websites. These new rules will be effective from March 1st 2011.
FRANCAIS
Le British Advertising Standards Authorithy (ASA — organisme britannique d'autorégulation de la publicité) a annoncé le 1er septembre 2010 une révision au Committee of Advertising Practice Code (The CAP Code — le Code des bonnes pratiques dans la publicité), afin de pouvoir répondre aux plaintes des consommateurs relatives aux publicités non-conformes sur les sites Internet britanniques, et de les sanctionner. Ces nouvelles règles entreront en vigueur le 1er mars 2011.
GERMAN
Die British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA - die britische Selbstregulierungsbehörde für die Werbebranche) hat am 1. September 2010 verkündigt, dass der Committee of Advertising Practice Code (the CAP Code - die Richtlinien für Qualitätsregeln in der Werbewirtschaft) so verändert wird, dass er für das Empfängnis und die Behandlung von Verbrauchersklagen gegen Internet-Werbungen zuständig wird. Diese Regel wird erst am 1. März 2011 im Kraft treten.
SPANISH
El British Advertising Standards Authority (la Autoridad británica de la autorregulación publicitaria) extiendo el CAP Code (el código des buenas prácticas publicitarias) para cubrir las publicidades que se encuentran en sitios de web británicos
El British Advertising Standards Authority (la Autoridad británica de la autorregulación publicitaria) anunció el 1 de septiembre 2010 una revisión al Committee of Advertising Practice Code (the CAP Code – el código des buenas prácticas publicitarias), para poder responder a las quejas y sanciones sobre las prácticas publicatarias no-conformes sobre los sitios de web británicos. Estas nuevas reglas entrarán en vigor el primero de marzo del 2011.
A Chinese economic newspaper revealed, by an anonymous source, that the Chinese banking regulator, ordered end of 2011, five first Chinese financial institutions to proceed in the determination and the quality of loans granted, so they rank their bad debt. The control by the regulator through the self-assessment will be made from end of May 2012.
Central banks have a decisive role on the markets and the question of their accountability is raised. This is particularly true concerning the powerful Fed which applies a genuine economic policy. For the moment, a kind of observatory made remarks to the benefit of the Congress on it. The House of Representatives voted on 8 August 2012 a text that increases the audit of this policy determined by the single Central Bank. If the Senate also voted this text, then comes a law so that the Central Bank, although independent will be more accountable . Thus the fundamental couple in regulation, namely "independence - accountability" will be more respected.
The FCC’s 2010 “open Internet” (net neutrality) order went into effect on November 20, 2011. Verizon Communications and Metro PCS have challenged the FCC Order in court, alleging that the FCC lacked statutory power to impose net neutrality rules in connection with Internet access services.
FRENCH
L’ordonnace 2010 de la FFC (le régulateur nord-américain des communications) "open Internet" est entrée en vigueur le 20 novembre 2011. Les sociétés Verizon Communications et Metro PCS ont contesté devant le juge cette ordonnance, alléguant quela FCCn’avait pasle pouvoir légald’imposer des règles sur la neutralité du net concernant l'accès aux services d'Internet.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on August 5, 2010, that it will cooperate more closely with the Department of Justice (DoJ) in merger reviews in the telecommunications sector. This measure is intended to foster reconciliation of potentially divergent goals for mergers set forth by both authorities.
GERMAN
Die Federal Communications Commission (FCC, die amerikanische Bundeskommunikationsbehörde), wird im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) arbeiten.
Die FCC hat am 5. August 2010 bekannt gemacht, dass sie enger mit dem Department of Justice (das amerikanische Justizministerium) im Bereich Fusionenüberwachung in der Telekombranche. So wird die Annäherung von beide Behörde, die oft unterschiedliche Zielen bei Fusionen unterstützen, gefördert.
SPANISH
La American Federal Communications Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anuncia cooperación más cercana con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de justicia) en la revisión de fusiones.
La Federal Communicatins Commission (FCC – La Comisión americana de comunicaciones federales) anunció el 5 de agosto 2010 que tomará pasos para aumentar su operatividad con el Department of Justice (DoJ – El Departamento americano de Justicia) en la revisión de fusiones en el sector de telecomunicaciones. Esta medida sirve para fomentar la reconciliación entre objetivos potencialmente divergentes puesto en marcha por estas dos autoridades.
