Search results (624 cards)

Updated: March 29, 2011 (Initial publication: March 25, 2011)

Sectorial Analysis

ENGLISH

The American Congress is currently examining a bill aiming at restricting online tracking – the Do-Not-Track-Me-Online Act. It should introduce an obligation for any online-tracking firm to allow citizens to opt-out of tracking.
 
SPANISH 
 

Informe temático (data personal): Decreto para restringir el rastreo electrónico actualmente pendiente ante el Congreso americano.

El Congreso americano está actualmente examinando un decreto que tiene como objetivo restringir el rastreo sobre la red – el “Do-Not-Track-Me-Online Act.” Esto debe introducir una obligación para cualquier empresa de rastreo electrónico de permitir que los ciudadanos se excluya de tal rastreo. 

PORTUGUESE

Informe temático (dados pessoais): Projeto para restringir o rastreio eletrônico atualmente pendente no Congresso dos Estados Unidos da América.

O Congresso dos Estados Unidos da América está atualmente examinando um projeto de lei que tem como objetivo restringir o rastreio sobre a rede virtual – o chamado “Do-Not-Track-Me-Online Act”. Isto deve obrigar toda empresa de rastreio eletrônico a permitir que os cidadãos escolham excluir-se de tal rastreio.


CHINESE

主题性报告(个人资料):限制网上追踪的议案有待美国国会通过。

 

美国国会目前正在审议一项旨在限制网上跟踪的法案《互联网反追踪法案》。该草案提出对于任何提供网上跟踪服务的公司其都有承认公民具有选择排除追踪权利的义务。

ITALIAN

 

Relazione tematica (Dati personali): Una riforma per ridurre il rilevamento delle connessioni online è in discussione dinanzi al Parlamento americano.

Il Parlamento americano sta esaminando una proposta di riforma che punta a ridurre il rilevamento delle connessioni online – il Do Not Track Me Online Act (legge denominata “non seguirmi quando sono online”). Tale legge dovrebbe introdurre l’obbligo per ogni società che permette il rilevamento delle connessioni, di dare la possibilità ai cittadini di rifiutare tale tipo di controllo.

Other translations forthcoming

Updated: March 23, 2012 (Initial publication: Jan. 9, 2012)

I. Isolated Articles

Translated Summaries

In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors


ENGLISH

Interchange fees set by the main credit/debit card associations play an important role in the retail banking sector, however they remain largely invisible to consumers.

 


FRENCH

Les frais d’interchange fixés par les principales associations de cartes de crédit jouent un rôle important dans le secteur des services bancaires de détail, mais ils restent largement invisibles pour les consommateurs.



SPANISH

Tasas de intercambio establecidas por las asociaciones principales de tarjetas de crédito/débito juegan un rol importante en el sector de negocio de bancario minorista. No obstante, permanecen por la mayor parte invisibles a los consumidores.


ITALIAN

Le commissioni interscambio su carte di credito/debito fissate dalle principali associazioni giocano un ruolo importante nel settore dell’attività bancaria al dettaglio, tuttavia sono ancora poco visibili ai consumatori.

ARABIC


 رُسوم التبادُل التي وُضِعت مِن طرفِ جمعيات بطاقة الائتمان لها دورُ أساسي في مَجال المصرفية للخدمات الافرادية, لكِنَّ بقِيت هذِهِ الرُّسُوم غيرُ ظاهِرة لِكثِير المُستهلِكين. 



..................

Other translations forthcoming.

 

Dec. 22, 2014

Breaking news

In regulating more than anywhere else, the most important is the time.

Operators can't endure uncertainty. The uncertainty of the litigation is probably the worst weapons that the controller can turn against them. So much so that The Economist, in its issue of August 30, 2014 estimated that US regulators have transformed the repression organized racket, operators to pay for stop procedures, the fact that they are right or wrong is no longer the issue.

Seen in banking and finance, seen here in telecommunications.

In July 2014, the Federal Trade Communication opens proceedings against T-Mobile, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, for charging customers for services provided by external providers, unsolicited services. The company had immediately claimed not to have breached the rules.

Then, a first calculation of the prejudice of consumers has been calculated. Each subscriber aspiring to claim a possibly unwarranted addition of about $ 10 a month for many years, the amount of damages was very high , for example in connection with a class action.

The company chose to stop there and have a settelment for $ 90 million, attributable in part to consumers, but also to different states, also paying a transactional fine to the US federal treasury.

The case is therefore financially resolved. The Federal Communications Commission commented on the agreement stating that overcharging is "a major problem" for consumers.

The case has been conducted for this operator as it has been for AT & T in October 2014, concluding a similar agreement for $ 105 millions.

____

 
Should we rejoice or not?

One will rejoice if one believes that the key is to close the file and enable the company to return to its business.

The reference may be regrettable if we think:

  • Punishment must remain a matter for the courts;
  • The accused persons, even if they are companies, need time for the defense ;
  • Regulatory Law must issue rules and interpretations of the texts, the law is depleting by agreements that close the litigation, the main objective being ... never reach the judge.

Updated: Dec. 8, 2011 (Initial publication: July 15, 2011)

Sectorial Analysis

Translated Summaries


ENGLISH

In May 2011, Nasdaq OMX and its partner Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) were authorized by their respective boards of directors to perform a tender offer on the stock market operator NYSE Euronext. The American Department of Justice was worried about the consequences that this operation would have on competition, and despite the remedies proposed by the two companies, notified them that it would refuse the merger. On May 16, 2011, this potential refusal was enough for Nasdaq OMX and ICE to abandon their plan. This game of signals demonstrates the power of interregulation between merger review and the regulation of tender offers.

Capital market - Competition - Concentration - Financial market - Initial Public Offering (IPO) - Regulator - Self regulation - United States *

* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.

Capital market - Competition - Concentration - Financial market - Initial Public Offering (IPO) - Regulator - Self regulation - United States *

 

* In The Journal of Regulation, these keywords are done by the Editor and not by the Author.



ITALIAN

Relazione tematica (Finanza): Il Dipartimento di giustizia americano ha informato Nasdaq e Intercontinental Exchange che rifiuterà la loro offerta pubblica iniziale su NYSE Euronext a ragione degli effetti anticoncorrenziali e le due società hanno quindi abbandonato il progetto.

Durante il mese di maggio 2011, Nasdq OMX ed il suo partner Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) erano stati autorizzati dai propri consigli di amministrazione a fare un’offerta sull’operatore di mercato NYSE Euronext. Il dipartimento di giustizia americano era preoccupato delle conseguenze che tale operazione avrebbe avuto sulla libera concorrenza e, malgrado i provvedimenti proposti dalle due società, aveva informato le società che avrebbe rifiutato la fusione. Il 16 maggio 2011, questo potenziale rifiuto bastò a Nasdaq OMX e ICE a far abbandonare il loro progetto. Questo gioco di segnali mette in rilievo il potere dell’interregolazione tra il controllo delle concentrazioni e la regolazione delle offerte all’asta.

Autoregolazione – Concorrenza - Concentrazione – Mercato finanziario – Mercato dei capitali – Offerta Pubblica Iniziale (IPO) – Regolatore – Stati Uniti d’America *

* In The Journal of Regulation, le parole chiave sono responsabilità dell’Editore e non dall’Autore.



 SPANISH

Informe temático (Finanza): El Departamento americano de justicia informó a Nasdaq y ICE que rechazó su IPO sobre el NYSE Euronext a causa de sus efectos anticompetitivos, y que las dos compañías deben por lo tanto abandonar su plan. NYSE Euronext y Deutsche Börse han decidido merge.

En mayo del 2011, Nasdaq OMX y su partidario, Interncontinental Exchange (ICE), obtuvieron la autorización por sus respectivas juntas directivas para extender una oferta en el operador del mercado de valores, NYSE Euronex. El Departamento americano de justicia comenzó a preocuparse sobre las consecuencias que esta operación tendría sobre la competencia, y a pesar de algunos remedios propuestos por las dos compoañías, notificó que rechazaría la unión. El 16 de mayo del 2011, esta rechazo potencial fue suficiente para que Nasdaq OMX y ICE abandonaran su plan. Este juego de señales demuestra el poder de la inter-regulación entre el proceso de revisión de uniones y la regulación de ofertas públicas de adquisición.



 PORTUGUESE

Informe temático (Finanças): O Departamento de Justiça dos Estados Unidos da América informou Nasdaq e ICE que ele iria rejeitar o IPO em NYSE Euronext por causa de seus efeitos anti-concorrenciais, assim as duas empresas abandonaram seu plano.


Em maio de 2011, Nasdaq OMX e seu parceiro Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) foram autorizados por suas respectivas diretorias a realizar uma oferta no operador do mercado de estocagem NYSE Euronext. O Departamento de Justiça dos Estados Unidos da América ficou preocupado com as conseqüências que esta operação teria na concorrência, e apesar dos contrapesos indicados pelas duas empresas, informou que ele iria recusar a operação. Em 16 de maio de 2011, esta recusa potencial foi suficiente para Nasdaq e OMX e ICE abandonarem seu plano. Este jogo de sinais demonstra o poder da interregulação entre revisão de operações e regulação de ofertas.


Mercado de capitais – Concorrência – Concentração – Mercado financeiro – Oferta pública inicial (IPO) – Regulador – Auto-regulação – Estados Unidos.*

* Em The Journal of Regulation, estas palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Editor e não pelo Autor.

.....................

Other translations forthcoming.

 

Updated: June 10, 2012 (Initial publication: June 10, 2012)

Doctrine

How Well Do Federal Regulations Actually Work? The Role of Retrospective Review

Jan. 20, 2015

Sectorial Analysis

The original spirit of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was to think of agriculture as a sector unfolding in time, subject to natural hazards, including actors, both farmers and the population that is fed, having interests on which national states shall ensure.

The spirit of the new Common Agricultural Policy is different, even opposite, which explains the length of its gestation. Indeed, competition becomes the principle guarantor of innovation, fair prices for consumers and competitiveness of the European agricultural industry facing global competition, which leads to assist agricultural enterprises, to worry about products quality, away from the subtraction of these products of the principle of competition.

The political agreement was reached in 2013, the basic technical texts were completed in 2013 for the new apparatus be applicable to January 1, 2014, including a Regulation of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in argricultural products (CMO).

It points out that the agricultural sector is subject to competition law only if the Community legislature didn't stipulate differently!footnote-16. The Regulation almost affirms the opposite principle: "It should be provided that the rules on competition relating to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 101 TFEU and to abuse of a dominant position apply to the production of, and the trade in, agricultural products, provided that their application does not jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the CAP.". The Regulation  details: A special approach should be allowed in the case of farmers' or producer organisations or their associations, the objective of which is the joint production or marketing of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities, unless such joint action excludes competition or jeopardises the attainment of the objectives of Article 39 TFEU.

On 15 January 2015 the European Commission launches a consultation on the "joint salling of olive oil, beef and veal livestock and arable crops, cases covered by the Regulation.

How the new balance will be between competition and regulation?!footnote-20

It is likely that future guidelines will be the place of expression of this balance.

Updated: April 13, 2010 (Initial publication: Dec. 16, 2009)

Editorial Committee

Tatiania Jovanic is Assitant Professor since september at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Departement for Legal and Economic Sciences. Since February 2008, she is the Executive Secretary and coordinator of the Regional Master Program ON EU Business Law.

Updated: June 21, 2010 (Initial publication: June 3, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis



In a judgment taken on March 9th 2010, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice upheld the European Commission’s action against the Federal Republic of Germany, stating that by making the authorities responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data outside the public sector in the different Länder subject to State oversight, Germany incorrectly transposed the requirement of "complete independence" of the supervisory authorities responsible for ensuring data protection, and thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 "on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data".

 

FRENCH


Un jugement rendu par la Grande Chambre de la Cour Européenne de Justice le 9 mars 2010 insiste sur l'indépendance nécessaire des autorités en charge de la protection des données personnelles dans les Länder allemands au regard de l'application de la directive européenne 95/46/CE du 24 Octobre 1995 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données (Directive "Données Personnelles").


Dans un jugement rendu le 9 mars 2010, la Grande Chambre de la Cour Européenne de Justice a jugé que les autorités de protection des données des Länder allemands qui contrôlent les fichiers du secteur privé n’agissaient pas en pleine indépendance, contrairement aux exigences de la Directive européenne de 1995 sur la protection des données.



GERMAN

Am 9. März 2010 verkündete der Europäische Gerichtshof sein Urteil in der Sache EG / Deutschland (C-518/07) betreffend der Verpflichtung des Mitgliedsstaats sicherzustellen, daß die nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden, die zur Überwachung der Datenverarbeitung verantwortlich sind, ihre Funktionen vollkommen unabhängig auszuüben.


Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat am 9. März 2010 sein Urteil verkündet in der Sache EG/Deutschland, in dem er betont, dass das deutsche Datenschutzsaufsichtssytem die Verpflichtung der Unabhängigkeit von Aufsichtsbehörden, die in den Rechtlinien 95/46 vorgeschrieben ist, unvollständig umgestetzt hat.


SPANISH

En una sentencia dictada por la Gran Cámara de la Corte Europea de la Justicia el 9 de marzo del 2010 insiste en la independencia necesaria de las autoridades a cargo de la protección de la privacidad de data en German Länder, en cuanto a la aplicación de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos

 

En una sentencia del 9 de marzo del 2010 la Gran Cámara de la Corte Europea de la Justicia confirmó que la acción que tomó la Comisión Europea contra la República Federal de Alemania, constatando que, al darle a las autoridades la responsabilidad de monitorear el procesamiento de data personal fuera del sector público en los diferentes Länder sujetos a la vigilancia estatal, Alemania transpuso incorrectamente el requisito de ‘independencia completa’ de las autoridades supervisoras responsables de asegurar la protección de data y por lo tanto, no cumplen con los requisitos detallados en el segundo subpárrafo del artículo 28(1) de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos

 

 

 


 

 

Updated: Sept. 26, 2011 (Initial publication: July 4, 2011)

Symposiums

ENGLISH

On May 20, 2011, a colloquium was held in Paris on the question of How should the Audit be regulated?, organized by The Journal of Regulation, l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne, and KPMG France, one of the Journal’s privileged partners. The participants were Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer, and Mara Cameran. The reflections and discussions bore upon the European Commission’s Green Paper on Audit Policy. The colloquium’s ambition was to discuss the methodological links that must guide the future of the Audit, both in relation to financial regulation and competition, and also to analyze what the inspirations for audit reform should be, especially by using the available economic studies. Each participant agreed that the most important goal was to ensure that the audit is of very high quality, and everything ought to converge towards this goal.

 

ITALIAN

Relazione bibliografica (Convegno): Vers quelle régulation de l’audit faut-il aller? (Come dovrebbe essere regolato l’audit ?)

Il 20 maggio 2011, si è tenuto a Parigi un convegno sulla questione di come dovrebbe essere regolato l’audit, organizzato da The Journal of Regulation, da l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne e KPMG France, partner privilegiato della rivista. I partecipanti erano Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer e Mara Cameran. Le riflessioni e le discussioni si sono concentrate sul Libro Verde della Commissione europea sulla politica in materia di audit. L’ambizione del convegno era di studiare i nessi metodologici che devono costituire le linee guida dell’audit, tenendo conto della regolazione finanziare e della libera concorrenza. Il convegno mirava inoltre ad analizzare le possibili piste di una riforma dell’audit, sulla base anche di studi di tipo economico. Ogni partecipante ha sottolineato che lo scopo più importante era quello di assicurare un’attività di audit di grande qualità, e che tutti gli sforzi dovrebbero convergere verso tale scopo.

 SPANISH

Informe bibliográfico (Simposio): ¿En qué dirección debe dirigirse la regulación?

El 20 de mayo del 2011 se llevó a cabo un coloquio en París sobre la cuestión de “Cómo debe regularse la auditoría?” organizado por The Journal of Regulation, l’école de droit de la Sorbonne y el KPMG France, uno de los asociados principales de esta publicación. Los participantes incluyen Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer, and Mara Cameran. Las reflecciones y discusiones se centraron sobre el Papel Verde de la Comisión Europea sobre la política auditiva. La ambición de este coloquio era de discutir las conexiones metodológicas que deben guiar el futuro de la Auditoría, tanto en relación con la regulación de finanzas y la competencia, y también de analizar cuáles deben de ser las inspiraciones para la reforma de la auditoría, especialmente al usar los estudios económicos disponibles. Cada participante concertó que el objetivo más importante era de asegurar que la auditoría sea de alta calidad, y que todo ha de converger hacia este objetivo.

 

PORTUGUESE

Informe bibliográfico (Symposium): vers quelle régulation de l’audit faut-il aller ? Como deveria a auditoria ser regulada?


Em 20 de maio de 2011, um colóquio foi realizado em Paris sobre a questão Como deveria a auditoria ser regulada?, organizado por The Journal of Regulation, l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne, e KPMG France, um dos principais parceiros deste periódico. Os participantes foram Jean-Luc Decornoy, Nathalie de Basaldua, Alain Couret, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Christine Thin, Stephen Haddrill, Claude Cazes, Etienne Wasmer, e Mara Cameran. As reflexões e discussões surgiram a partir do Informe Verde sobre Política de Auditoria da Comissão Europeia. O propósito do colóquio foi discutir as ligações metodológicas que devem guiar o futuro da auditoria, ambos em relação com regulação financeira e concorrência, e também analizar quais deveriam ser as inspirações para a reforma da auditoria, especialmente usando os estudos econômicos disponíveis. Todos os participantes concordaram que o objetivo mais importante seria assegurar que a auditoria é de alta qualidade, e que tudo deve convergir para este objetivo.


Padrão contábil – Alternativa financeira – Auditoria – Mercado de auditoria – Falência – Big Four – Certificação – Colóquio – Concentração – Confiança – Conflito de interesses – Cooperação – Custo – Agência de notação – Operador crucial – Definição – Deontologia – Mercado desregulado – Eficiência – Europa – Mercado europeu de auditoria – Comissão Europeia – Especulação – Crise financeira – Mercado financeiro – Futuro – Mercado global – Objetivo – Informe Verde sobre auditoria – Incentivo – Independência – Informação – Informação assimétrica – Fórum de auditoria internacional – Itália – Auditoria conjunta – Responsabilidade – Gerente – Votação obrigatória – Mercado – Expectativas de mercado – Micro economia – Acaso moral – Opacidade – Opinião – Perímetro – Preço – Lucro – Bem público – Interesse público – Serviço público – Qualidade – Economia real – Informação do risco – Ceticismo – Responsabilidade social – Risco sistêmico – Raciocínio teleológico – Trust – Reino Unido – Estados Unidos da América.*



 

* Em The Journal of Regulation, estas palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Editor e não pelo Autor.

 

 

Other translations forthcoming.

Updated: July 21, 2010 (Initial publication: June 1, 2010)

Symposiums

 

The Autorité de la régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — French Telecommunications and Posts Regulator) organized Le colloque sur la neutralité des réseaux [The Colloquium on Network Neutrality], which took place on April 13, 2010. Each actor uses the generality of the term ‘neutrality’ in an interpretation that best suits his opinions. However, neutrality means that there should be no discrimination between Internet users; however, it does not mean that they have the right to everything for free: because there has to be some sort of traffic and bandwidth management, consumer and copyright protection, it is necessary to strike a balance between these contradictory rights in order to allow the network to develop. Therefore, a regulator is necessary. The future development of the Internet depends upon it. For the moment, nobody knows who these legitimate regulators are, and how they would be able to regulate these competing forces, organize information transparency, and encourage long-term investment, while preserving competition at the same time. 

 

FRENCH

L’Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes – ARCEP a organisé le 13 avril 2010 un colloque sur « La neutralité des réseaux » (Network neutrality)

 

L’Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes – ARCEP a organisé le 13 avril 2010 un colloque sur « La neutralité des réseaux » (Network neutrality).Le colloque sur la neutralité des réseaux qui s’est tenu le 13 avril 2010 à l’Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP) présente la question de la neutralité des réseaux au travers de quatre questions : quelles sont les problématiques liées au principe de neutralité des réseaux ? Comment gérer les questions de gestion du trafic, de tarification et de partage de la valeur ? Comment articuler accès aux contenus et aux services et protection des droits des consommateurs ? Quels sont les besoins de régulation sur l’Internet ? Ces questions sont l’occasion pour l’ensemble des acteurs de l’Internet de s’exprimer et de présenter ainsi l’idée fondamentale qui soutient les évolutions de la régulation de l’Internet : l’obligation de non discrimination. Une pleine compréhension de cette idée implique une transparence accrue de l’information, afin que les problématiques techniques auxquelles Internet est confronté ne soient pas l’occasion d’une distorsion de l’offre aux consommateurs. 
 

GERMAN
 
Die Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes (ARCEP - die französische Post- und Telekommunikationsaufischtsbehörde) hat am 13. april 2010 ein Symposium über die Frage der Netzneutralität organisiert.
 
Die Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des Postes (ARCEP - die französische Post- und Telekommunikationsaufsichtsbehörde) hat am 13. April 2010 ein Symposium über die Netzneutralität organisiert. Bei dieser Gelegenheit wurden vier Themen ausführlich diskutiert: welche sind die Problemen, die aus dieser Prinzip der Netzneutralität entstehen. Wie können den Verkehr-, Tarifgestaltung- sowie Wertteilungsfragen verwaltet werden? Wie liegt den Ausgleich zwischen Schutz der Verbraucher und Zugang zu den Inhalte und Diensten? Was braucht die Regulierung des Internets? Dank der Erforschung diesen Fragen von verschiedenen Aktoren des Internets kann die Hauptidee hinter der Regulierung des Internets im vordegrund entstehen: das Prinzip der Diskriminierungslosigkeit. Dieses Prinzip bedeutet, dass die Information immer mehr transparent wird, damit die technische Bedigungen des Internets dazu nicht führen, die Angebot zu verzerren.
 
 
SPANISH
 
La «Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des Postes » (ARCEP— el regulador francés de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales) organizó un coloquio, el 13 de abril del 2010 sobre “La neutralité des réseaux » (la neutralidad de la red).

La Autorité de la régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (ARCEP — el regulador francés de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales) organizó Le colloque sur la neutralité des réseaux (el Coloquio sobre la neutralidad de la red), que fue llevado a cabo el 13 de abril del 2010. Cada actor generalmente utiliza el término “neutralidad” de la forma que más le convenga. No obstante, la neutralidad significa que no se debería discriminar entre los usuarios del Internet; pero esto no quiere decir que todos tengan el derecho a servicios gratuitos: precisamente porque se debe tener un manejo del tráfico y del ancho de banda, una protección del consumidor y del derecho de reproducción, es importante poder establecer un equilibrio entre estos derechos contradictorios para fomentar el desarrollo de la red. Evidentemente, es necesario introducir el elemento del regulador. El desarrollo futuro del Internet depende de nosotros. Por el momento, nadie sabe quiénes son estos reguladores legítimos y cómo podrían regular estas fuerzas oponentes, organizar la transparencia de la información y fomentar la inversión a largo plazo… y al mismo tiempo preservar la concurrencia.