Search results (620 cards)

Advanced search

What does Regulating to operators? How do they feel? Do they internalize? Does it means to them, simply a cost or an impact on their strategy on the markets?

The question is all the more important that you adhere to the theory of incentives, whereas the adequate regulatory techniques are those that produce the desired behavior by regulated operators.

The issue is not whether the Regulating is included in spending. This is acquired. For example, in two years the banks move internal forces of certain services, such as credit, to the compliance department and regulation. The regulation may represent a very high share of costs: it lies in the fact that through compliance the regulatory system has internalized the costs of regulation in the firms.

But does it make to change the strategic choice of the operator on the market, not only increase the number internal processes?

To listen Lloyds Blankfein, chairman of Goldman Sachs in Davos, words immediately commented in the British press as considerations allayed regarding Regulation!footnote-22, we doubt it.

Mr. Blankfein Lloys who also sits on the board of the Harvard Law School, asked about the question of whether the bank doesn't suffer from the pressure of regulations and supervisors replied that must be considered especially in the very design of technical systems to meet compliance but that for him, Regulation isn't really an annoyance: it is a "background noise". He compares it to music: something that he listens a lot, but while he is doing its job. Something which remains outside.

This means that Regulation occupies its technical regulatory services but doesn't affect its own work of invest bank president.

We can rejoice, since it shows that Regulation doesn't impede free enterprise and the operator's choice. One might worry if Regulation should have an "educational" function wanting influence how the president himself decides. In this case, Regulation must cease to be a kind of expensive elevator music.

It is not sure that regulators and supervisors have the same understanding

ENGLISH

The role of fibre is very important towards connecting to ultra-fast broadband, one of the key action areas of the Digital Agenda. But, Europe is late in its fibre deployment, especially when compared to other advanced economies such as the United States or Japan. At the same time, however, there is still no standard for a European fibre strategy: public as well as private stakeholders are having very different approaches in local FTTx deployment sometimes leading to a waste in private and public funds and being mainly focused on dense areas. This article aims to propose an efficient model for fibre network deployment that can be applied to all European Member States. The model provides high-margin incentives for operators to install fibre network across the whole country, while maximising households’ fibre connection rate through an automatic migration scheme. In a period of weak growth and budget restrictions, the catch-up in ultra-fast broadband internet requires more than ever an efficient policy to maximise the deployment of FTTH at the lowest cost possible to the public. The proposed model serves as an ideal choice given this context.

Alternative operator - Budget - Connexion - Copper network - Cost - Digital agenda - Duplication - Effeciency - Essential facility - Europe - Fiber optic - France - Incentive - Incumbent operator - Infrastructure - Internet - Natural economic monopoly - Network - Price - Provider - Regulatory policy *

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

 

PORTUGUESE

Artigo: Do cobre à fibra: uma política de regulação ótima.

O papel da fibra é muito importante em conexões de banda larga de alta velocidade, uma das principais ações na área da Agenda Digital. No entanto, a Europa está atrasada no desenvolvimento da fibra, especialmente quando comparada com outras economias avançadas como Estados Unidos ou Japão. Ao mesmo tempo, porém, ainda não há um patamar para uma estratégia europeia para a fibra: detentores de haveres públicos e privados têm tido diferentes posturas no desenvolvimento de FTTx local, o que leva às vezes a um desperdício de fundos públicos e privados e sendo sobretudo registrado em áreas de densidade. Este artigo objetiva propor um modelo eficiente para o desenvolvimento da rede de fibra que possa ser aplicado para todos os Estados Membros Europeus. O modelo prevê incentivos altos para operadores para instalar redes de fibra por todo o país, enquanto maximiza a taxa de conexões domésticas de fibra através de um esquema de migração automática. Em um período de crescimento desacelerado e restrições orçamentárias, um novo impulso em banda larga de alta velocidade requer mais do que nunca uma política eficiente para maximizar o desenvolvimento de FTTH ao menor custo possível para o público. O modelo proposto serve como uma escolha ideal dado este contexto.

Operador alternativo – Orçamento – Conexão – Rede de cobre – Custo – Agenda digital – Duplicação – Eficiência – Facilidades essenciais – Europa – Fibra ótica – França – Incentivo – Operador – Infra-estrutura – Internet – Monopólio natural econômico – Rede – Preço – Provedor – Política de regulação*.

* No Journal of Regulation, as palavras-chave são fornecidas pelo Diretor, e não pelo Autor.

 

ITALIAN

Articolo: Dal rame alla fibra: un’ottima politica di regolazione

Il ruolo della fibra è molto importante per la connessione ad alta velocità, una delle azioni centrali dell’agenda digitale. Tuttavia l’Europa è in netto ritardo per quando riguarda lo sviluppo della fibra, in particolare rispetto all’economia di altri paesi come gli Stati Uniti o il Giappone. Questo si capisce, però, in quanto non esiste uno standard per la strategia dell’Europa in materia di fibra: gli attori privati e pubblici del settore della fibra stanno avendo degli approcci differenti nei confronti della realizzazione dei FTTx, e tali approcci spesso si concludono in uno spreco di investimenti e si concentrano spesso su aree ad alta densità. Questo articolo si propone di trovare un modello efficace per la realizzazione di una rete a fibra in tutti gli Stati membri. Questo modello prevede degli incentivi elevati per gli operatori che installano delle reti a fibra ottica nei loro paesi, e massimizza la percentuale di connessioni a fibra ottica per nucleo familiare con un sistema di migrazione automatico. In un periodo di crescita ridotta e restrizioni di budget, lo sviluppo di connessioni a fibra ottica richiede una politica quanto mai efficace per massimizzare lo sviluppo del FTTH ai minimi costi possibili per i conti pubblici. Il modello proposto costituisce una scelta essenziale, in considerazione del contesto esistente.

Agenda digitale - Budget - Connessione - Connessioni su rame - Costi - Duplicazione - Efficienza - Europa - Fibra ottica - Fornitore - Francia - Incentivi - Infrastruttura - Infrastruttura essenziale - Internet - Monopolio economico naturale - Operatore alternativo - Operatore storico - Prezzo - Politica di regolazione - Rete *

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

 

SPANISH

Artículos: Del cobre a la fibra : una política regulatoria óptima

El rol de la fibra óptica es de gran importancia en lo que concierne la conexión al ancho de banda ultrarrápida, una de las áreas claves de acción en la Agenda Digital. Sin embargo, Europa se encuentra atrasada en cuanto a su desarrollo, especialmente en comparación con otras economías avanzadas, como la de los EEUU o Japón. No obstante, todavía no existe un estándar para una estrategia europea para la red de fibra óptica; accionistas, tanto privados como públicos, han estado adoptando diferentes acercamientos a la implementación de los FTTx, lo cual suele llevar a un enfoque sobre áreas demasiado densas y al desperdicio de fondos privados y públicos. Este artículo tiene como objetivo proponer un modelo eficiente para el desarrollo de la red de fibras ópticas que podría aplicarse a todos los miembros de la Unión Europea. El modelo provee incentivos de gran margen de ganancias para operadores para la instalación de estas redes de fibras a través del país entero y al mismo tiempo maximiza la conexión rápida de fibras en todas las viviendas facilitado por el uso de un esquema de migración automática. En un periodo de crecimiento débil y restricciones presupuestarias, el “catch-up” en el Internet de banda ancha ultrarrápida requiere ahora más que nunca una política eficaz para maximizar el desarrollo del FFTH y minimizar el coste incurrido por el público.

Other translations forthcoming.

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.

 

On 20 July 2016, the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA- French "Independant Authority to Protect Audiovisual Communications Freedom") issued a press release in which it directly addresses to its Turkish counterpart. 

Read the 20 July 2016 press release from the CSA. 

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!  

ENGLISH

Although the industry has faced some difficulties over the past two years, hedge funds play an important role in the global financial system. The benefits these investment vehicles bring to the markets are essentially made possible by flexible and light regulatory regimes. Hedge funds didn’t cause the current crisis, yet there seems to be a consensus among regulators around the world for more regulation: to prevent systemic risk and guarantee investor protection. This paper examines in its first part the relevance of these two arguments. It concludes that although systemic risk may be a legitimate concern, the investor protection argument is questionable. Part II explores what the future of hedge fund regulation could look like. Part III develops the idea that hedge funds do not need more but better regulation (e.g. with costs/benefits analysis, legal framework on a global scale or the creation of a global database for regulators’ use).

FRENCH

Article: Le futur de la régulation des Hedge Funds: une approche comparative: États-Unis, Royaume-Uni, France, Italie et Allemagne

Bien que l'industrie a du faire face à quelques difficultés au court des deux dernières années, les hedge funds jouent un rôle important dans le système financier global. Les bénéfices de ces véhicules d'investissement apportent au marchés sont essentiellement rendus possibles par des régimes régulatoires légers et flexible. Les hedge funds n'ont pas causé la crise actuelle, pourtant, un consensus semble émerger chez les régulateurs du monde pour réguler plus cette activité, cela afin d'éviter le risque systémique et pour garantir la protection des investisseurs. Cet article examine dans un premier temps la pertinence de ces arguments, concluant que la prévention du risque systémique peut être une préoccupation légitime, mais que l'argument de la protection des investisseurs est plus douteux.  La deuxième partie de l'article étudie ce à quoi le futur de la régulation des hedge funds pourrait ressembler. La troisième partie développe l'idée selon laquelle les hedge funds n'ont pas besoin de plus mais de meilleure régulation (par exemple avec l'analyse coûts/bénéfices, la mise en oeuvre d'un cadre légal à une échelle globale ou la création d'une base de données globale à destination des régulateurs)

GERMAN

Artikel: die Zukunft der Hedge Funds Regulierung: eine komparative Analyse (Vereinigten Staaten, Grossbritanien, Italien, Frankreich, Deutschland)

Obwohl die Hedge Funds Branche in einer schwierigen Lage in den zwei vorherigen Jahren war, spielen diese Hedge Funds eine wichtige Rolle im globalen finanziellen System. Die Vorteile, die solche Funds mit ihnen ziehen, können erst enstehen dank leichtere Regulierungsbedigungen. Selbst wenn Hedge Funds die Krise nicht verursacht haben, sind die Behörde darauf geeinigt, strengere Regeln durchzusetzen, um dem Verbraucher zu schützen und die Entstehung von Systemrisiken zu vermeiden. Dieser Artikel erforscht im ersten Teil die Gültigkeit solche Argumenten, und zeigt wie die Wirksmakeit der Verbraucherschutz des durch Hedge Funds Regulierung zweifelhaft ist. Dann wird beschrieben, was die Zukunft der Regulierung sein werden könnte. Und endlich wird analysiert, wie die Hedge Funds Branche eher bessere als weitere Regulierung braucht (insb. bessere Aufwand-Nutzen-Analyse, globalen Richtlinien und die Gründung einer globalen Datenbank für die Regulierungsbehörden).

 

SPANISH

El futuro de la regulación de los fondos de cobertura: Un enfoque comparativo, los Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña, Francia, Italia y Alemania.

Aunque la industria se ha encontrado con algunas dificultades a lo largo de los últimos dos años, los fondos de cobertura juegan un rol importante en el sistema financiero global. Los beneficios que estos vehículos de inversión fomentan en los mercados son esencialmente posible gracias en gran parte a los regímenes flexibles de la regulación. Los fondos de cobertura no causaron la crisis económica, pero parece existir un consenso general entre economistas abogando por más regulación: para prevenir el riesgo sistemático y garantizar la protección del inversor. Este informe examina en su primera parte dos argumentos. El documento concluye que, aunque la preocupación por el riesgo sistemático puede ser una inquietud legítima, la protección del inversor es cuestionable. La Parte II explora el futuro de la regulación de los fondos de cobertura. La tercera Parte desarrolla la idea que los fondos de cobertura no necesitan de más regulación, sino de mejor regulación (por ejemplo, con el análisis de la relación costo/beneficio, marco legal en escala global o la creación de una base de datos para los reguladores).

 

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

In an article written in French, the press of Senegal reported a conference in which the First President of the Dakar Court of Appeal stated that the judicial court -  in the present case the Dakar Court of Appeal - after being a bit "frightened "by the regulatory law, because of its technicality, and after its fear of being dispossessed of cases because of the power of that the regulatory authorities in place to exercise the dispute resolution, is able to play its role today.

He first asserts that judges learned the technic of regulatory matter(in this case, his speech was about the public markets).

He asserts, secondly, that when the parties are in conflict, they continue to go before the judicial court, regardless of the existence of the independant administrative bodies and their dispute resolution function.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Being obliged by Law to unlock telephone is not equivalent to self-incrimination: Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, Dec. 19, 2019, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 21st of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

 

Summary of the news

The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Judicial Court) made a decision on 19th of December 2019 about a case concerning a refusal to communicate his mobile phone's unlock code to the police while the police found him with a significant quantity of narcotic and a lot of cash and that there was a certain probability that this mobile phone get proofs of culpability of its owner. The individual was indicted not for narcotic trafficking but for not having communicate its unlock code which constitute an offense to article 434-15-2 of code pénal, from the loi du 3 juin 2018 renforçant la lutte contre la criminalité organisée, et le terrorisme et leur financement (law reinforcing organized crime, terrorisme and their financing).

The accused invokes before the court its right to not incriminate oneself. Indeed, the configuration face to policemen was such that if he refused to communicate its unlock code, he will be punished because of this obligation to communicate his code and that if he accepted, he will also be sanctioned because of the proofs contained into the mobile phone. Such a configuration therefore offered him no alternative to confessing, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and to European and national jurisprudence.

Face to such a case, the Cour de Cassation chose to segment the information and proposed the following solution: if the researched information cannot be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness, it is not possible to constraint this person to communicate this information without violating its procedural rights, but if the information can be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness then the individual is obliged to communicate his code. In the current case, as it was possible for policemen to obtain information contained in the phone by technical means, longer but existent, then the refuse of communication of the unlock code by the suspect constitute an obstruction that should be sanctioned. 

Such a decision is an exemple of the conciliation by the judge of two fundamental but contradictory "monumental goals" of Compliance Law: transparency of information towards public authorities and very sensible personal data protection. 

​To go further, read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's working paper: Rethinking the world from the notion of data