电信增值服务法律问题思考——以电信运营商的特殊义务为视角

电信增值服务具有信息化、虚拟化等特征,服务中涉及的问题较多,由此引发的纠纷呈上升趋势。目前,对其调整偏重于管制,一定程度上忽视了市场法则作用的发挥,效果不理想。因此,有必要从剖析电信增值服务合同、移动增值业务合作协议以及电信服务合同入手,理顺电信增值服务的法律关系,确立以市场规则为主的法律调整手段。针对电信增值服务关系的所具有的特殊性,论文从合同效力扩张的角度,阐述了电信运营商在电信增值服务关系中的特殊地位,建议让电信运营商承担起特定的义务。最后,笔者还就如何通过保障信息的充分性来维护用户的利益谈了自己的思路和建议。     

谁让我上了“黄页”

固定电话运营商掌握着每一个电话用户的姓名、电话号码、家庭住址等详实资料。而利用电话用户资料编印黄页则是运营商的主要经营业务之一。那么,运营商能否利用掌握的电话用户资料编印黄页呢？请看,一起电话用户状告电信黄页侵犯隐私权的案件引出的法律问题——     

流量清零的法律分析

移动互联网时代,三大电信运营商都将流量经营作为未来业务发展的重点,当成新利润增长点的核心。因而流量经营成为三家电信运营商现在和未来重中之重的工作。流量业务的顺利发展的关键在于用户的接受程度。流量业务比较难推广与普级的原因就在于用户对于流量业务这个新事物有一个接受的过程。电信运营商想尽快推动流量业务的发展,其实就是在推动客户尽快接受流量这个新事物,并尽快应用流量并成为习惯,最终成为生活的一部分。故而可以发现,如何站在用户的使用习惯的角度来推动用户的习惯的改变,是提升流量业务最佳的方法。运营商如何处理好流量经营与用户使用之间的矛盾,在保护好用户的公平交易权、知情权、选择权的前提下,培养用户的使用习惯,从而和谐发展。     

电信服务合同格式条款的法律分析

随着社会经济的发展,电信用户对电信业务的服务要求越来越高,随之而来的是电信用户与电信服务运营商之间的合同关系越来越复杂。电信服务合同作为明确电信运营商与电信用户权利义务的主要法律文件之一,电信运营商作为合同一方,具有明显的强势地位,单个消费者处于劣势。因此,对电信服务合同中格式条款的规制显得尤为重要。本文从电信服务合同的概念着手,分析电信服务合同中格式条款对电信用户权益的制约,并对电信服务合同中格式条款的规制提出了相应的立法建议。     

移动、联通，小心责任升级

关于手机涉黄吸费陷阱问题,电信运营商、信息服务提供商、手机生产商都存在法律责任     

手机无线增值服务中消费者权益保护问题

手机无线增值服务是移动通信运营商与服务提供商(SP)联合向手机用户提供的增值服务,属于电子商务的范畴。在这种商务活动中,移动通信企业和服务提供商赚取了巨额利润,却忽视甚至严重侵害了消费者的合法权益,引发了不少矛盾与纠纷。集中分析了有关消费者权益保护六大问题,试图引起人们对这一领域的关注。     

移动增值业务中的政府管制：一个初步的研究

移动增值业务(简称SP业务)近年来发展迅猛,同时也滋生出许多经济社会问题亟待解决。从管制法学的角度来看,由于我国电信产业仍具有垄断特征,存在信息不对称、外部性等因素,通过单纯的私法手段无力解决目前存在的问题。中国的电信管制机构针对移动增值业务已采取诸多必要的措施,但总体而言,仍需要进一步加强管制力度,制定结构、价格、质量、信息等方面的具体管制措施,完善法律管制手段。     

谁会是3G竞争的赢家

近日,三家电信运营商都发布了中期财报,3G用户也成为大家关注的一个焦点数据,在未来的市场竞争中,到底什么能影响三家运营商在3G竞争中的大格局？三家运营商谁强谁弱？我相信未来影响格局的不是网络，也不是业务，而是终端!     

浅议新形势下电信用户投诉的处理方法

电信运营商重组之后,电信行业用户投诉的数量和复杂程度大幅度上升,本文分析了新形势下电信用户投诉日益增多的原因,并结合电信企业的实际提出正确处理客户投诉、降低投诉率的几种主要方法。     

我国电信业监管模式的法律视角分析

本文通过对《电信法》未出台情况下的电信监管进行分析,从基础电信运营商和增值服务商之间的关系入手,阐述了我国电信业目前的监管现状,结合我国国情提出了行政监管和行政委托相结合的电信行业的监管模式。     

借“鸡”生“蛋”之批判——谈用他人身份证办理移动电话入网现象的法律责任对对策

民事活动如果不加规制便无法维持和平、安全、诚信的市场环境,有害于市场经济的顺畅发展。有鉴于此,许多经济活动都采取了要求民事主体表明自己的真实身份——出示身份证——的办法。然而规制总有可能遭到挑衅。例如,当电信用户被告知应当持本人身份证办理入网手续时,总有些民事主体明知却故意利用他人的身份证为自己所用,造成电信资费逾期未缴且难以追缴的后果。如果能从法律的角度对该问题进行详尽的分析,一定对今后该问题的处理大有裨益。但是从法律角度所能做的只是消极预防及事后追究,要有效解决恐怕不是单单的法律手段就能做到的。     

How do we provide the digital footprint with eternal rest? Some criteria for legislation regulating digital wills

This article analyses the implications of the death of digital service users on their digital footprint and assesses some of the solutions—contractual and legislative—that have been posited to date by digital service providers and by Parliaments of a few countries. In view of the different initiatives analysed, and the experience gained in their implementation, the paper presents legal certainty, effectiveness and transparency as criteria that should guide the regulation of the digital footprint in the case of death. These criteria must allow for the adoption or regulation of mechanisms for managing the digital footprint of digital service users to be clear and trustworthy for them and efficient and easily recognized and adopted by digital service providers.     

论电信消费者的特殊性权利及其保护机制

从电信消费的法律特征入手,提出电信消费者的特殊性权利,并探讨如何构建我国电信消费者权利的保护机制:首先应当制定旨在保护消费者权利的电信立法;其次政府应当按照维护消费者的利益、公开、公平、公正、政企分开的原则对电信的市场秩序和企业行为实行监管,并明确电信监管机构的法律地位。第三,应当健全司法对电信消费者特殊权益的保护机制:设立电信消费者诉讼专门法庭,适用简易程序,增加消费者争议仲裁制度,实行举证责任倒置原则。第四,应当建立电信消费者权利的社会保障机制,发挥社会中间组织的积极作用。     

Service Providers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of the Legal Service Needs of Crime Victims

Currently, there is an expansive body of victimization literature within the criminal justice field, which covers a number of essential topics such as victimization trends and patterns, short-and long-term effects of victimization, as well as specific effects of intimate partner violence and sexual assault victimization. Despite the variety of topics examined by empirical research, there is a noticeable lack of discourse pertaining to civil legal services for crime victims. This study is among the first to take a close look at civil legal services for victims by exploring three uncharted areas including: (a) service providers’ knowledge of civil legal services, (b) the legal needs of crime victims and available services, and (c) barriers between victims and accessing civil legal services. Using quantitative and qualitative data from interviews with service providers, policy implications and future research recommendations are discussed.     

Electronic identities – public or private

In the real world, we usually identify persons by their appearance, voice, and so on. If this is not sufficient, identity cards are used. In the virtual world the situation is different. The basic concepts of the internet provide for unique identification of devices, not of their users. Hence, some kind of identity management system is required, which can be provided either by the state or by the private sector. Official electronic identity schemes, such as the Austrian Citizen Card, are being established in more and more countries. The carrier media of the Citizen Card is a smart card but, since 2009, the mobile phone signature is offered as a more comfortable alternative. However, much more widespread than that are simple user accounts with passwords, one for each individual service. This system has significant flaws. A solution can be provided by the concept of identity federation: an ‘identity ecosystem’ can be established in which a user can choose among several identity providers, authorise them to identify him towards service providers, authorise attribute providers to provide particular qualified user information to a service provider, etc. In this paper the different concepts mentioned above are elaborated and their interrelations and legal difficulties are described.     

A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET

"Network neutrality" is the shorthand for a proposed regimeof economic regulation for the Internet. Because of the trendto deliver traditional telecommunications services, as wellas new forms of content and applications, by Internet protocol(IP), a regime of network neutrality regulation would displaceor subordinate a substantial portion of existing telecommunicationsregulation. If the United States adopts network neutrality regulation,other industrialized nations probably will soon follow. As aresult of their investment to create next-generation broadbandnetworks, network operators have the ability to innovate insidethe network by offering both senders and receivers of informationgreater bandwidth and prioritization of delivery. Network neutralityregulation would, among other things, prevent providers of broadbandInternet access service (such as digital subscriber line (DSL)or cable modem service) from offering a guaranteed, expediteddelivery speed in return for the payment of a fee. The practicaleffect of banning such differential pricing (called "accesstiering" by its critics) would be to prevent the pricing ofaccess to content or applications providers according to priorityof delivery. To the extent that an advertiser of a good or servicewould be willing to contract with a network operator for advertisingspace on the network operator's affiliated content, anotherpractical effect of network neutrality regulation would be toerect a barrier to vertical integration of network operatorsinto advertising-based business models that could supplementor replace revenues earned from their existing usage-based businessmodels. Moreover, by making end-users pay for the full costof broadband access, network neutrality regulation would denybroadband access to the large number of consumers who wouldnot be able to afford, or who would not have a willingness topay for, what would otherwise be less expensive access. Forexample, Google is planning to offer broadband access to end-usersfor free in San Francisco by charging other content providersfor advertising. This product offering is evidently predicatedon the belief that many end-users demand discounted or freebroadband access that is paid for by parties other than themselves.Proponents of network neutrality regulation argue that suchrestrictions on the pricing policies of network operators arenecessary to preserve innovation on the edges of the network,as opposed to innovation within the network. However, recognizingthat network congestion and real-time applications demand somedifferential pricing according to bandwidth or priority, proponentsof network neutrality regulation would allow broadband Internetaccess providers to charge higher prices to end-users (but notcontent or applications providers) who consume more bandwidthor who seek priority delivery of certain traffic. Thus, thedebate over network neutrality is essentially a debate overhow best to finance the construction and maintenance of a broadbandnetwork in a two-sided market in which senders and receivershave additive demand for the delivery of a given piece of information—andhence additive willingness to pay. Well-established tools ofRamsey pricing from regulatory economics can shed light on whethernetwork congestion and recovery of sunk investment in infrastructureare best addressed by charging providers of content and applications,broadband users, or both for expedited delivery. Apart fromthis pricing problem, an analytically simpler component of proposednetwork neutrality regulation would prohibit a network operatorfrom denying its users access to certain websites and Internetapplications, such as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). Althoughsome instances of blocking of VoIP have been reported, suchconduct is not a serious risk to competition. To address thisconcern, I analyze whether market forces (that is, competitionamong access providers) and existing regulatory structures aresufficient to protect broadband users. I conclude that economicwelfare would be maximized by allowing access providers to differentiateservices vis-à-vis providers of content and applicationsin value-enhancing ways and by relying on existing legal regimesto protect consumers against the exercise of market power, shouldit exist.     

网络服务合同中不平等条款的类型及其法律规制——以虚拟财产权的保护为视角

网络服务合同是确立网络运营商与用户双方权利义务的协议,是用户行使及保护其虚拟财产权的重要依托。实务中由于网络服务合同缺乏完善的法律规范,导致其中存在大量不公平的争议条款,当法律纠纷出现时,严重不利于用户对其虚拟财产权的保护与行使。如何在法律上对网络服务合同进行规制以及在司法实践中如何认定部分争议类型条款的有效性将是保护网络虚拟财产的重中之重。正基于此,在分析网络服务合同与虚拟财产权保护的主要矛盾,探讨网络服务合同中部分争议类型条款之后,对网络服务合同的法律规范提出相关建议。     

论网络交易平台提供商之交易安全保障义务

网络交易平台提供商是指为网络购物交易方提供网络交易平台服务的人。网络交易平台提供商的交易安全保障义务是指网络交易平台提供商负有的采取直接或间接措施避免或减少网络交易风险,保护交易方财产利益不受损害的法律义务。该义务防范的交易风险主要是交易方实质性的虚假陈述及不归因于交易方的重要信息错误、延误、丢失或不能辨认,而不包括一般的违约行为及产品责任风险。该义务应该由法律直接规定最低标准,但并不排除当事方之间进行更高水平的约定。最低标准可参照侵权法上的安全保障义务的要求设定,并融合限制网络服务提供商损害赔偿责任的＂安全港＂制度。     

电子商务合同主体地位与法律关系研究——以淘宝网C2C交易模式为例

电子商务合同具有合同主体虚拟化、交易介质无纸化等特殊法律品格,对传统法律形成了一定冲击。淘宝网等网络服务提供者为作为合同当事人的经营者与消费者提供了电子媒介支持,成为C2C交易中不可或缺的第三方。淘宝网与经营者、消费者分别通过订立网络服务协议,形成服务关系,对因自身过错或违反法定义务造成的损失应当承担赔偿责任。     

社会性别主流化视角下的家政工社会与法律保护分析

随着时代的进步,社会的发展,社会性别主流化日益受到人们的普遍关注。而与此同时,非劳动法上的劳动者——家政工的社会与法律保护问题日益严峻。我国家政服务行业的从业人员大约有1500万,其中96%以上是女性。虽然家政服务业这种灵活多样的就业方式得到政府的支持,有着广阔的发展前景,为许多人提供了就业机会和岗位,但是,这些从业人员却并不是我们通常所说的劳动法上的劳动者,而受到劳动法律规范和相关法律的应有保护。针对现行相关立法的缺漏与不足,社会各界应高度关注并积极应对,更新观念,尽快完善相关立法,制定各种有效、配套的政策与措施。