New Legislation Regulating US Players

[-z-]

Email fourishes in late 90's- there was a big uproar about how Congress was considering a law to tax email messages.

Video games came under attack after columbine.. Congress threatened to put X rating on games.

National ban against using your cell phone while driving. (I wish)

Spam legislation: Got less spam?
Now that I think about it.. maybe that email tax would've head the spam problem off at the pass.

Technology legislation always makes big headlines but when put to the test, the US congress couldn't pass gas let alone an effective law. Congress is only interested in jumping on the bandwagon of the day for votes and getting their hands of more money to waste.

I'm not worried in the slightest.

-z-

[jetset]

Those are good links that give a good overall perspective. BTW there's a new Nielsen/Netratings study just out that identified over 30 million US based online players, and reports CCA projections for 2006 revenues at $15 billion.

Just an additional note - it's early days but already the horse racing lobby is pressing its representatives to go after exemptions. There will be others, and these are what tend to bog these bans down.

[pokeraddict]

I'm not 100% versed in the WTO ruling but the horse racing was the big issue why the US lost the multiple rulings right? The US allows states to offer internet gambling but would not allow access to the banking system for Antigua/Barbuda? If they tie horse racing to the bill then they are basically passing a status quo which violates the ruling which will get the U.S. in more hot water if they dont act on the ruling soon.

Maybe I misunderstood the ruling?

As for blocking these sites its a joke. I'm sure someone will come up with some proxy that you will be able to gamble over and access your Neteller account if the US ever managed to get this off the ground. Think about how many ISP's would take the government to court over this and how many temporary restaining orders would be filed.

It would probably affect poker players worse because it would make it harder for the donks to figure out how to make a deposit or even connect to the site hurting the quality of the games.

[jetset]

You're right, pokeraddict - horse racing was one of the "carve out" stumbling blocks in past banning efforts, and is at the centre of the current WTO row.

My understanding of it's current prominence in the WTO confrontation between Antigua and the USA is that interfering with other countries in the trade pact did not exempt online gaming when the USA signed the trade pact. So the US authorities, after first saying that they failed to exempt it from the WTO agreements in error had to fall back on another *acceptable* reason for taking actions which harmed the Antiguan offshore gaming industry.

There was provision for this on the grounds of moral objections or the protection of one's citizens from harmful practices, and the US went for that.

Problem was that certain US horse racing facilities are conducted over the Internet. The argument therefore goes that the US cannot object to Internet gaming as immoral and harmful if it allows on its own soil a like practice.

The last WTO ruling requires the USA to bring its practice into line with its objection by April 3. Initially a US Trade Representative spokesman said that wouldn't be a problem and just required some "tweaking" but it is clearly more complicated than that, and gets more so with any new US "carve outs" that use the Internet as a betting medium.

The US response on (or maybe even before) April is going to be very interesting.

[jetset]

Blocking ISPs is going to be a major problem, and one that is not popular because it is setting a precedent for interfering with the freedom of the Internet as well as presenting practical hurdles.

We've already seen the DoJ, and even Kyl himself admit that enforcing an online gaming ban is going to be difficult. Here's a Kyl quote from a recent Morgan Stanley report on this subject:

"Online gambling would be a difficult kind of activity to regulate, because we don't have jurisdiction over the people abroad who are doing it."

Morgan Stanley's conclusions after an objective study of this whole situation:

"Ultimately, we think that the size and scale of the industry will dominate the attempts to moralise and prohibit. It is inconsistent with its popularity to ban online gambling."

The report touches on regulatory moves within the industry, saying: "Operators have gone to great lengths to legitimise the industry, including initiatives such as eCOGRA, with measures to limit problem gambling, increased security and identity checks, a full audit trail to eradicate money laundering and promoting websites such as Gamcare."

Mention is also made of the Bet On Sports initiative that shows there are no links between online gambling and money laundering.

Concluding that the US legal scene is likely to remain "a grey area" for at least the next 18 to 24 months, the report calls attention to developments in the UK, pointing out that online gambling is regarded in that country as a "legitimate leisure activity" to be regulated, and that this view will predominate internationally in time.

Another question should be occupying the minds of thinking politicians - if there are 30 million or more U.S. online gamblers, and even greater numbers of American Internet users who regard the freedom of the Internet as vital, is it smart to support unnecessary laws that go against the wishes of a significant percentage of the electorate?

[dominique]

http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/defending.html

Interesting site.

[Maple Leaf]

I also saw that episode of 60 minutes that Sdaddy was refering to. Was a very interesting piece. I forget the man's name in the interview but he made some very valid points on how Europe, particularly the UK, is taking a much more progressive view point on online gaming. Rather than trying to ask its citiziens to stick theirs heads in the sand, and ban something that has become a worldwide phenomenem, the UK gov't has tried to work with UK firms to find a solution that helps all parties involved. ie Tax revenue in exchange for regulation and compliance.

When I read about this issue of regulation, I can help but think it draws some striking parallels to early prohibition days in the US. A way back when, the US gov't thought they could eliminate a lot of social problems such as alcohol abuse but all prohibition did was help pave the way for men like Capone who use organized crime to keep the booze flowing. It begs an interested question that if the US gov't could help to regulate the online gaming industry today, maybe it could help to weed out some the shadier operators who now take advantage of unsuspecting players. I know as a online poker player myself, I would feel a lot more comfortable playing at sites that could have a 'US gov't approved' seal on their website.

[jetset]

That guy interviewed on 60 Minutes was Nigel Payne, CEO of Sportingbet and a longtime proponent of the "regulate and tax us" approach to the US market.

I agree that US players would be far better off with a state regulated online gaming industry which would probably see the big, well funded and highly experienced US gambling groups playing an active and professional role.