Where is the Barney Frank Bill? APCW Perspectives Weekly: 19 June 2009

[jetset]

I can't agree with your premise here.

It's costing a ton of money - for very little return - to impose the UIGEA (not to mention the balls-ups, financial institutional bottlenecks and inconvenience it is causing) in the present prohibition style regime.

And it is not as effective as the authorities would hope as we see on a daily basis right here.

On the other hand, a regulatory approach can generate substantial tax revenues (as has been independently assessed by professional business bodies), in addition releasing marketing funds into the economy from major licensed operators and improving the security of American players, who would be offered well known, professional and trusted brands strictly regulated and competing with whichever offshore companies still want to risk operating in such a market.

Those are persuasive benefits imo.

I think we may see individual state decisions on the legalisation of online poker happen sooner rather than later, anyway.

But an overall liberation that gives US players the freedom of choice all round in a legitimate environment is prefereable

[spiderlegz]

Dont know what the costs of the UIGEA are, if anyone can provide any info I would be thankful. But it has decreased online gambling, by how much I dont know, so I still think it has been cost effective.

And whatever tax revenue regulation could generate is actually irrelevant as the costs to the economy would be higher.

And blackmarkets would still exist. Unregulated sites would be able to offfer better promotions and higher returns.

And US players still can go to B&M casinos. It wouldnt be fair for the majority (non gamblers and non onlinegamblers) to pay for the minoritys hobby.

Some more interesting links:

Do casinos cause economic growth? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

Business profitability vs social profitability http://www.ncalg.org/Library/Studies...%20Mustard.pdf

These studies are about B&M casinos, for online most of the positive externalities doesnt exist so they have an even worse cost-benefit ratio.

I have more links but they they require at least intermediate skills in microeconomics.

[winbig]

And US players still can go to B&M casinos. It wouldnt be fair for the majority (non gamblers and non onlinegamblers) to pay for the minoritys hobby.

How are the taxpayers (gamblers or not) paying for this? It's not like it's costing them anything.

You're not even in America, at least you have the choice to gamble where and when you want.

The banks have already said time and time again that they simply CANNOT implement what the DoJ is asking of them in trying to enforce the UIGEA. They're in bad enough shape already, and have more important things to worry about, plain and simple.

[jetset]

Ask the American Banker's Association and the North Dakota and New Hampshire state lotteries what they think of the UIGEA and the mounting costs of trying to sort out mis-classified blocks and other upfucks (which just about everyone warned the Bush administration was going to happen with this imprecise piece of legislation.)

And I believe a conservative estimate of the associated costs presented to one of the hearings on the UIGEA ran into the tens of millions - I'll have to look that one up when I have a moment.

Certainly the tax revenues will be tempting, even at the relatively low levels suggested by Rep. McDermott in his companion tax proposal bill.

I am firmly of the view that in a legalised market that will contain a number of very large American companies anxious to grab a slice of the US multi-billion online gambling action, the independently predicted revenues will be realised.

Just last week Ryan of Party Gaming warned the exec summit in Madrid that it would not just be established gambling companies that would present formidable competition in the US sector, but large media companies with an eye on a tempting new revenue source too.

And the market will grow because present impediments (at least for US licensed companies) will fall away, and there will be more marketing activity.

That is going to create a very competitive market which the offshore tiddlers may find difficult to match in terms of promos, and certainly in terms of professional management and customer care.

[lots0]

you can find articles that will support just about any point of view on the web.

But where do they get their information from?
I do not see any documentation or any sources for what they claim to be 'facts'.

[winbig]

I do not see any documentation or any sources for what they claim to be 'facts'.

Why, Gambling911, of course.

[spiderlegz]

How are the taxpayers (gamblers or not) paying for this? It's not like it's costing them anything.

You're not even in America, at least you have the choice to gamble where and when you want.

The banks have already said time and time again that they simply CANNOT implement what the DoJ is asking of them in trying to enforce the UIGEA. They're in bad enough shape already, and have more important things to worry about, plain and simple.

It is costing. Read the links. At one way or another taxpayers will take the costs. Negative externalities.

And yes Im not in the states but trying to bring some balance in to the pro online gambling "propaganda". And trying to think that "if I were a politician". On regulating online poker Im positive.

Personally I would stop playing if it would be harder to deposit, I still could go to the B&M casino to get my gambling fix. So I wouldnt cry if I wouldnt be able to gamble online.

And UIGEA has decreased online gambling, altough its not a good system as the banks have to carry the costs. So something different would need to be worked out.

And the links I have provided have several pages of reliable sources. Once again read them.

[jetset]

By referring perhaps insultingly to " pro online gambling "propaganda" I take it you are referring to any opinion that does not happen to coincide with your own view of the industry's prospects in America?

And where do you see in this discussion the prospect that a legalised American market would make it harder for the player to deposit? Quite the contrary, I would suggest.

A visit to a B&M may well be your personal solution, but I would suggest that one of the reasons for the success of the Internet gambling sector has been its convenience and accessibility for those that want to play - either on the move or from their own private locations. If you add US legitimacy and proper regulation to that it is a solid combination, imo.

The industry certainly provides a wider choice for the player in terms of where to play (careful dd assumed) and the games that are available.

I'm not personally as sanguine about the prospects of Barney Frank's bill being successful as some out there, but I hold the view that, if it were, it would definitely be a benefit to players and a major step forward for the industry in terms of improved professionalism and integrity.

[winbig]

And let's not forget that the UIGEA had a snowball's chance in hell of passing on its own; that's why it was attached at the last minute to the safe port act - a bill that HAD to be approved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE_Port_Act

he Act was passed at midnight on the day Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. Though a bill with the gambling wording was previously debated and passed by the House of Representatives,[4][5][6] the SAFE Port Act (H.R. 4954) as passed by the House on May 4th (by a vote of 421-2) and the United States Senate on September 14th (98-0),[7] bore no traces of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act that was included in the SAFE Port Act signed into law by George W. Bush on October 13th, 2006.[8] The UIGEA was added in Conference Report 109-711 (submitted at 9:29pm on September 29, 2006), which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 409-2 and by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, 2006. Due to H.RES.1064, the reading of this conference report was waived.

[spiderlegz]

By referring perhaps insultingly to " pro online gambling "propaganda" I take it you are referring to any opinion that does not happen to coincide with your own view of the industry's prospects in America?

And where do you see in this discussion the prospect that a legalised American market would make it harder for the player to deposit? Quite the contrary, I would suggest.

A visit to a B&M may well be your personal solution, but I would suggest that one of the reasons for the success of the Internet gambling sector has been its convenience and accessibility for those that want to play - either on the move or from their own private locations. If you add US legitimacy and proper regulation to that it is a solid combination, imo.

The industry certainly provides a wider choice for the player in terms of where to play (careful dd assumed) and the games that are available.

I'm not personally as sanguine about the prospects of Barney Frank's bill being successful as some out there, but I hold the view that, if it were, it would definitely be a benefit to players and a major step forward for the industry in terms of improved professionalism and integrity.

What I consider as "pro online gambling" propaganda are the falsariums that it would boost the economy, that the states would benefit from the tax revenue and that the regulation actually would work.

And by making it harder for the player to deposit was in reply to Winbig about me having the possibility to play where I want. Was meaning that if it would be harder for me to deposit (UIGEA style law in Finland) I would stop playing. Im quite indifferent in that case. Should have said it clearer.

Altough today I started to wonder that IF online gambling were to be regulated how would it be done? Like how to minimizie the negative externalities, how high the Pigouvian tax would be etc. But thats for another thread. And that could be hghly interesting.