- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Really great article, unfortunetly I think the writer’s take on this is right
Hi all,
what I’ve been saying all along. I see no UPSIDE to this and plenty of downside.
and we’re all falling all over ourselves to get the word out.
what happens if the “opt out” thing for tribal casinos takes effect?
wake up and read the whole thing!
bb,
Your preaching to the choir, read my post titled: Hmm… not sure about this one…
I read that letter … and either it’s been trimmed … or parahprased … or it’s been written by a 15 year old who’s pulling our leg.
(1) Registration and Fitness to Hold a License is a barrier to Entry ?
These requirements are actually pretty common in gambling jurisdictions overseas, and probably in US land based jurisdictions too?Given the vast potential profits – and the ease to which online software can be rigged to “cheat” I don’t REALLY see any alternative to a stringent check on potential applicants.
(2) The registration process will be rigged.
Seriously? That’s the thrust of this “Harvard Lawyers” argument?Well you can’t argue against that … unfair selection processes are obviously unfair by definition.
:dafingersBut what if we take that assumption away and say that there will be a reasonable approach?
I read this item and didn’t actually see a single piece of legal logic, case law or reasoned argument in it ?Oh — other than rum and cokes cost $15 in New York …
It’ll take a bit more discussion than this to get me thinking that Barney Frank is part of a super-scam.
:stirpot:Yea I have to agree with the writer it is just a way for the mega-giant corporations to get there teeth into online gambling and effectively knocking the competition right off the page. Just ask yourself how a small antiguan based casino is ever going to get a license when MGM is going to pay 20 million for a license. I am sure it will be illegal to gamble at any other gambling site that does not have a US gaming license as well. Then you get to the affiliate side and it looks about as bad, I am sure the corportations will also get together and agree on a set price price per player. Probably around $20 a player and no life long rev-share. With the limited amount of license’s this would be very easy to do. Just my 0.02 worth. Just corporate america screwing over the little guy again.
The saga continues though:
http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-0295.htmlActually,
Gooner there is alot of logic to it.
(2) The registration process will be rigged.
Seriously? That’s the thrust of this “Harvard Lawyers” argument?Really, in big cities ABC license are traded and scalpt to the highest bidder like sport cards. ABC only releases so many for any geographic region, if all the license are out then you are left having to buy one from an existing establishment. To the highest bidder. A very cut throat business.
This article sadly makes it a lot clearer:
http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-0283.html“What does this mean? It means that, if a state has a law prohibiting casino gambling at that state, online casinos cannot operate in that particular state, even with a license. And in the United States, there are only 11 states which have private casinos (except Indian tribal gambling, which is treated separately). So in the other 40 states, where casino gambling is illegal – online casinos cannot operate. And when those 11 states already have laws or are working on laws to explicitly prohibit online gambling – there are no states left where a licensee could operate – thus banning online gambling on a state level.”
It does allow hungry states to try to capture some tax dollars.
TheGooner wrote:It’ll take a bit more discussion than this to get me thinking that Barney Frank is part of a super-scam.He’s been part of a super-scam since he entered congress.
There’s nothing wrong with that lawyer’s point. True, it isn’t some brilliant legal masterpiece. Online gambling was doing fine without the US passing unneeded laws.
Gooner’s Favorite Lawyer at Gambling911 wrote:The UIGEA never made anything illegal that wasn’t illegal already. So the fact that he is claiming that his act will create an exemption to the ban on online gambling is patently false. There is no ban on online gambling. The UIGEA did NOT ban online gaming.Although, people keep calling it a “ban” and it might as well be one if people keep calling it that.
Frank is full of shit on several different levels.
There’s abolutely no reason for anyone to cheerlead this bill, unless you’re an indian gaming company rep. I have no idea what he’s telling the banking industry, but there is no repeal happening right now.
Barney Frank should be ingored by anyone who knows what the words “ban” or “repeal” mean.
TheGooner wrote:I read that letter … and either it’s been trimmed … or parahprased … or it’s been written by a 15 year old who’s pulling our leg.(1) Registration and Fitness to Hold a License is a barrier to Entry ?
These requirements are actually pretty common in gambling jurisdictions overseas, and probably in US land based jurisdictions too?Given the vast potential profits – and the ease to which online software can be rigged to “cheat” I don’t REALLY see any alternative to a stringent check on potential applicants.
(2) The registration process will be rigged.
Seriously? That’s the thrust of this “Harvard Lawyers” argument?Well you can’t argue against that … unfair selection processes are obviously unfair by definition.
:dafingersBut what if we take that assumption away and say that there will be a reasonable approach?
I read this item and didn’t actually see a single piece of legal logic, case law or reasoned argument in it ?Oh — other than rum and cokes cost $15 in New York …
It’ll take a bit more discussion than this to get me thinking that Barney Frank is part of a super-scam.
:stirpot:I Agree, doesn’t really sound like a lawyer as he does not back anything up with any arguments.
In my state for a variety store to get a lottery license the cost, if I remember correctly is $10k and that was some time ago. Might even be higher now.
How much is cab license? I hear it’s around a $100K?
Personally, I think this is all about banks not wanting to pay to implement the UIGEA processing blocks. Isn’t that 270 days almost up?
Did I. Nelson Rose ever comment on this?
Quote:Personally, I think this is all about banks not wanting to pay to implement the UIGEA processing blocks.I am with the banks and ISPs on this one. I dont want anymore implemented either.
The problem is no one is ever happy with any initiative thats put forward. There is always dissent and as a result I dont think anything will be done to combat UIGEA.
When only 100% percent solutions will do we end up with 0% getting done.
