- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Opponents of a federal ban on Internet gambling said during a congressional hearing Friday that it would be wiser to legalize and regulate betting than prohibit it.
“In the end, adults ought to be able to decide for themselves how they spend the money they earn themselves,” said Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services committee and primary backer of the legalization effort.
Friday’s hearing included witnesses from companies that process online payments. In general, they echoed the arguments once used in favor of ending alcohol prohibition and that are now being invoked to decriminalize marijuana: It’s better to legalize, tax and carefully regulate an industry than let it flourish with far less oversight in the black market.
Some countries already do just that. In the United Kingdom, for instance, Internet gambling is legal and strictly regulated. Some of the larger online casino operators are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange.
“On the basis of my experience I can unequivocally state that Internet gambling can be regulated, and that abuses can be effectively regulated and controlled,” said Jon Prideaux, a consultant who until last year was the head of Visa Europe’s Internet arm.
A law that President Bush signed last year tried to eliminate many forms of online gambling by targeting Internet service providers and financial intermediaries, namely banks and credit card companies that process payments to offshore Web sites. The bill never received a formal vote in the entire Congress but instead was glued onto an unrelated port security bill that the Senate unanimously approved.
Now the pro-legalization forces are trying to marshal a counterattack. Frank introduced a bill in April that would replace the current broad prohibition with strict regulations–including criminal background checks and financial disclosure–imposed on companies that offer legal Internet gambling. (It’s called the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act.)
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a 2008 Republican presidential contender who topped CNET News.com’s technology scorecard last year, said adults should be allowed to make up their own minds about whether to gamble. He said he was a strong supporter of Frank’s bill “to restore the rights of Americans to decide for themselves whether to gamble online.”
Now on News.com
It’s not TV–or HBO. It’s the Internet Photos: The greatest arcade games of the ’80s Week in review: Cell phone hang-up Extra: A dogged Web mag pioneerGerald Kitchen, the chief executive of U.K.-based SecureTrading Group, said his company is a payment service provider that processes a wide variety of financial transactions, including ones related to online gambling. He said SecureTrading’s system has been reviewed by banks including Barclays, Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland, and provides protections against money laundering, underage gambling and compulsive gambling.
“There are ways to protect against these exact harms and ills that the opponents of Internet gambling regularly cite as reasons to prohibit Internet gambling,” Kitchen said.
But it’s too early to say whether the bill will receive a favorable committee vote. For one thing, the top Republican on the panel, Rep. Spencer Bachus from Alabama, offered an impassioned defense of criminalization.
“Some people claim that illegal Internet gambling’s a victimless crime,” Bachus said. In reality, he warned, it’s a “mushrooming epidemic leaving in its wake suicides, crime, family tragedies.”
Don’t get your hopes up.
I’ve got three words for you:
Presidential Election Season
That’s all you need to know.
:happydanc
Keep doing my homework hard to avoid losing any chance when the door open to me again.
Careful what you wish for. I still say if approved in its entirity (which is doubtful) it will spell the end of the affiliate.
Presidential Election Season
I doubt this is the issue (Online Gaming, Legal or Not) which will make or break anyone running for anything.
It’s hard for us to get any info on this and we’re looking news.
This (Online Gaming, Legal or Not) is not what’s on the average voters mind.
Regulation I fear will only allow x number of programs and casino groups back into the market – not everyone. Just give enough to the industry to keep it happy, and keep a tight leash on it. Doing this allows the US to control the companies operating in its market tightly.
Taxation laws need to be revisited, when it comes to allowing all casinos and programs to operate in a regulated gaming market in the US – something that I am sure will be avoided by the govt.
:hattip:
john1124 wrote:Careful what you wish for. I still say if approved in its entirity (which is doubtful) it will spell the end of the affiliate.Nothing will spell the end of the affiliate.
Virtually every industry sector online uses affiliates. We are the bill boards of the internet, and that is not going to change.
The bigger the internet gets, the more billboards will be needed.
I thought at first it would be the end of the affiliates as well but since have changed my mind, they will need us to reach the players still for them.
Nothing will spell the end of the affiliate.
Virtually every industry sector online uses affiliates. We are the bill boards of the internet, and that is not going to change.
The bigger the internet gets, the more billboards will be needed.
That may be true. But you have to look who and why they use affiliates. A, They dont have access to the mass media. B, if they do they cannot afford to use it.
If this law is passed they will have access to that medium and we all know the books can afford it.
I dont see American properties wanting to pay for any affilates at all. For those who think the Government will release unlimited license you are mistaken. It will mostly go to US companies and a few of the top offshore entities.
With that said it dont look all gloom and doom at this juncture. I am a little encouraged to see Barney send the bill to the shelf at this time. I personally, feel it might have something to do with the pending stay on the UIGEA in NJ District court. It’s probably no coincidence Barney decided to shelf HR 2046 after the complaint was officially filed. As well, according the UFC911, although; IMEGA tried to keep the intent to have a judicial challenge against UIGEA secret a few of the DOJ heads may have learned about it up to 2 months ago. Which would explain why Whiley Kyl asked embattled Gonzales about it in the Congressional deposition about the firings of the US Atty’s. It at least means he is concerned about this pending litigation, which is good for us. Why? Maybe cause he knows it has some teeth, B; maybe cause he knows of the banks already have the filters in place by the time the lawsuit comes around, they are not likely to remove said filters to their ACH system even if there is a stay on the UIGEA.
@john1124] I am a little encouraged to see Barney send the bill to the shelf at this time. I personally, feel it might have something to do with the pending stay on the UIGEA in NJ District court. It’s probably no coincidence Barney decided to shelf HR 2046 after the complaint was officially filed. As well, according the UFC911, although IMEGA tried to keep the intent to have a judicial challenge against UIGEA a few of the DOJ heads may have learned about it up to 2 months ago. Which would explain why Whiley Kyl asked embattled Gonzales about it in the Congressional deposition about the firings of the US Atty’s. It at least means he is concerned about this pending litigation, which is good for us. Why? Maybe cause he knows it has some teeth, B; maybe cause he knows of the banks already have the filters in place by the time the lawsuit comes around, they are not likely to remove said filters to their ACH system even if there is a stay on the UIGEA.[/QUOTE wrote:
I agree with this part, but the rest we can agree to disagree on.
Only time will tell, but a large business not using every conceivable advertising venue is a stupid business.
I really don’t think casinos are stupid.
What you are seeing in Britain for instance is that the places with B&M casinos that have been online for a while are suddenly coming to all the aff conferences and trying to recruit affiliates. Up to now they considered themselves as not needing us.
They have all the advertising venues available, too.
Affiliates are simply too convenient – they don’t perform, you just don’t pay them. No risk taken. Other types of advertising have to be paid regardless of results.
Any business not taking advantage of that is not being run efficiently.
I have always been against Barney Frank’s way of regulating the industry.
If the US casinos are allowed to go online (forget about the offshores, no one will let them in, except maybe a few of the publicly traded) there will be some affiliate business. But if you think Bodog is hard to sign up under, wait till you see the MGM’s requirements.
One thing that comes to my mind which will stop 99% of the affiliates to advertise legal online casinos are the affiliates themselves. Imagine that MGMOnlineCasino.com lets you sign up under them and an underage gambler visits the casino through your banner. Considering this is America, the parents will sue the casino and the affiliate. Then the casino will sue the affiliate for “advertsing to minors”, criminal charges may be brought against the affiliate for promoting gambling to minors etc.
There is no good way to prevent an MGM ad to be displayed on anything but quality websites except by having crazy sign up conditions. Most likely MGM would rather pay for banner display on high traffic adult oriented websites, such as bullzeye.com, than to sign up small affiliates which could do a lot of harm and bring a bag full of lawsuits.
I think if this happens, we would just continue to advertise the “illegal casinos” as we are currently doing – so no change by Frank’s bill…
Imagine that MGMOnlineCasino.com lets you sign up under them and an underage gambler visits the casino through your banner. Considering this is America, the parents will sue the casino and the affiliate. Then the casino will sue the affiliate for “advertsing to minors”, criminal charges may be brought against the affiliate for promoting gambling to minors etc.
While I agree regulation will probably bring some unforseen obstacles, I don’t think this will be one of them. It will be the casinos responsibility to apply safeguards against minors. There is technology available. I don’t think there will be regulation without that. Especially with Rev Hogans son in the limelight. It is one of the keypoints in discussions with the powers that be.
Well, most of the obstacles are quite “forseen”.
Comparing U.K. (where you can bet on any sport any 5 feet) with USA (where you have to go to only one point in the country) is a big mistake. Even so, I have had awful experience with B&M gambling websites from the U.K.
The only good website with vast offline presence is WillHill, but they offer 20 local bucks per qualified sign up. I’ll be damned if I advertise MGM for $20 per player – compared to the $300 pre-UIGEA CPA from the offshores – it would be ridiculous.
And I strongly disagree with this:
Only time will tell, but a large business not using every conceivable advertising venue is a stupid business.
You can visit YouBet, the most popular legal online horse betting website, and look for an affiliate program, but you will not find it. And even their “refer a friend” program has a pretty lenghty small print.
True, Ladbrokes and Virgin and other big British names also had practically non-existant aff programs. They are now attending all the aff conferences and soliciting actively. Why should they do that if they didn’t see the aff solution as beneficial? They can plaster their ads in front of their target audience anytime they please.
Vegas casinos have also started to solicit affiliates.
No point discussing it, it’s all speculation. We will see what actually happens soon enough.
Well, one would think that discussing things would be the main purpose of a forum. It needs to be discussed because most of the affiliates are unable to make an informed decision on such a hot topic unless heavily argued on all angles of the issue.
But it’s 99% sure that 99% of the affiliates will either continue to advertise illegal offshore casinos or be completely wiped out if the legal online casinos find a way to stop the offshores.
There are many examples that the affiliate model as we know it today will not be addopted by future US casinos gone online. Yahoo Poker is a recent one. Las Vegas Sands and Harrah’s Entertainment U.K. facing online casinos did not have affiliate programs either. Many legal online horse betting websites do not use affiliates.
And the U.K. online gambling companies which visit the affiliate conventions are exactly online gambling, except Ladbrokes, but their affiliate customer service makes me sick even mentioning them.
If pure online gambling websites are allowed to legally operate in the USA, then there is a chance for affiliates making money. But the most likely outcome of legislation is that only land-based casinos will be let in. And in that case there are way too many examaples that the affiliates will not be invited to the party…
