- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Well that explains the MG decision. They must have gotten the heads up.
“The problem with the regulations as they will be written, is that banks will not take any chances on what is legal online betting or illegal online betting. That will leave many states that were in favor of these regulations in a sudden crisis,” said Tom Brelry, a prominent lawyer who has covered the UIGEA since its inception.
A state Brelry could have been referring to is Kentucky. They have recently succeeded in seizing the domain names of 141 online gambling site domain names. While the case is still in U.S. courts, Kentucky could be a big loser from the new regulations.
Banks have already spoke about the inability to decipher which is legal online gaming activity and which is not. Many of these banks have threatened that if any regulations are put in place, that they will stop transactions from all online gaming sites. That would include Kentucky’s horse racing industry, and many states’ legal lottery sales that are done online.
…
“If these regulations do get passed and are put in place, we are looking at a major financial crisis for banks and individual states. With the economy already in shambles and so many states relying on gambling revenue from state lotteries, this would be catastrophic for the United States,” said Brelry.
Catastrophe is what the Bush Administration has been about for seven years and ten months. At this late stage in the game, there is no reason to believe that in the last two months anything would change, but Brelry summed up the thoughts of many Americans when he said…
“No matter what comes of these online gaming regulations in the final months of President Bush’s term, it will only amount to one more mess for the next administration to clean up.”
On the 2+2 forums they were talking about how their were clandestine meetings on Oct. 29 and Nov. 5 between the committee and several concerned parties. They considered documents from the horse racing industry, as well as from banks, as well from comments from when the regs were proposed last year and left open for comments.
They believe all that to be a good sign because the people in the meeting were from the Interactive Gaming Council and some poker advocate, however, because of Papas’ angry reaction they believe it to be a bad sign. We shall see…
It’s almost as if the current US government refuses to allow its citizens to be happy. So much for the joy of an Obama victory.
I’m not sure what deserves a bigger celebration…. Obama winning, or Bush leaving. I’m sure that Obama will set things right once he gets around to dealing with the online gambling issue.
No worries. They have been finialized for awhile. Implementing them is the problem. They have been trying for the last 2 years with semi-success. They realize they cannot stop the transactions, all they can really do is try to harass books and processors. With a change of admin the DOJ priorites will alter as well.
The banks are not willing or able to determine the difference between a legal online gambling transaction and illegal one. A legal one would be related to horse racing, Kentucky, or anything else covered by the carve outs. They won’t go far with these new regulations unless they are providing the ability to make this distinction. My guess – and this is only based on the information available – is that the administration would not be doing this to just waste their time. Perhaps some states will be willing to totally block the transactions, while some won’t block them at all.
This is trully some funny sh*t. I’ve been reading all morning (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/) and the way I see it – those regulation stand to hurt legal online gambling and gaming big time, while present hardly a problem for the rest of internet gambling. Most internet gambling websites don’t use processors which identifies them as “internet gambling” anyway.
Whoever is left to service the US market will make enourmous profits.
I don’t know that there is a blacklist of processors already, but if not, that’s all that is likely to be enforceable. So it will continue to be a cat and mouse game, with the government expanding the blacklist, while new proccessors are establish to keep the game going.
it will likely make it harder for operators to make money because of the processing. How much worse is the question.
@Luigi 185196 wrote:
It’s almost as if the current US government refuses to allow its citizens to be happy. So much for the joy of an Obama victory.
Let’s not bash President Elect Obama or his victory ok? We are going to need his help so not since keeping bad vibes going now that the election is over. Remember he does not take office until January.
Check out this site and voice your opinion. http://change.gov/
@GamTrak 185251 wrote:
Let’s not bash President Elect Obama or his victory ok? We are going to need his help so not since keeping bad vibes going now that the election is over. Remember he does not take office until January.
Check out this site and voice your opinion. http://change.gov/
Not bashing him at all. Wishing he would be president now. Was trying to say we are all excited about his win, but the Bush admin still won’t let us be happy, even for a day. He will make us miserable right up until the day he leaves office. It’s as if his administration only wants to make people miserable.
@Luigi 185266 wrote:
Not bashing him at all. Wishing he would be president now. Was trying to say we are all excited about his win, but the Bush admin still won’t let us be happy, even for a day. He will make us miserable right up until the day he leaves office. It’s as if his administration only wants to make people miserable.
I’m sorry.
I thought I read this elsewhere but I can’t find where it was written, but on Obama’s site he states clearly that he will protect Internet freedom…
Listing goals, the site says, “Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”
Quote taken from this article.
Yes but…. he seems to be making a huge deal about being this wholesome family man (puppies and all) so a decision to legalise the big “family destruction machine” would probably run counter to this image. However I’m not ruling anything out at this stage. At the end of the day I think he is a pragmatist and anything is possible.
Well this statement would mean he wouldn’t legalize it or regulate, but rather keep it open.
