- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@Goldfinger 185286 wrote:
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.
Can you provide some links relating to that please?
That has nothing to do with regulating online gambling. We need to let him know how we feel and not focus on any negative things.
All due respect, GamTrak, but you have obviously been drinking too much of Obama’s Kool-Aid. I am sure he will make a good president (or at least I hope), but legalizing online gambling should be at the very bottom of his agenda (or at least I hope).
Barney Frank is the man, even if it’s only to save the banks from dealing with more sh&t.
@Stupid 185307 wrote:
All due respect, GamTrak, but you have obviously been drinking too much of Obama’s Kool-Aid. I am sure he will make a good president (or at least I hope), but legalizing online gambling should be at the very bottom of his agenda (or at least I hope).
Barney Frank is the man, even if it’s only to save the banks from dealing with more sh&t.
Hey Stupid, I see you are living up to your name today and trying to get folks rilled up today with lame A$$ comments huh? LMAO
You DON’T tell me what to do, think or feel. Spend your time worrying about your business and don’t worry about what I’m doing because your opinion means nothing to me. Got it?
I don’t need to see your BS so find some other posts to derail. :flush:
@Stupid 185307 wrote:
Barney Frank is the man, even if it’s only to save the banks from dealing with more sh&t.
If you are stupid enough to think that he will get the industry regulated alone than you are drinking to much of our own kool-aide.
Obviously you don’t have a clue as to what is going on and I’m done wasting time on you, but you best leave me be and find something else to do.http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-02415.html
This article states that the regulated online gambling industry is going to be nailed by the UIEGA regulations because it is easier for the banks to try to wipe out everything opposed to try to single out illegal transactions.
Mark my word – that will NEVER happen.
I appreciate the incredible response rate that we have had in the past few days from those USA affiliates in need of new casinos to promote.banks to try to wipe out everything opposed to try to single out illegal transactions.
Yes wiping out legitimate transactions on a fishing exedition for Illegal ones is not good for customer retention. Banks need all the help they can right now, and losing customers by false identification is not in the mix.
Well, GameTrak, with language and attitude like this, I am surprised you are a moderator, but I guess this is the new line CAP is taking towards those who have been members of this forum for years.
Anyhow, this thread was about UIGEA regulations, not about Obama, and yet you have not stopped urging us to go an write to Obama and what-not-Obama. Obama is only a president-elect and can’t do jack until January at best, while Microgaming is leaving on Monday. Unless you have some real non-Obama suggestions on how UIGEA will affect us or we could overcome it – there is a subforum called “Politics” – go talk Obama over there.
I digress. Patricia, I am not sure if you agree or disagree with the article. Either way, here is some reading which shows the “legal” online gambling is a bit scared from the regulations (emphasis mine):
American Greyhound Track Operators Association:
Under Section 5(a) of the Proposed Regulation, participants in designated non-exempt payment systems (which includes financial transaction providers) can (l) simply rely on established written policies and procedures of the payment systems which are reasonably designed to identifY, block, and otherwise prevent restricted transactions; or (2) establish and comply with their own written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to accomplish the same thing. In other words, the Administration causes participants to create policies to block illegal transactions but does not encourage the financial institutions to additionally create policies to permit legal transactions, such as those in the pari-mutuel industry.
When presented with a choice of processing legal pari-mutuel transactions in the face of an ambiguous regulation, payment processors will, in all likelihood, avoid processing any transaction and could block legal transactions. During the comment period ofthe Proposed Regulations, many financial institutions noted that the over-blocking provisions would allow them to block all transactions regardless oftheir legality. For example, the Kansas Bankers Association stated that the over-blocking provisions permit “institutions to decide to completely avoid processing any gambling transactions and thereby avoid the potential liability presented by this proposal.”Full comments here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/1505/meetings/813-1.pdf
Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy (2007)
The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (Advocacy) submits this comment to the proposed rulemaking on the Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling. The Office of Advocacy believes that Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter “the agencies”) have not analyzed properly the full economic impact ofthe proposal on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Advocacy recommends that the agencies prepare a revised initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to address the concerns presented below.
Full letter here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/1505/meetings/813-4.pdf
The banks have also stated several times that even though the regs might tell them to distinguish between horse racing, lotteries, and illegal forms gambling, that they would not be able to and thus just ban any gambling transactions in order to not risk getting in trouble. Again, you have to understand, this will be federal law for the banks to follow, meaning if they let a transaction go through, even unintentionally, that is an illegal transaction they could actually be brought up on federal criminal charges. I doubt they would risk this in order to appease the horse racing industry.
Well, the banks actually still have the best hand (even though a sh&tty flop) – “As required by the Act, the proposed rule also exempts certain participants in designated payment systems from the requirements to establish such policies and procedures because the Agencies believe it is not reasonably practical for those participants to identifY and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit unlawful Internet gambling transactions restricted by the Act.”
So in reality, the banks will go in one of two ways:
a.) block all transaction seen as “online gambling”, which will ultimately hurt the horse and dog industries, since offshores like Bodog know very well how not to “appear gambling”.
b.) simply claim that idenitfying online gambling transactions is not reasonably practical and move on.
Either way, not much will change from the current conditions. Maybe the banks will give it a shot initially, which will result in point “a” above, but will eventually give up or be pressured by the horse and dog industries to stop over-blocking (which will lead to point b).
The U.S. Treasury is seeking final approval for an Internet gambling regulation that banks say is unworkable, prompting a Democratic lawmaker to question the possible role of a former National Football League lobbyist who now works at the White House.
Representative Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding today to detail what role Deputy Director of Public Liaison William Wichterman played in the Treasury Department’s decision to send the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final review on Oct. 20.
Cohen, in letter to Fielding, said he had been told that Wichterman “has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through.”
NO doubt various interests are present. This is something I also find iteresting, another comment submited to the Whitehouse OMB, this one by the Kansas Bankers Association:
Monitoring. We agree with the conclusion of the proposed rule that with regard to ACH systems, check collection systems, and wire tranfer systems, there is no capability to monitor payment patterns, unlike what might exist for other types of payment systems. It is clear from the proposal, that should technology develop that would allow such monitoring, the rule could be amended to reflect this.
I guess they have already raised the white flag on the ACH/Check/Wire, all it’s left I guess is credit cards and debit cards, for which online gambling websites use third party non-gambling processors, unlike horse and dog, who likely use in-house clearing systems.
Also:
List of Unlawful Internet Gambling Businesses. The proposal suggests that perhaps a list of businesses conducting unlawful intemet gambling could be maintained and that participants would then have an obligation to routinely check the list before opening an account. We believe that while having such a list would make compliance with this proposal much easier, we also believe that maintaining such a list so that the information was up-to-date and accurate would be impossible. There are mOre entities out there who would want to deceive the gatherer of that information than would gladly give accurate information. Maintaining its accuracy would be more than a full-time job with much time and many hours devoted to investigation of information.
Yeah, liek they are not cutting jobs already.
Although Kansas banks would love to get a hold of the money of the offshore gambling websites:The proposal requests comment on the appropriateness of the examples given of a participant’s responses upon learning that a customer is engaging in restricted transactions. We believe that the examples accomplish the stated goals and are appropriate responses to a discovery that a customer is engaging in restricted transactions. We would offer one additional suggestion, that financial institutions ‘be authorized to initiate a freeze of the funds in the account until processing for fines can be implemented.
Politically, I think this could work out well. The scenario could pan out thus:
Bush administration Treasury Dept pushes through the regs.
Banks scream “unworkable”
States with legal gambling scream “you’re killing us”
Obama administration takes over, anxious to set the country in a new direction, and hears the screaming
UIGEA gets on the fast track for review by a committee Barney Frank sits on:cappy:
Here is an article that talks about who’s behind the current move to get rules implemented.
A Tennessee Democrat is charging a top Bush adviser with exerting “considerable political pressure” to benefit one of his former lobbying clients.
Rep. Steve Cohen asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to investigate whether William Wichterman, a top political aide to the president, disclosed his “potential conflict of interest” in pushing the administration to enact new requirements to enforce an Internet gambling ban, according to a letter the congressman sent Friday.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15442.html
More about his former employer Convington and Burling, who lobbies for the NFL, Electronic Arts, Sony. I can see why video game makers want to keep online gaming out of the US market.
Plus i found this on their site:
Developed and implemented a brand protection and Internet enforcement strategy for a luxury casino hotel resort.
so they have casino client.
