[Bill Dozer]

I remember when PayPal and credit cards were eliminated and many forecasted it as the beginning of the end. For BMs who gave up on credit cards, it was only the end of chargebacks and credit card fraud. Paypal hurt but being US-based, it was never a long-term solution.

Now people are worried about Neteller and the Neteller wannabes. Besides being molded for gaming, does Neteller really differ that much from an offshore bank? My taxes say it doesn't.

Is this bill going to prohibit transfers and EFTs to offshore banks? How could this stop the eCheck? Are they going to block IPs? Will all banks in Antigua be outlawed?

The bill failing to pass has to be the favorite here. There isn't much that would surprise me these days but there are too many constitutional infringements. Censoring us from even seeing these sites or transferring funds to third parties is extreme even for this batch of Republicans.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

The bill failing to pass has to be the favorite here. There isn't much that would surprise me these days but there are too many constitutional infringements.

Unfortunately, you may not get much of a groundswell of objection to these infringements. Americans especially tend to protect only that which they, themselves, do. And since general consensus is that gambling is evil (although no one seems to be sure why), many will be apathetic towards infringement upon individual rights.


Consider smoking. Everyone's convinced smoking's bad for you (not that I dispute that point), but no one seems at all disturbed that smokers are treated like lepers and the unwashed. If they were forced to live in caves and disenfranchised, I sometimes doubt I'd hear a peep from non-smokers.


I fear that the same apathy will allow this to pass.

[Bill Dozer]

Once you start regulating the internet for preemptive purposes you open up a whole new can of worms. I can see them taking away tools like Neteller which can be identified as facilitating gambling only, but the current language allows for so much more. I just can't see it happening.

[Winston Smith]

The Internet represents the sphere where Congress' regulatory influence is weakest. That, I feel, is a point of much resentment on Capitol Hill and motivation enough to overstep legal bounds.

[tacomax]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

Goodlatte Bill: Why is this different than past speed bumps?

1) When previous Goodlatte legislation was put forward a couple of years ago, it required support of two thirds of the House of Representatives. It ended up receiving about 60%. 60% isn't that far off 66%

2) It is widely thought that the lobbying from Jack Abramoff was a large factor in the billing failing to pass last time. His effectiveness could be somewhat reduced after he recently pleaded guilty to three felonies in a fraud and bribery case.

[SBR_John]

The main thing here is the proposal to have ISP's block sportsbook websites.

That was never on the table. I see that headed for a very long court battle and probably to the US Supreme Court.

[JC]

Fresh UPI article

http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?...0-113142-1864r

[bigboydan]

Online gambling ban reintroduced
By STOKELY BAKSH
UPI Technology Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- A bill reintroduced in Congress that would crack down on illegal, offshore gambling or interstate gambling via phone or Internet technologies is expected to pick up momentum, now that a 115 members from the U.S. House of Representatives are standing behind it.

But those in the online gambling industry say Congress is too quick to prohibit the activity.

Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., reintroduced the 2000 bill, after they said it was "derailed" by efforts made by now infamous Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who led a campaign of misinformation and lacked the two-thirds required for passage under suspension of the rules.

According to the two congressmen, online gambling sucks billion of dollars per year out of the U.S. economy, serves as a vehicle for money laundering, undermines families, and threatens the effectiveness of states' enacting or enforcing laws, they said last week.

"The explosive growth of the Internet has provided a means for gambling operations to evade existing anti-gambling laws," Boucher stated. "These Internet gambling Web sites typically operate offshore and often serve as a prime vehicle for money laundering and other criminal enterprises. Our bill sensibly updates federal law to keep pace with new technologies by bringing the Internet within the fold of the anti-gambling restrictions that govern telephones."

Goodlatte added that the activity has flourished into a $12 billion industry, and called for measures to curb it.

If approved, the lnternet Gambling Prohibition Act would amend the federal 1961 Wire Act by prohibiting all forms of interstate gambling and Internet technologies used in the activity.

In addition, it would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting payments such as credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers, in illegal gambling transactions as well as giving law enforcement injunction authority to uphold the act.

It also increases the maximum prison term for a violation of this act from two years to five years.

But such prohibition campaigns made by the United States to ban Internet gambling has put U.S. lawmakers in the hot seat with the World Trade Organization, who ruled in 2005 that the United States had until April 3, 2006 to bring its laws into compliance with its decision. The decision ruled in favor of a complaint filed by the Caribbean nation Antigua and Barbuda who claimed that United States' aggressive efforts unfairly discriminated against online gambling companies especially a small island nation such as theirs.

And with the reintroduction of this bill has fueled renewed protests from the Caribbean nation, who say it goes against the WTO decision.

Yet, lawmakers may want to rethink their prohibition strategy, as the number of American participants who gamble online continues to grow, thanks to the Internet and evolving gambling software.

Online gambling revenue is projected to triple by 2009 with $16.929 billion up from an estimated $5.691 billion in 2003, according to research from Christiansen Capital Advisors.

It reported that more than 2,000 gambling Web sites would make nearly $10 billion in revenue in 2005, up by 40 percent in 2004.

CCA also estimated of the nearly 12 million people who gambled on the Internet in 2003, approximately 4.5 million of those gamblers were from the United States.

And gambling sectors within the industry are continuing to boom especially in the United Kingdom, which are enticing more U.S. companies to go online to keep revenue at home.

For instance, according to the November 2005 eGaming Review, online poker would grow by 149 percent this year and taken in U.S. $3.5 billion in revenues said investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.

But many in the U.S. online gambling industry are calling Congress too quick to jump on the prohibition bandwagon, saying they run legitimate businesses.

According to John Derossett, CEO of Maryland-based Gambling Portal Webmasters Association, he says those in the industry welcome regulations -- not illegalization.

The GPWA represents some 3,000 registered users, mostly webmasters, who sell advertisements for online gambling companies.

"These are legitimate businesses I conduct business with," Derossett said. "I don't know of anyone who belongs to Al-Qaeda and it doesn't hurt the economy. People like myself are registered corporations by a state and who pay taxes. We want to work with the U.S. in taxing us, rather than throwing a lot of businesses out of business."

And taxing would be the most intelligent way to acknowledge Americans who want to gamble, says David Schwartz, author of "Uneasy Convictions: The American Pursuit of Gaming and the Wire Act" and director of Gaming Studies Research Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

According Schwartz, banning online gambling would be a difficult task for lawmakers especially since their jurisdiction does not extend to off shore companies since those companies pay taxes, licensee fees, and adhere to regulations in their homebased countries. Past bills have suggested preventing access to such sites or blocking financial payments.

Moreover, he says the biggest reason such legislation is ineffective is simply due to institutional inertia.

"In 1909, lawmakers were debating banning online gambling, and it was finally made into law in 1961," he said. "The U.S. Congress in the past has not been the body that can regulate gambling and evolving technology."

Instead, Scwhartz notes the federal government should take steps to develop a system of taxing, work with states regulating such companies, and let such companies expand operations online. The industry is bringing a revenue that most states won't pass up even if it just took 1 percent in taxes, he says.

And indeed states' regulators are the answer, believes Frank Cantania, an attorney at Catania Consulting Group, Inc.

Cantania is the former chairman of the International Association of Gaming Regulators and former director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.

"Our land-based state regulators are the best in the world," Cantania said. "They easily could regulate the online gambling industry since they already protect against compulsive gamblers, the underage player, and at the same time, collect revenue for the state."

Moreover, while those in the industry say the bill is in the right direction trying to clarify illegal and legal gambling, prohibition is not the answer. Moreover, it carves out certain sectors including state horse racing, Native Americans, and fantasy sports. In fact, past legislations have carved out these sectors in the past.

Cantania also sees that online poker could be excluded since it would not be considered "predominantly subject to chance."

"This legislation is the wrong approach," Cantania said. "Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol, and it won't work now. This bill is not going to stop Internet gambling or its licensing in other jurisdictions -- there is just no way you can put a border around the U.S. when it comes to the Internet."

[Chuck Sims]

"2) It is widely thought that the lobbying from Jack Abramoff was a large factor in the billing failing to pass last time. His effectiveness could be somewhat reduced after he recently pleaded guilty to three felonies in a fraud and bribery case.

Total bull by the Goodlatte people. The bill failed because many people in congress do have a problem with taking away people's rights. Sen. Frank said he had a problem with last years watered down Kyl bill. No way they pass a law blocking the gambling websites IP. You can take that to the bank.

[isetcap]

Take this to the bank...The authors and "supporters" of this bill know that there is not a snowball's chance in hell it will be passed. The language they have used in it's formulation exposes it as pulpit material and nothing more. It's so blatantly overreaching that it could be debated in Congress for the next 10 years. All they want to use this for is to be able to go back to their constituents and say they "tried".

[pags11]

Bill is right...the industry will still move forward...too many guys like us that like to cap games and have fun...

[Willie Bee]

"In 1909, lawmakers were debating banning online gambling, and it was finally made into law in 1961," (David Schwartz) said. "The U.S. Congress in the past has not been the body that can regulate gambling and evolving technology."

Found this quote to be interesting, and couldn't help but chuckle at the phrase institutional inertia.

I have been trying to read up on this in the past week or so, and trying to bet on what Congress may or may not do is always a daunting task for the common, everyday American who thinks rationally and has to weigh right/wrong between legal/illegal. I think you could get a fairer and more reasonable shake betting on Tulane basketball games in 1985 than you can betting on which way Congress will juke-&-jive these days. But, I digress.

My rep in DC is Lamar Smith (TX, Dist 21), and he chairs the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (IP Subcommittee for short). As I've done with all of my representatives on every level since reaching voting age 30-odd years ago, I've corresponded with Mr. Smith since moving into this district four years back. He has yet to give me an answer on just where he stands regarding the Goodlatte Bill; if and when he does, I'll post his thoughts/opinions here.

Personally, I just can't see how federal, state and local officials can pass up on the revenue that taxing online gambling could generate. Well, I couldn't have seen it a decade ago before the latest wave of Puritanism got a full head of steam and started to spread like a wildfire running roughshod over a dry Texas cedar. Gambling isn't a threat to "the effectiveness of states' enacting or enforcing laws," and it's not going to "(undermine) families" any more than liquor and cheating spouses (*cough-VP Cheney-cough*). Perhaps I'm thinking too logically and rationally, and lord knows that will never fly in Congress.

[tink]

Gambling Law Likely Doomed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Red Herring.com.
Feb 21, 2006, 14:15

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Exemptions and infighting will kill online gambling bill or give it little impact if it survives, an expert says.

Despite the support of 115 members of Congress and an array of anti-gambling, religious, and conservative groups, the recently proposed U.S. federal law outlawing online gambling could go down in flames, said a gambling industry researcher.

Even if the law passes, it may have little effect on the current state of online gambling in the United States, said Christopher Costigan, president of Gambling911.com, a gambling entertainment and information web site.

“This law has been kicking around for years,” he said. “This law makes it more difficult for banks to accept credit cards for online gambling purposes, but the Patriot Act has already done that. The online gambling firms are using overseas banks for these purposes.”

Mr. Costigan doubts the legislation will be passed. He believes that the supporters of the bill, not its opponents, will cause the defeat of the proposed legislation.

He said that organizations such as the Christian Coalition, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, and the Family Research Council, which have come out in support of the legislation, will eventually torpedo the bill.

“Every time they have tried to pass this bill, the religious groups have ended up opposing the bills because of all the exemptions the bill picks up along the way,” said Mr. Costigan. “The horse trading happens, different groups such as Native American casinos get exemptions, and the religious groups drop their support of the bill.”

Gambling’s Legal Void

Online gambling legislation has been defeated about four times over the past decade and as recently as 2002. As a result, online gambling in the U.S. has occupied a strange legal void.

Current federal law does not address online gambling. State law, which has severely limited jurisdiction over the global Internet, has been inadequate for the most part.

The Internet Gambling Act, introduced on Thursday by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) and Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), targets the financial settlement part of wagering transactions by prohibiting gambling enterprises from accepting certain forms of payment, including credit cards, checks, and wire and Internet transfers, to satisfy gambling debts (see Feds Bust Net Bets).

The bill increases the penalty for violation of the law from two to five years. It also broadens the definition of gambling to include new gambling material such as fantasy sports leagues.

“Most U.S. banks won’t touch online gambling settlements as it is,” said Mr. Costigan. “They use Neteller, a publicly traded clearing house that focuses on online gambling.”

Neteller is an online funds transfer service based in Douglas, Isle of Man. The company claims a user base of 2.3 million people who posted $3.4 billion in transactions in 2004. More than 1,700 online merchants accept payments through Neteller’s system.

“Even if this bill, against all odds, happens to pass, it will not kill the industry,” said Mr. Costigan. “State bans on advertising have had some effect on the marketing side. But there is always some media that are willing to take ads.”

There has been at least one challenge of U.S. law banning the advertising of online gambling. Casino City, a gambling information web site based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Justice in U.S. District Court seeking a declaratory judgment. The company filed the suit on free speech grounds.

This article is a reprint. To see the original article, Click Here.




Copyright 2006 OSGA, LLC

[pags11]

this bill is really getting on my nerves...