Come on, they can't block all the sites, what are you kidding? Show some brains! Books sites are all based offshore, they would have to close down a server offshore. Not likely at all. If they try to just block ISPs from connecting then every judge in the world will laugh at them. After all having a betting website isn't illegal, its the part where a bettor and the book make the terms of the wager and accept them.
I was betting with my local out 5 years ago when I discovered on-line gambling. I'm sure I have his number here somewhere, if it comes to that.
i doubt that congress can pass a law that will restrict the sites that i go to as an american. there would be fairly strong opposition to that. this isnt kiddie porn. even if the folks in dc were able to block sites, i bet books/casinos would offer software that gamblers could load onto their pc and connect directly to the book (similar to poker rooms). i'll let the tech geeks let me know if an isp could prevent that if required by law.
the key here is that the us gov't cannot control foreign corporations. therefore the books are safe. it's the money transfer mechanisms that could suffer. a company like neteller stepped up huge when paypal stopped doing gambling business. the us govt cannot control them. if neteller started making our lives difficult by limiting transfers to gambling sites, my guess is that the company would be out of business in 6 months. with that said, the us gov't can control the banking industry here and i bet its a matter of time before my bank will stop taking efts from neteller. here's an indication...YOU CAN NO LONGER DEPOSIT DIRECTLY TO NETELLER VIA CITIBANK. i wonder why. if neteller ended the relationship with citibank then great but why would they do that given that citibank is one of the world's largest financial institutions with branches worldwide.
he's my guess on what will happen over the next 24 months as it relatesto internet gambling. a law (or laws) will be passed that will make our lives difficult. we'll still have the ability to gamble offshore but getting money into and out of these locations will take lots of time, be expensive, and potentially less secure. gambling is a hobby for me. if i did this professionally whether as a player or book, i would be concerned. for the players, you will have to win more to cover the additional expenses associated with transferring money. for the books, your business will be less profitable since the gov't will make it very difficult for squares to give you $$$. do not overestimate the additional expense/effort associated with setting up offshore bank accounts and the fees they charge for withdrawals.
for the casual gambler, it just won't be worth it.
the key here is that the us gov't cannot control foreign corporations. therefore the books are safe. it's the money transfer mechanisms that could suffer. a company like neteller stepped up huge when paypal stopped doing gambling business. the us govt cannot control them. if neteller started making our lives difficult by limiting transfers to gambling sites, my guess is that the company would be out of business in 6 months. with that said, the us gov't can control the banking industry here and i bet its a matter of time before my bank will stop taking efts from neteller. here's an indication...YOU CAN NO LONGER DEPOSIT DIRECTLY TO NETELLER VIA CITIBANK. i wonder why. if neteller ended the relationship with citibank then great but why would they do that given that citibank is one of the world's largest financial institutions with branches worldwide.
he's my guess on what will happen over the next 24 months as it relatesto internet gambling. a law (or laws) will be passed that will make our lives difficult. we'll still have the ability to gamble offshore but getting money into and out of these locations will take lots of time, be expensive, and potentially less secure. gambling is a hobby for me. if i did this professionally whether as a player or book, i would be concerned. for the players, you will have to win more to cover the additional expenses associated with transferring money. for the books, your business will be less profitable since the gov't will make it very difficult for squares to give you $$$. do not overestimate the additional expense/effort associated with setting up offshore bank accounts and the fees they charge for withdrawals.
for the casual gambler, it just won't be worth it.
People that believe the hype are fooling themselves. They can't do much to slow down the money beyond what they have already done. The low-hanging fruit is the impulse buyer wanting to use his card to get in action. That is gone. The average square wanting some online video poker action isn't going to get involved in getting Neteller up and running. Those people are already in trouble, but for those that are sports bettors the trouble of setting these things up is little. You can do it during the week before a game and then you see it as a long-term thing anyways, lots of two-way transfers is your original thought.
Silliest thing in all this is the endless fight against sports betting, yet many states are looking at slots and video poker as their financial savers. Could it be more messed up than that? Of all the compulsives out there, about half got there with video poker and a good percentage of them got there with slots. Sports betting has gotten close to no one into the state of being an addict. The action is far too slow, the business is smart in limiting what someone can get in for before cutting them off, and most of all the mindset just isn't the same as the action type player just is turned off by sports. Yet we have legislators picking and choosing whats good and whats bad with no clue of anything. That is the silliest part, and yet in the future it could be the saving part for bettors. A few legal experts have said that court challenges are usually not levied because gambling is a business that is basically made legal as it goes along, not something where its done legally or even semi-legally, then outlawed. In the original case you have no good business interests fighting your fight or with the resources to fight a ban in court. The second case though is quite different and there are actually quite a few winning cases out there where a court basically tells a state you can't just go and pick and choose what businesses to legalize and which to put out of business. There has to be a good public-cause reason and most attorneys right now are quite sure that courts wouldn't call these silly arguments by Leach and others as legitimate public causes. Even more so when its clear its a foreign business that they are targeting, while protecting local businesses, especially the states. Keep putting your own thoughts behind it and you can see hundreds of potential lawsuits and a wide-variety of choices for them.
What this site seems to have is a lot of knee-jerk reactions. What you have read so far is very preliminary committee hearings, indeed that is about all there has been for years. A regular vote on the floor is a rare event these days, most of the time they get snuck in with a no-debate version hoping just to fool the members into voting for something on its name and its high and mighty statements. Real debate by potential opponents is squelched in committee hearings and the other side of view rarely comes up. That is why it can seem so one-sided right now. These guys aren't dummies, they pick their spots and committees and shove things through hoping to get through as unscathed as possible. However, the higher up it gets, the other side starts getting its shots in. This is the level where things will suddenly sound a lot less sure. These next steps will start having to address Conyers proposal and they will have to start facing the groups who oppose the bill for such radical reasons. Some take what you might call the "NCAA approach" but saying any kind of sanctioning, whether its really significant or not of gambling is terrible and so don't pass this because it will legitimize a lot of legal gaming already out there. Another group will take the sides of the anti-regulating crowd that will not like the big brother attitude taken against a subject that hasn't even been proven to be much of a menace to anyone outside of their carefully picked handful of cases. Some studies have been done and found that maybe 1,000 people have had verified compulsions to online gaming for the whole country. Is this really a crisis? Something that needs to be banned at the cost of millions in terms of enforcement and hinderance to legitimate business? That argument is likely to come up. The last one is the simple one, and one that is coming up more than it used to and that is why are we wasting time getting into gambling when its a personal choice, one that can be done in countless places these days. Why must Congress act on every possible issue when there are plenty of more pressing ones out there. If that all fails then the ISP backers and the banking backers will get their word in too.
Simply put don't just accept the very limited news out there because there is a lot more going on than any of you all seem to know. There is plenty of defense and lots of ways this can be defeated. Right now its getting its free pass because almost all bills that are reasonable get this far. Further the opponents are saving their bullets for later, the only reason you fight a battle at this point of the game is because you have a lot of firepower. They don't have tons of it, so better to keep it for when it can all come out at once and really shape what happens to this. Just be patient, you will see roadblocks coming up in the future to derail this.
Silliest thing in all this is the endless fight against sports betting, yet many states are looking at slots and video poker as their financial savers. Could it be more messed up than that? Of all the compulsives out there, about half got there with video poker and a good percentage of them got there with slots. Sports betting has gotten close to no one into the state of being an addict. The action is far too slow, the business is smart in limiting what someone can get in for before cutting them off, and most of all the mindset just isn't the same as the action type player just is turned off by sports. Yet we have legislators picking and choosing whats good and whats bad with no clue of anything. That is the silliest part, and yet in the future it could be the saving part for bettors. A few legal experts have said that court challenges are usually not levied because gambling is a business that is basically made legal as it goes along, not something where its done legally or even semi-legally, then outlawed. In the original case you have no good business interests fighting your fight or with the resources to fight a ban in court. The second case though is quite different and there are actually quite a few winning cases out there where a court basically tells a state you can't just go and pick and choose what businesses to legalize and which to put out of business. There has to be a good public-cause reason and most attorneys right now are quite sure that courts wouldn't call these silly arguments by Leach and others as legitimate public causes. Even more so when its clear its a foreign business that they are targeting, while protecting local businesses, especially the states. Keep putting your own thoughts behind it and you can see hundreds of potential lawsuits and a wide-variety of choices for them.
What this site seems to have is a lot of knee-jerk reactions. What you have read so far is very preliminary committee hearings, indeed that is about all there has been for years. A regular vote on the floor is a rare event these days, most of the time they get snuck in with a no-debate version hoping just to fool the members into voting for something on its name and its high and mighty statements. Real debate by potential opponents is squelched in committee hearings and the other side of view rarely comes up. That is why it can seem so one-sided right now. These guys aren't dummies, they pick their spots and committees and shove things through hoping to get through as unscathed as possible. However, the higher up it gets, the other side starts getting its shots in. This is the level where things will suddenly sound a lot less sure. These next steps will start having to address Conyers proposal and they will have to start facing the groups who oppose the bill for such radical reasons. Some take what you might call the "NCAA approach" but saying any kind of sanctioning, whether its really significant or not of gambling is terrible and so don't pass this because it will legitimize a lot of legal gaming already out there. Another group will take the sides of the anti-regulating crowd that will not like the big brother attitude taken against a subject that hasn't even been proven to be much of a menace to anyone outside of their carefully picked handful of cases. Some studies have been done and found that maybe 1,000 people have had verified compulsions to online gaming for the whole country. Is this really a crisis? Something that needs to be banned at the cost of millions in terms of enforcement and hinderance to legitimate business? That argument is likely to come up. The last one is the simple one, and one that is coming up more than it used to and that is why are we wasting time getting into gambling when its a personal choice, one that can be done in countless places these days. Why must Congress act on every possible issue when there are plenty of more pressing ones out there. If that all fails then the ISP backers and the banking backers will get their word in too.
Simply put don't just accept the very limited news out there because there is a lot more going on than any of you all seem to know. There is plenty of defense and lots of ways this can be defeated. Right now its getting its free pass because almost all bills that are reasonable get this far. Further the opponents are saving their bullets for later, the only reason you fight a battle at this point of the game is because you have a lot of firepower. They don't have tons of it, so better to keep it for when it can all come out at once and really shape what happens to this. Just be patient, you will see roadblocks coming up in the future to derail this.
WILD BILL FOR PRESIDENT!!!
I'll tell ya. It is refreshing to read what he has to say. I think he is on to something there when he says we have a "knee-jerk reaction" to this.
Thanks for writing and please keep posting. Yours is the voice of reason in scary times for individual freedoms. I can't help but wonder, if the government will use 911 as a reason to stop it--as stupid as that might sound.
I'll tell ya. It is refreshing to read what he has to say. I think he is on to something there when he says we have a "knee-jerk reaction" to this.
Thanks for writing and please keep posting. Yours is the voice of reason in scary times for individual freedoms. I can't help but wonder, if the government will use 911 as a reason to stop it--as stupid as that might sound.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the government shut napster down....and out of nowhere kazaa pops up.
for every law, there is a way around <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect, the RIAA shut down Napster. They are a recording industry lobbying group. They have Senator Fritz Hollings (D) South Carolina in bed with them.
for every law, there is a way around <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect, the RIAA shut down Napster. They are a recording industry lobbying group. They have Senator Fritz Hollings (D) South Carolina in bed with them.
You forget though that Napster is a US based company that was dealing with about 80% US customers, hence killing chances of getting advertising from most sources. Further, they weren't selling anything or getting involved in any kind of money, it was all about advertising at the point when it was closed. They also were looking at public investing in the US markets. Those things all made it impossible to operate in the face of domestic opposition. This case is much different, the only thing in common is that they are shut off from US financial sources on the operations side. With the money they make its clear that isn't a concern.
Just remember who you are dealing with here. The Congress is always just interested in making statements. Even losing a vote here would make a statement. Leach and Kyl and all the others can go back voting time to their voters and say "I am the defender of families" and point to this lousy excuse. Even if they were able to beat the odds and pass some kind of bill, its like the battle ends there. Its on the books and can be pursued, but you have to have those in places of enforcement really concerned about it. I don't see a whole lot of concern there. Justice Department and others don't want to spend endless resources figuring out every book out there and telling the ISPs on a daily basis where they are so they can block them, especially since that process can take months while the books just change their address by the time the order goes into effect. It will be much like bookmaking laws now, once in a great while someone will say lets make a quick statment and shut down one or two places to say we are going to enforce the law and then forget about it. As I have already plained asserted, there is no way for them to stop financial activities. All you have to do is use third parties and there is little they can do to stop it. E-cash is here to stay and its really in its infancy. Just imagine if you could go to a store and buy a $500 debit card, usable anywhere CCs are accepted. How will they stop that from being used with an offshore source when the payee is a name of something very acceptable. If I were a book I would have my money processors under something like "Uncle Jim's Adventures" or "Superstar Management". Is Visa really going to investigate to find out all they do is accept charges and pay out to customers of a sports book? Of course not. Get creative here, stop listening to these morons in Washington and their willing lackeys in press rooms and use common sense. When you do that and also keep in mind that the courts can play some role here too in keeping them from going too far, then you see that these things are rather moot even if they did pass, something I don't think they are going to be able to do with much.
In the end they might pass the most basic of statements saying that the wire act applies without ambiguity to the internet and that banks are not to process these transactions. It will also make it fairly clear that the banks are not required to do much to make sure this isn't happening and that ISPs won't really be forced to do anything either. That is about all I think they could possibly pass, based on what I hear from people in the middle of the efforts to block it. Anything more will upset strong blocks of interest and get it more opposition than it can handle.
In the meantime those in the industry need to keep quiet. Fodder from statements made by NASA are being passed around by the pro-legislative crowd. What in the hell does NASA have to gain by tooting their horn in press releases to the US crowd??? I mean I know they are run by a rather egotistical owner and all, but doesn't he realize this is what just drives these guys more? Oh well, the bottom line is that the less press and numbers that get out, the better.
Just remember who you are dealing with here. The Congress is always just interested in making statements. Even losing a vote here would make a statement. Leach and Kyl and all the others can go back voting time to their voters and say "I am the defender of families" and point to this lousy excuse. Even if they were able to beat the odds and pass some kind of bill, its like the battle ends there. Its on the books and can be pursued, but you have to have those in places of enforcement really concerned about it. I don't see a whole lot of concern there. Justice Department and others don't want to spend endless resources figuring out every book out there and telling the ISPs on a daily basis where they are so they can block them, especially since that process can take months while the books just change their address by the time the order goes into effect. It will be much like bookmaking laws now, once in a great while someone will say lets make a quick statment and shut down one or two places to say we are going to enforce the law and then forget about it. As I have already plained asserted, there is no way for them to stop financial activities. All you have to do is use third parties and there is little they can do to stop it. E-cash is here to stay and its really in its infancy. Just imagine if you could go to a store and buy a $500 debit card, usable anywhere CCs are accepted. How will they stop that from being used with an offshore source when the payee is a name of something very acceptable. If I were a book I would have my money processors under something like "Uncle Jim's Adventures" or "Superstar Management". Is Visa really going to investigate to find out all they do is accept charges and pay out to customers of a sports book? Of course not. Get creative here, stop listening to these morons in Washington and their willing lackeys in press rooms and use common sense. When you do that and also keep in mind that the courts can play some role here too in keeping them from going too far, then you see that these things are rather moot even if they did pass, something I don't think they are going to be able to do with much.
In the end they might pass the most basic of statements saying that the wire act applies without ambiguity to the internet and that banks are not to process these transactions. It will also make it fairly clear that the banks are not required to do much to make sure this isn't happening and that ISPs won't really be forced to do anything either. That is about all I think they could possibly pass, based on what I hear from people in the middle of the efforts to block it. Anything more will upset strong blocks of interest and get it more opposition than it can handle.
In the meantime those in the industry need to keep quiet. Fodder from statements made by NASA are being passed around by the pro-legislative crowd. What in the hell does NASA have to gain by tooting their horn in press releases to the US crowd??? I mean I know they are run by a rather egotistical owner and all, but doesn't he realize this is what just drives these guys more? Oh well, the bottom line is that the less press and numbers that get out, the better.
