Reply With Quote
Not worried about this.
This doesn't hurt the individual, but only improvises the use of other/sneaky deposit methods now.
Regulated stop payment for online bets?
By Reuters
http://news.com.com/Regulated+stop+p...3-6122093.html
Story last modified Tue Oct 03 06:27:00 PDT 2006
The costs of policing a new U.S. Internet gambling ban for banks and credit card companies will be determined by regulators in the coming months, industry officials said Monday.
Government officials are expected to propose a "coding and blocking" system that will identify and stop payment to gambling sites, experts said. Many banks and credit card companies already voluntarily block Internet gambling transactions using such a system.
The Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Board have nine months to draft regulations after the new law, included in a package of port security measures passed by Congress on Friday and expected to be signed into law by President George W. Bush.
U.S. banks and credit card companies are optimistic that officials will prepare a workable system.
"If the Treasury (Department) and Fed can come up with reasonable rules here, it shouldn't be that bad," said Oliver Ireland, a lawyer who works with several financial-services payment providers, including Visa.
"The way they built (the new law), it gives us a chance to work with the regulators in a constructive way to come up with a system," said Greg Mesack, director of government relations for industry trade group America's Community Bankers.
United Kindom-based gaming companies such as Sportingbet.com, PartyGaming and 888 Holdings said on Monday that they would likely pull out of the U.S. market, their biggest source of revenue, and their stocks plunged.
Some banking-industry officials had worried that the new law would make them responsible for blocking payments by check as well as credit card, a requirement they had said would be unworkable.
But those concerns were allayed when lawmakers agreed to a provision allowing the Treasury and Fed to exempt checks from the requirement.
Experts said the system would not be foolproof but would bar the vast majority of bettors.
"I suspect some smart enterprising person out there will find a way to (get around) it. But for your average person who wants to get out there and bet on college football, you're not going to do it," said one lobbyist.
Ireland agreed. "I think this puts in place a broader blocking system that's going to be harder to get past for the Internet (gambling) sites," he said.
Story Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
Not worried about this.
This doesn't hurt the individual, but only improvises the use of other/sneaky deposit methods now.
If they don't bar checks, then it won't be an issue at all. It doesn't look like Netellr will be effected either.
I now think the major hurdle is whether or not sites voluntarily pull out.
I always pull out.
Best email I've gotten in a while. I had made Full Tilt my home site a while back, and now I'm very happy with that decision.
Dear O Rly Ya Rly,
Full Tilt Poker is here to stay!
As an online poker player, you have probably heard about the new legislation passed by the U.S. Congress earlier this week that attempts to prevent you from being able to transfer money to online gaming sites.
While this new law has prompted some sites to announce plans to abandon the U.S. market in coming days, we assure you that Full Tilt Poker will continue to provide all of its players - both inside and outside of the United States - with a full complement of real money ring games and tournaments for their enjoyment.
After consultation with numerous legal experts in this field, we want to make you aware of the following:
* Legal
The new U.S. legislation does not in any way attempt to criminalize the act of you playing online poker. By playing online at Full Tilt Poker, you are not breaking any U.S. Federal laws.
* Full Access
The passage of the new Internet Gaming law will not have any impact on your day-to-day experience at Full Tilt Poker. We will provide all of our players, everywhere in the world, with full access to all of our games and tournaments.
* Easy Deposits and Withdrawals
We will continue to provide our players with all of the safe, secure and convenient methods for transferring money to and from the site. In fact, in recent discussions with our payment processors, we have been assured that this new law will have no immediate impact on their day-to-day business. And as always, any monies that you have on deposit with Full Tilt Poker remain completely safe and secure.
Furthermore, we firmly believe that online poker is not encompassed by this new legislation. In any event, we will continue to lobby for an express carve-out for online poker and for your right to play a truly American game from the privacy of your own home and computer.
We are excited about the future here at Full Tilt Poker and in the coming weeks and months, we plan to roll out many new features designed to enhance your online poker experience.
We appreciate your loyalty to our site and, in turn, want you to know that we will remain loyal to our valued players in the United States and throughout the world.
We look forward to seeing you at the table.
Sincerely,
Full Tilt Poker
So pretty much the legislation doesn't do squat....
From what I am getting, and I am getting little, it is illegal for online betting to be given to US consumers. But the US consumers cannot be held liable in this, so they cannot be charged if they do in fact gamble online. The companies are the only ones who can be charged, so if they continue to provide you with the service, they can be charged whenever they set foot on US soil. So if they don't want to enter the US, they are fine and dandy, and can still make money. The only thing really affecting this is how the regulations affect online transactions.
Ask Manny. I am uneducated with this.
I don't think its as bad as it could have been, but its had severe adverse affects on the industry. The stock prices of the publicly traded sites took rough beatings and it may very well change the entire scene of online poker.
But if any other major sites take the same stance Full Tilt is taking - and I suspect a few will - then in the end its going to mean very little. If PokerStars takes the stance, then I don't see much the US will be able to do.
In the end, if these sites call the US's bluff then it might be the best thing for all parties involved IF it pushes forward legitmacy. It might make the US have to set forth regulation and legitimacy for poker. There is a market, and if that market is enough for a company like Full Tilt to go forward with business in light of the legislation then I'm not sure anything the US government can do will stop it.
Much of this may be my wishfull thinking as well. I'm biased, I need this business to not go away. So take it for what its worth.
October 19, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet
By CHARLES MURRAY
Las Vegas
LAST week President Bush signed a law that will try to impede online gambling by prohibiting American banks from transferring money to gambling sites. Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law.
So, a month before a major election, the Republicans have allied themselves with a scattering of voters who are upset by online gambling and have outraged the millions who love it. Furthermore, judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players, I am willing to bet (if you’ll pardon the expression) that the outraged millions are disproportionately electricians, insurance agents, police officers, mid-level managers, truck drivers, small-business owners — that is, disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.
In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.
In the long term, something more ominous is at work. If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.
The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century’s stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more.
For example, all employers are confronted with rules and regulations from Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that they regard with contempt — not because they cut into profits, but because they are, simply, stupid. They impede employers yet provide no collateral social benefit. And so employers treat the stupid regulations as obstructions to be fudged or ignored. When they have to comply, they do not see compliance as the right thing to do, but as placating an agency that will hurt them otherwise.
The same thing applies to lesser degrees to all of us who find ourselves doing things that we know are pointless (think of various aspects of tax law) only because we fear attracting a bureaucracy’s attention. For millions of Americans, our day-to-day relationship with government is increasingly like paying protection to the Mafia — keeping it off our backs while we get on with our lives.
The temptation for good citizens to ignore a stupid law is encouraged when it is unenforceable. In this, the attempt to ban Internet gambling is exemplary. One of the four sites where I play poker has blocked United States customers because of the law, but the other three are functioning as usual and are confident that they can continue to do so. They are not in America, and it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to ins utions abroad and thence to gambling sites.
And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong. The libertarian part of me is heartened by this, hoping that a new political coalition will start to return government to its proper functions. But the civic-minded part of me is apprehensive. Reflexive loyalty to the rule of law is an indispensable cultural asset. The more honest citizens who take for granted that they are breaking the law, the more their loyalty to the law, and to the government that creates it, is eroded.
Charles Murray is a scholar at the American Enterprise Ins ute.
Boutons, You are the Best! I'm doing a paper on the Internet gambling ban and how it relates to law and morality...this is a great article for that!
I never thought about it from that angle, but it seems to me that the demographics of gamblers do indeed point to a majority of them being Republican. I'm not sure how many of them will actualy vote based on this legislation, but its an interesting angle.
The Republicans are ed either way, so w/e.
Look, this is bull , we all know it, just like alot of other stupid ing laws, but honestly, if you want to gamble move to Shreveport, or Nevada.
If you want to place blame somewhere, blame the rich bas s in Las Vegas.
So its bull , but we should just take it and move? that. If I want to blame someone I'm going to place the blame right where it belongs: At the foot of a republican party willing to pander to a few select special interest groups.
Las Vegas was primarly AGAINST the ban numb nuts.
So the CEOs of the big hotels would rather you spend your money sitting your ass in a task chair in front of a computer?
or
would they prefer you and your SO flying in a plane and spending 3-4 days there spending all that dough on room, board and gambling...?????
You've lost your mind bro.
Republicans? WGAF about politics... this was done because it was hurting Vegas. Period.
No one gives a about you gambling except for Vegas. Why does Bush give a about you gambling?
Money is controlling everything and the money is in big biz.
Kevin, I've been reading about this for months, do you really think I'm not understanding what is going on? Frist pushed this legislation through because he wants to be president. The origional legislation is from a politician in - get ready for it - IOWA. Also, it pleases one of the biggest groups with political power - Chistian fundementalists. You see, in a perfect world no one would give a about me gambling. But they DO. Because they want to force their values on everybody. You see it everyday in all kinds of ways outside of internet gambling. You can't possibly have your head burried that far in the sand.
Do you think the big Vegas casinos don't want online gambling to be out in the open here? You don't think they want to jump into the market? What makes more sense, running an expensive ass casino or a website? People don't stop going to Vegas or any other gambling locatino because of online gambling. Thats just flat out wrong. Do you think Vegas has sufered over the past few years? Visiting a town like Vegas is about a lot more than just playing poker. You look at the WSOP next year and you will see an event that is decimated. There is no way they'll get the same amount of entrants as a direct result of this law. That HURTS Vegas. They lose out on a huge event that draws a good deal of people into the town. They lose advertising revenue because of this. Ask anyone who was in Vegas during the WSOP and ask them if they didn't see advertisements for Party Poker and other rooms.
You CAN'T be serious. Vegas is BOOMING. They can't put up new hotels and casinos fast enough to meet the demand. The city of Las Vegas sends scouts out across the entire country looking for professionals like police officers and teachers in order to entice them to move to Vegas permanantly. The highway from Southern California to LV is so crowded on weekends that some people give up and turn back cus they can't get into the friggin city! City officials are begging them to come during the week when it's not so busy. Hurting Vegas? Don't think so.
Congresswoman from Vegas - who recieves big campaign contributions from the gamin industry - speaks out against the law. I guess she didn't get Sequ's memo.
S ey Berkley of Las Vegas Calls Move a 'Ridiculous Abuse of Power'
When a federal act to protect the nation’s ports came in front of Congress at the end of
last month, only two members voted against it. The Act was deemed an absolute necessity
in the fight against terrorism, and as Congresswoman S ey Berkley said, how does a
politician in an election year vote against port safety?
They don’t, not even Berkley, a Las Vegas Democrat who called the passing of the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) “an invasion of our privacy and it
takes away our citizens’ rights.”
“What could be a greater invasion of privacy than government telling you cannot play
Internet poker in your own house?” she said. “This was a breathtaking abuse of exercise
of war power.”
Berkley’s Congressional district includes just about all of Las Vegas, and she has ties
to the casino industry as a former vice president of government and legal affairs for
the Sands Hotel.
She’s one of a handful of politicians who spoke out against Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist’s attempt at getting the UIGEA attached to a major defense spending bill. He
initially failed, but succeed later in the week at the last minute in the session before
Congress broke for a long election-year recess.
Vegas Hotel Casinos led the new revolution not some dumb congressman running for president.
yes, outlawing gambling should be against our rights like she said.
Now in order to qualify for the Holdem Championship, you will have to go to Las Vegas, rent a car, rent a room, buy the buffet, buy a tshirt, play their slots and ride their taxis... instead of sitting your lazy ass in a task chair.
Now do you understand?
For immediate release
http://about.neteller.com/neteller/u...oct06Final.pdf
Press release
19 October 2006
NETELLER PLC
Update on US position
Further to the Company’s announcement on 12 October 2006, NETELLER Plc today announced the following update in the light of the action on 13 October 2006 by US President George W Bush to approve and sign into law the SAFE Port Act incorporating the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 ("UIGEA” or the “Act”) which includes certain provisions to prohibit “unlawful internet gambling” by restricting gambling sites from accepting certain payments from US residents.
NETELLER, a company registered outside the US, will comply with the Act and its related regulations as if it were subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. This action is intended to ensure that the Company is able to continue to operate with the support of its principal commercial partners and to protect its shareholders, business partners, employees and reputation.
Various provisions of the Act, including the obligations of financial transaction providers such as NETELLER, remain unclear. This uncertainty should be largely resolved when the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issue the regulations they are required to prescribe within 270 days.
In view of the importance of these issues, NETELLER has accelerated its review of the Act and all other relevant laws and pertinent developments. The Company also continues to closely monitor the regulatory situation and is determining what actions to take well before the conclusion of the 270-day rulemaking period.
In the interim, US-resident customers are able to use the NETELLER service as normal. The funds of US-resident customers are held in trust accounts and will be available for withdrawal, on demand. The ability to withdraw funds will exist regardless of the customer’s location or ability to transfer to any site.
NETELLER customers not resident in the US are not affected at all by the legislative changes in the US, and the Company will continue to operate its non-US business as normal, maintaining existing customer and merchant support across all the other markets it currently serves.
NETELLER remains focused on developing its business in line with its stated
strategic objectives including geographical and product diversification. The Company continues to launch localised services within the European market, most recently in Sweden and Denmark, and has plans for three further launches later this year. As well as focusing on the gaming sector outside of the US market, the Board considers the development of additional products and services for wallet users to be integral to
its diversified market strategy. We expect to share more information on these initiatives in the coming months. The Company is committed to maximising shareholder value both in the short and longer term, and will explore all possible strategic alternatives, including utilising its substantial resources, to ensure the achievement of its strategic objectives.
The Company’s trading update for the third quarter will be issued on Tuesday, October 31st, 2006. In the meantime, the Company will endeavour to keep shareholders informed of any material developments as and when appropriate.
Enquiries:
NETELLER
Andrew Gilchrist, VP – Communications + 44 (0) 1293 555 726
Citigate Dewe Rogerson + 44 (0) 207 638 9571
Sarah Gestetner/Sebastian Hoyle/George Cazenove
I understand you're either:
a) am imbecile with very little understanding of the situation. Possible, but not as likely as:
b) you're being difficult just to be a .
Either way, this gets me very riled up because its such a personal subject and your posts are about as moronic as they get, so I'll just save myself some grief and ignore you.
So does this mean they are going to decide in upcoming days but probably not allow US users anymore?NETELLER, a company registered outside the US, will comply with the Act and its related regulations as if it were subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. This action is intended to ensure that the Company is able to continue to operate with the support of its principal commercial partners and to protect its shareholders, business partners, employees and reputation.
Does this also mean Poker Stars is done? Or will they be using a different service? Is Full Tilt going to be the only reputable site now?
I think that neteller release is something just to cover their asses and present to their shareholders. If the regulations come out tomorrow, they'll be weak as . The Fed just isn't going to be able to do much.
Poker Stars allows echecks and other deposit options that will still be there regardless of what neteller does. It would be nice if they started to accept click2pay because I just opened an account with them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
