ITH Poker Forum

[MtnWalker]

Hi. First time poster here, and maybe this will contribute to the discussion.

Pretty much everyone, and I include the Poker Players Alliance (I am a member), is defining the problem incorrectly IMHO. The legislation recently passed in the House, and similar legislation likely to be considered in the Senate, is ENFORCEMENT legislation - *not* regulatory. The primary difference is the position taken by congress regarding existing law. Both of my senators are operating from the assumprion that internet poker is already illegal. Their email responses made this clear. They, and many other senators, are seeking ways to enforce existing law rather than re-visit the basic legality question. Advocates for internet poker need to appreciate the distinction and restructure the arguments.

I hope the PPA and others will take the longer view and prepare to go after the current underlying legal structure, or at least change the present emphasis of advocacy activities. Arguments for regulation are falling on deaf ears, as are the enticements of potential tax revenue. As long as the activity is perceived by lawmakers as illegal under existing law, and those laws are left intact, we will all be fighting a losing battle.

[AlamedaMike]

The big issue in the U.S. isn't where the money goes, but that the Government can tell the ISP's to block access to poker sites.

If the government tries to get ISP form connecting to poker sites then the poker sites will probably have a server that does legitimate business and forwards the connection to the poker site.

So www.pokerstars.com might become www.buy_widgets.com how will the ISP know to block that site? If that site is legitimate then they can not block it.

Maybe I am missing something.

[MtnWalker]

First, read the enforcement act. It's very entertaining.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... p1.109.pdf


It contains some interesting wording, such as:

‘‘(E) INTERMEDIATE ROUTING.—The intermediate routing of electronic data
shall not determine the location or locations in which a bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made."

and

"...the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations (which the Secretary and the Board jointly determine to be appropriate) requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions in any of the following ways:
‘‘(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that—
‘‘(A) allow the payment system and any person involved in the payment
system to identify restricted transactions by means of codes in authorization
messages or by other means; and
‘‘(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of the policies and
procedures developed pursuant to subparagraph (A).
‘‘(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent or prohibit the
acceptance of the products or services of the payment system in connection with a restricted transaction."

As you can see, the implementation detail has yet to be determined; the law is broad and somewhat ambiguous; and at this time essentially everyone is just guessing about the eventual outcome.

And as far as ISPs are concerned, IF (big if) they were to get dragged into this, Internet poker would become effectively dead. As soon as someone decided to circumvent the regulations (no publicly traded company would do this), and more that 2 people found out about it, the Feds would know and shut down access. It would be all too easy. Just maintain a list of violating sites on the web and levy a blocking requirement on all US-based ISPs to comply. Done. But again, all you read on this topic, including my opinions, is only speculation at this point in time.

[Wynton]

Since this thread is back, I just want to make sure people understand that the bill I wrote about months ago is DIFFERENT from the one that Bush is about to sign.

Among other things, the earlier bill did not define unlawful internet gambling in the same way.

Perhaps I'll expand upon these differenes in another article, eventually.