So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?

[xwillience]

in all honesty, I dont see ISPs ever banning poker sites. That would be inviting insane amounts of trouble. to censor the internet would only piss a certain sub-culture off. I dont think we have to worry about that ever.


Also, from what I understand, that part of the bill did get left behind in favor of getting the Leach Bill attached to the DOD authorization.

[DuderinoAB]

If your ISP blocks access to a site, you need to run through a proxy. This will enable to visit any website you please without your ISP knowing...and its perfectly legal. Will the fish do this? Probably not, but will the ISP thing stop any of us from playing? Nope. There may be other issues, but this one is irrelevant.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Banks dont screw around with legislation. This will be enforced with vigor. They are not going to let people fund netteller or other accounts. Not to mention ISP's will block the poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banks aren't going to be defining the "grey areas" of what is gambling and what is not. They do what they have to and that's that.

If a financial institution starts placing unneeded restrictions on where your money can't go, there are tens of thousands of other places to take your business.

Bank competition is very cut-throat nowadays and deposits are getting harder and harder to get. There is no way they risk losing customers needlessly.

If the government says no neteller, that's a different story, but I just don't see that happening, truth be told.

[scrapperdog]

This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a proposed law I don't think the government would label Neteller a gambling site, at best it would be a very loose interpretation. That being said, neither would banks.

I am saying they aren't going to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off blocking everything that "could be" a gaming transaction.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a proposed law I don't think the government would label Neteller a gambling site, at best it would be a very loose interpretation. That being said, neither would banks.

I am saying they aren't going to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off blocking everything that "could be" a gaming transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing any of this. You're just pulling it out of your rear-end. LOL

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an "unneeded restriction". This is the law, and banks are not going to break the law in hopes of getting extra business. They are a pretty highly regulated industry and will comply with these new regulations. Banks dont want to have to enforce this, but if this does become law they will enforce it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a proposed law I don't think the government would label Neteller a gambling site, at best it would be a very loose interpretation. That being said, neither would banks.

I am saying they aren't going to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off blocking everything that "could be" a gaming transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing any of this. You're just pulling it out of your rear-end. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really see a list like coming out for online gambling?

OFAC list

Although necessary, the additional costs to uphold this are enormous! I just can't see a gambling version at this point in time.

There will be some very very negative effects for consumers (I am talking even about non-gambling consumers) if this happens.

I am not pulling this out of my rear end, but rather banking compliance publications.

[mrhat187]

You'll have to excuse leaven owl, he doesn't live in this little land we like to call reality. He believes that any and every transaction is going to be examined by magical elves who work for free during the night, and everything is magically done by morning......needless to say all of these arguements are mute as it doesn't address my original question. How would a bank stop you from buying a phone card? If they can't stop you then they can't stop poker since at PP you can already use phone cards to fund your account. I'm sure it wouldn't take much more than a week for other sites to follow suit if this was the only way.

[Uglyowl]

You are 100% correct, the methods of funding and payees is an ever changing thing. Transactions come over with very limited information with non-gambling payees and codes that don't clearly spell out "GAMBLING". For example take these gaming transactions:

MCG Shop Electronic Stores
MXPay Uncoded
Norestom Direct Marketing Catalog

I am not sure if anyone thinks that this would be very easy, but it sure as hell isn't.

You start blocking what you think you should and you have very pissed off customers who need money for various things, sometimes for emergencies. Not many banks have call centers open at 3:00AM [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And actually debit/credit cards are the easiest thing to monitor. Checks have much deeper issues to cut through.

[Lawman007]

Keep dreaming. LOL