|
|
#351
09-22-2006, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Frist Fails?
[ QUOTE ]
So no ISP block is proposed? Am I reading this correctly? [/ QUOTE ] That's the way I read it too. That would be a fairly significant improvement over the alternative. What is going to be key I think is the specifics of "bar[ing] banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets..." If that doesn't impact Neteller/Firepay and the like then I think the impact could be trivial. Are we going to be able to see the text of the conference report on Monday? 
|
|
#354
09-22-2006, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't restricting Neteller/Firepay likely to be a matter for the regulators? We may not know about this for months. [/ QUOTE ] That is my understanding as well.
|
|
#355
09-22-2006, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't restricting Neteller/Firepay likely to be a matter for the regulators? We may not know about this for months. [/ QUOTE ] If I had to guess, I think anything that the Congress passes will cover Neteller and Firepay. Might not be 100% clear from the letter of the law, and some things might be subject to regulatory interpretation, but I'm telling you, it seems very unlikely that they would pass something that comes short of covering these particular financial instruments.
|
|
#356
09-22-2006, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
I understand everyone's urge to know the scope of what is under discussion. But considering how fluid the situation is, it really seems kind of pointless to debate language that may or may not be included.
Patience everyone.
|
|
#357
09-22-2006, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
From what I understand, in the past when they summarize the bill as they did above, it does include the Wire Act being amended to make it illegal for anyone to play. I don't know why they neglect to mention this much of the time, but it doesn't matter whether ISP's are blocked. If it's illegal for us to play, we can't play.
|
|
#358
09-22-2006, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't restricting Neteller/Firepay likely to be a matter for the regulators? We may not know about this for months. [/ QUOTE ] If I had to guess, I think anything that the Congress passes will cover Neteller and Firepay. Might not be 100% clear from the letter of the law, and some things might be subject to regulatory interpretation, but I'm telling you, it seems very unlikely that they would pass something that comes short of covering these particular financial instruments. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. We tend to get caught up in semantic debates around here, not appreciating that we're just debating potential language. Only when have an actual bill is it worthwhile to debate what the language means. If Congress wants to proscribe activity by Neteller, it surely will find language to do it.
|
|
#359
09-22-2006, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
If not its encouraging news. While its not much of an obstacle for people who really want to play, I would see it as more of a problem than the financial stuff for Joe Fish. If he can go to the website and see that there are 60,000 people online playing I would think he would be willing to go jump through a few hoops in order to play. Either way I'd much rather the whole thing not pass [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#360
09-22-2006, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frist Fails?
[ QUOTE ]
If it's illegal for us to play, we can't play. [/ QUOTE ] That's not true. It's illegal to speed, but we can (and I'd guess most of us do). The question is: are you willing to pay the consequences of making an illegal act. At this point, I don't think that any of the proposed laws contemplate punishing individuals for playing poker online. Also, it's one thing to have a law on the books, but quite another to enforce it. There would be political ramifications if the U.S. government started any serious prosecution of online poker players.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
