Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the credit card restrictions are lifted, is this going to be enough for the big players like Party to return to the US market?

I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party would be back in the US market if that were the case since people can still use their credit cards to deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so.

I'm not sure that will convince the stockholders that it's safe again to return.

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

Of course we need to draw the line somewhere.

Some form of gambling is legal in most states ( I think only Hawaii and Utah are the only states prohibiting all forms of gambling), and most states have a home game exemption allowing you to play for money in your home as long as no one is raking the game.

Purchasing meth and child pornography are illegal everywhere anytime.

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

We have debated the overall legal status of online poker a dozen times. So this point is limited to just this issue: suppose Frank's new law dissappoints us and merely says Banks are exempt from prosecution if their customers use their credit cards for gaming and banks do not have to monitor such transactions....

This may not bring Party back in to the market, but in a heart beat a 1/2 dozen credit cards will be offered that you can use "anywhere hint, hint" and the loss of neteller at sites still taking US players will be forgotten.

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

[ QUOTE ]
We have debated the overall legal status of online poker a dozen times. So this point is limited to just this issue: suppose Frank's new law dissappoints us and merely says Banks are exempt from prosecution if their customers use their credit cards for gaming and banks do not have to monitor such transactions....

This may not bring Party back in to the market, but in a heart beat a 1/2 dozen credit cards will be offered that you can use "anywhere hint, hint" and the loss of neteller at sites still taking US players will be forgotten.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a good place to start and stop the bleeding for now. I agree that there would be new funding sources popping up soon after. That is a good thing.

I couldn't see getting a UIGEA repeal right now, anyway. Don't be fooled and too disappointed in Barney. He does not like this law, but he's not a fool and knows repeal would be near impossible. He also knows that having banking/credit cards available for onling gaming is still a victory, albeit a smaller one.

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

Frank said..."My committee only has jurisdiction over credit cards. I can't do more than repeal the ban on the use of credit cards. We don't have jurisdiction generally over the Internet or other aspects of this,"

Skallagrim said... "You really think its nothing if there is a bill passed that exempts credit cards from the UIGEA because "its too difficult for banks to enforce?" Hell, thats a MAJOR VICTORY. "

Sniper said... "What do Credit Cards have to do with UIGEA?"


Skallagrim said... "Yes I know that the DOJ convinced all the big credit card companies to stop gaming transactions a few years ago. But a few still get through. And maybe even some of the big ones would drop the "ban" if the UIGEA specifically exempted them from this "responsibility."


My question was a serious one, and remains unanswered... you are calling something a major victory, without even uderstanding what his statement means... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

If Frank will be able to weaken the UIGEA regulations to the point that credit card transactions to online gaming sites won't be banned that would be a major victory.

What so difficut or wrong in this statement?

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

Sniper I suggest you beat around the bush for a few more posts rather then directly addressing the issue [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Frank will be able to weaken the UIGEA regulations to the point that credit card transactions to online gaming sites won't be banned that would be a major victory.

What so difficut or wrong in this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with any statement, except it doesn't make sense [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Can you show me in the UIGEA where "credit card transactions to online gaming sites are banned"?


We are in the realm of major wrong guessing going on again... can anyone explain what Frank meant (without guessing)?

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

now we are getting somewhere

edit: while the text of the UIGEA itself may not reference credit cards I would assume that the regulations will. That would be my guess as to what Frank is referring to.

Re: So much for Barney Frank
 

Ok, so I was looking for a link to the UIGEA text. I am generally clueless and occasionally incompetent so this may not be it. I'm pasting from the wizard of odds link because the other contains crazy markups. Anyways, assuming this is it, credit cards are mentioned...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4954

http://wizardofodds.com/general/hr49...html#titleviii

[ QUOTE ]

`(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

`(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDER- The term `financial transaction provider' means a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local payment network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction, or money transmitting service, or a participant in such network, or other participant in a designated payment system.


[/ QUOTE ]