Update Friday, September 29th

[specultr]

Speaking as a minority, that Alabama senator's accent sends shivers down my spine. No offense. I wish they would hurry up. My wife is asking me about Plan B for extra income. No f'in idea!

[Eric Stoner]

All right...

[throws in virutal towel]

I've had enough. You guys have a good night...I think I'll watch my TiVO recorded show - The Office, then yesterday's Daily Show.

I'll catch up tomorrow morning.

[Lost_My_Stink]

***Leavenfish must be dancing in the streets***
I'm suprised no one beat me to this jab.

But seriously, Mr. K, Nate and Berge; I very much appreciate the effort you guys have put into following and interpreting the event of the past few months. I must say, I've learned a lot about how the government opperates and the steps for creating laws.

I'm fairly naive about these things, but I think the best way to proceed is to launch a media campaign encouraging the legalization of online gambling.

Coming from a PR background, I think people should write as many "letters to the editor" as possible to local papers and hound your local (state) officials to explore the feasibilty of regulating the OG industry.

Again, I may be being naive, but I think ultimately, we'll find this is merely an inevitable hurdle on the track for making OG regulated. I can't really see a multi-billion dollar industry just going away. We're down but not out.

Tom is Great

[Stirfry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone explain why the AL Senator gets 30 minutes to filibuster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how it works, but if they give Byrd 40 minutes to thank nice guys for being nice guys I guess this dude gets a shot at mumbling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just FYI, one of the things that differentiates the Senate from the House is that there is no set limit on a Senator's speech. The Senate is designed to be the "contemplative" body - with 100 more seasoned members, they can afford to take more time, it wouldn't work with 435 relatively green House members.

Granted, the "contemplation" that comes out now is junk, but that's the history of it. It's typically not abused, actually - when it is, that's a fillibuster.

Note that when he finished just now, he noted that he saw no one else on the floor (ie, no one was just waiting to speak), so he called a quorum call (again) just as a way of taking a recess without actually having to call a recess.

Gotta love parliamentary procedure.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
He's just talking, and if the others were actually done with whatever they are plotting on the sidelines, he'd finish up.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is this then? (Not trying to be sarcastic)

http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/t...43_portscr.pdf

[LesJ]

[ QUOTE ]
BBC news is reporting Port Autrhority bill has passed - now mention of IG regulations... news?

[/ QUOTE ]

You accidentily just hit the nail on the head.

Even when this passes tonight/tomorrow, there will be very little mention of the IG language in any major media outlet. With the wave of legislation passed this week, the upcoming elections, and the intelligence report about increased terror threats due to the Iraq War the IG stuff simply is not major news to most folks. The only way the fish at our tables will know about this is if we tell them, or if they have problems funding/cashing out from their accounts. The IG stuff is not going to be on the front page tomorrow.

Les

[BluffTHIS!]

Aviva,

I'm no lawyer, so the language might not be as bad as I and most think it is. And I did read the text as well. But I'm not sure if they can label neteller and such as money transfer business primarily engaged in facilitating gambling transactions, and then block transactions to them as well as direct one to the poker/gambling sites. So I think that needs to be resolved. However it would *seem* hard for them to cutout such middlemen who aren't subsidiaries of gambling sites.

[Mr. Orange]

now there talking about internet gambling

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I've read over the text of the bill linked here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/t...43_portscr.pdf
Gambling stuff starts at page 213.

It does four things. First, it makes it explicitly illegal to accept bets over the internet. Okay, that won't change much. Executives of online gambling companies will have to avoid changing planes in the US. That's really about it.

Second, it makes it illegal for anyone in the business of accepting bets to receive money through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, etc. It forces banks to join some kind of program, specified by as-yet unwritten regulations, to identify and deny such transactions. There is a huge loophole here. Neteller, Firepay, etc. are not in the business of accepting bets, and therefore are exempt. Personally, this won't affect how I move funds at all.

Third, there is some very vague language about interactive computer systems. Basically, websites/ISPs might be required to remove links to gambling sites, but they are not required to actively seek out and remove their links, and they can't be punished until they've been warned at least once.

Fourth, there's some squishy language about cooperating with foreign governments to prevent money laundering and such.

That's about it. The devil is in the details, and the regulations they come up with might have sharper teeth than the bill, but I don't think this will affect anything.

Here's what it DOESN'T do:
-Make it illegal for individuals to place bets over the internet
-Make it illegal for individuals to receive money from gambling sites
-Specify that advertising gambling is illegal (all you US-based affiliates can breath easy)

I think this is a win for poker players. There's toothless legislation in place, which will prevent real legislation from coming through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you are right but I think that you are being overly optimistic here. This is the closest that the government has ever come to formally banning only gambling, and it scares the [censored] out of me.

Remember that we have had TWO gaming executives arrested in the past two months, and that the one who is still in custody (David Carruthers) is being held thanks in part to a law which many assumed did not apply to the Internet.

[Stirfry]

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a win for poker players. There's toothless legislation in place, which will prevent real legislation from coming through.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good read-through, and similar to what I thought when reading through it. I think really it depends on the regulations attached, and how they affect the places like NetTeller, etc.

Between legal challenges and various hurdles, it will be a while before there's any actual effect on us.