Frank to introduce bill.....

[Dunkman]

Jay I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But, state's rights have been part of the foundation of this country and it's not going to change. We fought a Civil War over state's rights already, and it is the single most important provision in our constitution. I'm pretty sure the Congress really doesn't give a [censored] what the WTO thinks about it. Besides, I think they're probably questioning what the WTO can do to the US anyway.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess we will all be playing on Harrah's poker software if this becomes reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've often wondered if places like the Bellagio and the Wynn already have software and servers in an advanced state, ready to go ASAP should such an opportunity arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should know from Party Poker that software and servers have nothing to do with becoming the most successful internet gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think Pacific Poker was the poster child for how bad all that can be and still rake in the bucks. But that is neither here nor there. Software and servers mean you're ready to go, to sign people up and get some traffic. More important to have a wide net to cast when the sea is rich, especially for places with name recognition. Improvements can be made later.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but I didn't see anywhere that Frank was attempting to bring the US in compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I also think that while Frank's bill is a net positive for US gamblers, the WTO holds more promise for a return to the halcyon days. Your lead on that front is appreciated by all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if it did resolve the WTO problem, then that would be one more selling point it would have in its favor.

Also, I have a question: could Antigua and the US come to some sort of out-of-court settlement using this proposed law as a foundation? Maybe, some kind of compromise on the sports betting issue and the States' issue could be worked out even if this bill may never fully comply with the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Antigua would love to reach a negotiated settlement with the US. It could involve all of the protection in the first part of Frank's bill, and a limited number of licensees.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But, state's rights have been part of the foundation of this country and it's not going to change. We fought a Civil War over state's rights already, and it is the single most important provision in our constitution. I'm pretty sure the Congress really doesn't give a [censored] what the WTO thinks about it. Besides, I think they're probably questioning what the WTO can do to the US anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[Little_Luck]

The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But, state's rights have been part of the foundation of this country and it's not going to change. We fought a Civil War over state's rights already, and it is the single most important provision in our constitution. I'm pretty sure the Congress really doesn't give a [censored] what the WTO thinks about it. Besides, I think they're probably questioning what the WTO can do to the US anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "State's rights" side of the Civil War lost. and what provision of the constitution are you talking about?

States rights are important and have had somewhat of a resurgence of support in recent years, but they are no where near as important as they used to be.

[Tarheel]

[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fed law is 'above' state law. the point of the opt-out is that gambling is an area of the law that is traditionally governed by each state individually (like family law, most criminal...), so the Act would allow each state to maintain that ability.

The Act doesn't say that every American has a federal right to gamble online. if it said that, then arguably the opt-out wouldn't work.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you specificallly. But I am 100% certain you can't hide behind state laws. That's why 29 AG's signed a letter that they were upset with the Antigua decision.