how long before PS UB and FT drop?

[Darque Nuts]

Here's a replay of Neteller news (from CardPlayer), which was two days before Bush signed the bill. It sounded positive enough at the time, but now we are really seeing how these businesses respond under government pressure:

"Wednesday Oct 11, 2006
NETeller Will Continue to Do Business with America
Vice President Reiterates Company's Stance
NETeller, which many online poker players use to deposit and remove funds at online poker sites, is staying in the United States. Bruce Elliott, Neteller’s executive vice president, reiterated the company’s stance recently at an online gaming conference in Spain.

On Oct. 1, 2006, NETeller released an official statement on the matter:

“It is currently unclear how NETeller, a European company, with no assets, presence, or employees in the US, would be affected by this bill. Once the regulations have been written, NETeller will have a clearer view of which companies are affected, how those companies will be expected to comply, and any possible resulting impact on NETeller and its US-facing business. NETeller continues to operate its business as normal.

“Over 3 million customers in 160 countries trust NETeller to transfer over $7 billion each year. NETeller (UK) Limited is authorized and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Services Authority and listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange. To protect its customers’ money, all deposited, in transit, and uncleared funds are held in trust accounts.”

This is why I don't believe any of the PokerRooms, tyvm.
Most of their mgmt will blow hot air up our butts to keep whatever they can afloat. The reality is that the plug can get pulled on the US at any of the remaining poker rooms at anytime. I'm gonna take a break until I see a check from Neteller.

[Jack Bando]

On Oct 19th, they said they'd comply and leave within the 270 days. So Neteller leaving wasn't a surprise, just when they did it.

[olivert]

[ QUOTE ]
Off-topic a bit - but does anyone remember Napster?

Sure the government snuffed it out eventually. The proverbial sky fell on the napster world.

But it was replaced by T.orrent file sharing. (There's a glaring difference here since one is stealing and can be rationally argued as a criminal act towards another individual, whereas poker is simply illegal because of someone imposing their moral standards on another - much like alcohol.)

You may be right that online poker "as we know it" will be snuffed out. But that simply forces creative minds to come up with new work arounds.

And sadly, whatever new workaround comes about will probably make it even harder to regulate at a later date.

*** All of this ofc ignores the underlying issue that the law stands on shaky ground anyway. It's contradictory in allowing carve-outs to other domestic gambling forms. It's somehow legal to play live but not online. And ofc, because it has no logical basis other than the opinions of what some people feel is morally right - while at the same time infringing on another person's right to spend their discretionary income as they choose - so long ofc as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is NOT about morality. Far from it.

This is all about money.

The governments in the US, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Israel, Turkey, Poland, Russia, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and even parts of Canada (Ontario Province in particular) are saying the same thing:

Either the government runs the online poker room or the government licenses the online poker room before that online poker room starts operating, or else the government will do whatever it takes to cut off the money flow to that (offshore) online poker room.

Bottom line: either the government gets its guarantee cut of the juice (i.e. 33% to 50%) before an online poker entity STARTS marketing and operating, or the government will cut off that online poker entity.

Remember that being able to gamble legally is NOT a right, but a PRIVILEGE, in most countries.

[LinusKS]

Olivert's right on target: this isn't a USA-only thing. Governments all over the world reserve the right to tax, license, and regulate gambling. Companies that want the best of both worlds are going to find themselves increasingly squeezed.

He's also right that gambling is first and foremost a state issue in the US. The more offshore sites pull out, the more incentive there is for state-side businesses to lobby for internet licenses.

If you want legal internet gambling in the US, you need to forget about the Feds. You need to be looking at your state legislators, and at the US businesses that would stand to benefit from it, instead. Telling the Feds not to enforce the law is a losing argument, as is the argument that unlicensed gambling is somehow legal in the US, because it's on the internet.

As far as whether PokerStars will shut down... dunno.

The fewer competitors there are, the more lucrative it is to stick around.

As a practical matter, as long the owners feel confident about staying out of sight... or feel like they're being compensated for the risk... I don't know that they have much to lose by staying open. The exposure of their employees - the ones who are either here or have ties to the US - is probably the biggest concern. Of course, many of them will be getting pink slips anyway, if they do shut down.

The other issue is funding. I don't know enough about how banks work to have a grasp on that. But my understanding is that paper checks, at least, will always be an option. If that's true - and if the employee thing isn't too much of a concern to the owners - I'd be cautiously optimistic about Stars staying open.

[Piece of Cake]

Agreed its about money. Profit is the fuel that drives the ingenuity behind the inevitable workarounds.

The issue that the law is discussed as anything other than a money issue is why I footnoted that it stands on shaky ground. I should have left that rant for another time. I just wanted to draw a comparison to Napster and its replacements, be but careful to note that priracy is an infringement on anothers right, whereas poker is not.

I don't dare argue that poker is a right versus a privledge. Playing golf is a priviledge, not a right for all I care. This distinction isn't relevant to my discussion I don't think.

[LinusKS]

Cake: You said, "It's somehow legal to play live but not online."

There's no contradiction there. Everywhere where it's legal to play live, it's legal because it's licensed by the state. The problem with internet poker isn't that it's on the internet, it's that it's not licensed.

[JPFisher55]

Linus it is licensed in the jurisdiction where the site is located.

[mikelow]

You can't get more all-American than Doyle--the icon's online room shutting down is not a good sign. I do think there were some business-specific issues here, but this can't be a good sign.

And this isn't really good for B&M cardrooms.

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]
Cake: You said, "It's somehow legal to play live but not online."

There's no contradiction there. Everywhere where it's legal to play live, it's legal because it's licensed by the state. The problem with internet poker isn't that it's on the internet, it's that it's not licensed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issue with what you've said. But you've only prompted me to better phrase my statement.

The thing I find "odd" then is that live poker is licensed, while internet poker is not.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope it not going to happen. If either stars or FT leave U.S. then people start worry.
Just so many bad news and really none good news since Neteller. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Try walking into a B&M card club now and asking the fish if they can play online poker. Most will say they their Party account was closed and they can not play on any other site. I think people are worrying.