What will happen next?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, I'm not quite sure that the federal government's only interest here is in taxing and regulating. That goal could have easily been achieved now, had it been the end their after.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they also have a goal to rub the rest of the world the wrong way. This is only one of the steps they need to take in order for that goal to be met.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Bush and company.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
The goal is to not encourage gambling, period, which in itself is the right thing to do.
We are here a poker/gambling community and we see things from another point of view, but there must be no doubt that the world would be a better place without so many gambling sites tempting fishes all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, -EV games like horse-racing and lotteries are CLEARLY the way to go...not this addictive poker nonsense.

[Jim14Qc]

william, I'm sorry to say you're wrong about the owners point. To take your exampl, party's "owners" are, by definition, no longer the owners once they've sold their shares. The new owners, who are the shareholders, will always be looking for growth.

There is no such thing as enough when it comes to money for a company. I can't see any major site closing shop unless they go busto and/or the business is no longer profitable (yeah right!).

The sites are no the problem for US players, it's the payment processors.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The goal is to not encourage gambling, period, which in itself is the right thing to do.
We are here a poker/gambling community and we see things from another point of view, but there must be no doubt that the world would be a better place without so many gambling sites tempting fishes all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed; or put differently, there are many Americans with serious moral and ethical concerns about the wide-spread access/easy availability and accompanying pernicious influences of gambling, including poker. I'm not saying I agree with those people, but I am saying that those people do exist and are quite numerous in number.

It's undeniable that these people have powerful lobbying groups fighting for their interests in Congress, in the executive branch of the federal government, and at various levels of state government -- and these constituents have interests that lie outside of legalization/taxation/regulation.

Their interests instead lie in outright prohibition and deterrence of internet gambling.

The whole point of this rant is to suggest that blaming 'greedy' internet gaming stakeholders and operators for refusing to accept a deal for regulation/taxation is unfair, in light of the fact that it's a deal that to my knowledge has never, ever been offered. Conversely, suggesting that the federal government's new found interest in aggressively enforcing Wire Act/UIGEA regulations is attributable to their inability to "get the hands on unregulated money" seems off the mark as well, given that such regulation/taxation options were likely at federal government politicians/regulators disposal, and yet they never availed themselves of those options.

[William]

You are of course right about the "new owners". My point was that the "first owners were pioneers of this kind of business online and as it almost allways is, unregulated territory and could make a kill not paying taxes.
In the near future, high taxes and govtal opposition may not be so attractive to potential new owners.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online gambling may be legalized, but it will only happen when the online casinos strike a deal with politicians to share the money with the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the rest of your post, but given what I know, the online casinos and poker rooms would gladly offer the US federal government a share of the money (ie., would gladly submit to US federal government taxation and oversight) for un-threatened and 'legitimate' access to the US market. I believe TruePoker's CEO has claimed that very thing more than a few times on this forum.

Even if the off-shore online gaming interests with US facing operations (current or former) like Stars, FT, 888.com, Pinnacle, etc. refused to capitulate to the demands of federal regulators, there are undoubtedly numerous American interests (think American B&M casino interests like Harrah's and MGM) who would happily submit to the federal government's demands for taxation/regulation if it meant internet gaming were decriminalized and the stigma of illegality were removed from the industry.

In other words, I'm not quite sure that the federal government's only interest here is in taxing and regulating. That goal could have easily been achieved now, had it been the end they're after.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misread my post. I didn't say that it would happen when the online sites were willing, they're obviously willing, I said it would happen when a deal was struck.

You are correct that taxes aren't the only interest of the federal government, but those interests can be overcome in the same way that interests in prohibiting land based casinos have been overcome.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
the world would be a better place without so many gambling sites tempting fishes all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

L. O. L.

You could argue that the world would be a better place without 99% of the things that Americans (used) to be free to do. Maybe you should go live in Singapore or someplace, just don't mess up and get caned or something.

[NapoleonDolemite]

People on the internet will panic and over-react, just as they always do. Then, the multi-billion dollar industry will find its workarounds and continue to operate.

Hold-em games will continue to get harder, other games will become more popular. Poker will be on network TV 5 nights a week and the players will wear Full Tilt t-shirts and Joe gambler, as long as he doesn't read 2+2 will say, "oh, I can't use Neteller? Well, that's OK since before I played internet poker I didn't even know what Neteller was, so I guess I'll just use this other thing."

The industry will just evolve, like it has in the past.