PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Agencies know the banks ALREADY know how to over-block. They are ALREADY blocking on business risk reasons.

Can you deposit directly to an on-line poker site???

There is no unwanted mandate. As a matter of fact if any of us had been smart enough we would have found a way to sue the banks for thier over blocking.

The banks are one step a head of us and gaining.....

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right now, banks will have the burden of proof that transactions they permit are lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is where you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If a bank permits unlawful Internet gambling without reasonable procedures to comply with UIGEA, they'll be in violation of the UIGEA regs.

[ QUOTE ]

Read the proposed regulation again.

Even the Agencies there tell the banks they can either block for business risk reasons or use the OFAC list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the proposed regulation again. The OFAC list is just a proposal for disucssion concerning the feasibility of lists:

[ QUOTE ]
6. List of Unlawful Internet Gambling Businesses
The Act does not mention the creation of a list of unlawful
Internet gambling businesses. However, the Agencies are aware that
there is some interest in exploring this idea. The Agencies considered
including in the proposed rule's examples of reasonably designed
policies and procedures, examination of a list that would be
established by the U.S. Government of businesses known to be engaged in
the business of unlawful Internet gambling. Some have suggested that
the obligation of financial institutions with respect to such a list
might be similar in effect to their obligations under certain other
U.S. laws, such as those administered by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC), albeit in a different context.\20\ Some have also
suggested that the list could be either available publicly in its
entirety, so that financial transaction providers could check
transactions against the list themselves, or maintained confidentially
at a central location, so that financial transaction providers could
submit transactions to the entity operating the central database, which
would inform the financial transaction providers whether the
transaction involved an unlawful Internet gambling business on its
list. Proponents of the list suggest that under either of these
approaches, certain restricted transactions directed to unlawful
Internet gambling accounts could be blocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The banks have had these methods in hand for years.

One of my banks Chevy Chase Bank has had these policies in place since May of 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? I said UIGEA could cause overblocking. I didn't say transactions are not blocked now.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Agencies know the banks ALREADY know how to over-block. They are ALREADY blocking on business risk reasons.

Can you deposit directly to an on-line poker site???

There is no unwanted mandate. As a matter of fact if any of us had been smart enough we would have found a way to sue the banks for thier over blocking.

The banks are one step a head of us and gaining.....

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I know banks are overblocking now. How many times do we have to repeat this. They don't want to get stiffed. They want to get paid. Why is this such a shocker? Why do you think this means banks WANT UIGEA? Why? Just because you think so?

Keep spamming us with your conspiracy theories. Seems you're just here to argue and tell us how you know it all and how you've done it all. Go on without me....the rest of us will be fighting for online poker.

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I understand, man!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought I did.

Everyone: There really is no "wrong" comment. I hope folks here won't read this thread and refuse to comment out of fear of hurting something by making the wrong comment. Just make a pro-poker statement using the PPA talking points or your own judgement. It will be fine. We need a lot of comments on the regs so please don't hesitate. You have a right to comment, so please do so. You can be sure our opponents will. Thanks.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will be interesting to say the least. Gaming has never been competitive in the US. For God's sake its never been about value to the consumer. We're talking about Casinos who think giving 1% cashback on sub90% payout slots is going to bankrupt them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is valid for poker rooms. But even if it is, you're forgetting that the competition expressly legal poker would create has never been seen before. It's one thing to rip someone off in a riverboat in Mississippi, where there are no other options, or in a resort in Vegas, where everyone is on vacation.

It's an altogether different thing to rip somebody off when you can find a substantially better deal without having to lift an ass cheek.


[ QUOTE ]
FT and PS won't go away. I think you're also discounting their serious advantages in having great software they have long experience with, and in Stars case, great CS. And an existing base of customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are we talking about here? We're talking about practice, man. We're talking about customer service and software. We're not talking about rocket science.

If Yahoo! isn't smart enough to have a fully operational poker site up and running that's backed by a trained staff of customer service agents within a week of the green light, then peeing your pants is cool.

This isn't the atomic bomb.

Also, what's to keep a guy like Mark Cuban from simply paying cash for a site like UB and have them servicing U.S. customers within a matter of hours?

When it comes down to it, we're all just playing a computer game. Software and customer service? Please.

[Skallagrim]

I have thought a lot about this, and am still not sure which is the absolute best tactic. I am thinking I will go with my original idea for my comment, while most PPA members can follow the talking points. Maybe in tandem that will have the best result.

Regulators cannot write or decide law. In this case that means they cannot decide what is UIG and what is not - they could "report" the answer though, if that were actually an answerable question, and they could put that report in the regulations. But it is not an answerable question, not with any degree of certainty anyway. I am a lawyer, and take my word for it, exactly what is UIG and what isnt can be narrowed down, but cannot be defined with any real specificity - eventually you get to guesses. The regulation writers realized this. And probably at DOJ prodding (by the FOF followers in the DOJ) they came up with the solution of encouraging bank over-blocking.

Over-blocking is the danger to us. But it is not only a danger to us, many legitimate businesses will be hurt by overblocking, not just poker.

Somehow we have to get them to realize and respond to this...either by getting them to agree to do the impossible (specifically define what games are UIG and what are not, and yes this varies depending on the geography) or by getting them to agree openly that this cant be done by anyone. Then to stop this evil overblocking they should write regulations that give banks protection if they dont overblock - specifically, regulations that say blocking only the clearly illegal things (sportsbetting, primarily) is sufficient compliance to avoid bank liability.

These regulators care nothing about constitutionality or the WTO or, for that matter, internet poker and gambling. They care about at least looking like they have done the job Congress asked them to do... and they care about protecting the banks (who lobby them with big money).

It is an open question which tactic will work best...but I remain convinced that getting them to attempt a job they have already concluded is impossible (because it is) is the more difficult road.

Even if I am wrong though, getting them to somehow respond to the danger of blocking transactions to obviously legal sites is the key to getting them to rethink the regulations as written. Perhaps if we persuade them that one way or another they cannot avoid responding to this headache, they will delay action long enough for a legislative correction (Wexler bill).

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

My "unfunded mandate" statement was just a post on this board....it wasn't part of my comment. Besides, I think you know what I meant, so why bother correcting me? Seems unproductive to me.

I disagree that my comment is unconstitutional. Neither you nor I are experts in Constitutional law, so I'm not sure how you made this determination. Perhaps a lawyer here can review my comment.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. It would be good for us if they adopted it, so we should ask for it and let them consider it. UIGEA itself is unconstitutional and unprecedented, but that didn't stop Congress from passing it. Anyway, we need a lot of comments. I'll be making a lot myself, and I hope you and everyone else will, too.

Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post an example?