Frank to introduce bill.....

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There are at least two really obvious workarounds as long as it's legal in at least one state. Despite UIGEA's brazen trampling of states' rights, Frank really had no choice but to insert this provision.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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 ]


One interesting issue with state level opt-out though, is that such still might not conform to WTO rulings, as the WTO views the U.S. as an integral whole. So as long as remote wagering for horse racing and lotteries is allowed anywhere in the states, the U.S. would likely not be compliant as foreign companies were being shut out of part of the U.S. market. However of course such a foreign company agreeing to the terms of licensing requirements might make that point moot, as such agreement would seem to remove their ability to have their national government make a complaint to the WTO on that score.

The second interesting issue is whether the Commerce Clause of the constitution even allows such state opt-outs.

[Eaglebauer]

Edited

[tshort]

[ 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.

[Jay Cohen]

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

[crashjr]

[ 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.

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like i found the answer to one of my questions...

Is it possible for restrictions to be enforced if individual states decide to “opt-out” from permitting persons in their states from Internet gambling?

Yes. When using the Internet, a customer’s IP address is broadcast to the operator and can then be used to identify the state in which a customer resides with a 99 percent level of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm....I'd take issue with 99%, I'd say 80% at best, the way some major ISPs route their network, can make it look like you're from a state you're not it

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances that a specific state will opt-out. Or to ask my question in a more selfish manner, if this passes will NY ban online gaming anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

This bill would regulate, but does not create, "lawful internet gambling".

States will opt out of unlawful offerings - NY included. If this somehow passed, could it lead to states changing laws? That is the real battlefront.

[Sinister_Kane]

The bill is out there, can someone give me a time line of what happens next?

[tangled]

[ 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.