Reid Bill to License U.S. Online Poker (failed to pass in late 2010)

[rizeagainst]

You on Merge then?

Sorry if it's already been asked but what do you PPA guys think are the odds of Harry Reid succeeding here at this moment in time?

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by Karak

I mean a time out period HAS to happen... regulatory agencies need to make rules, they need to establish a licensing procedure, etc., but 15 months seems extremely excessive.

Then again, consider how long it took for the UIGEA regs to come out.

How much deference does the bill give regulatory agencies? Who would control it?

Which regulators are making the rules here?

If we are talking about not allowing foreign sites to offer service to US customers in any sort of grace period, then a time out probably is going to be somewhat lengthy.

Even a shorter time period is legislated in, given what regulators already have on their plates and the fact that Harrah's and Co probably do want something that looks like a 15 month moratorium (given that was the original wording in the bill, I wouldnt be shocked to see this delayed until we get about a 15 month timeout.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Which regulators are making the rules here?

If we are talking about not allowing foreign sites to offer service to US customers in any sort of grace period, then a time out probably is going to be somewhat lengthy.

Even a shorter time period is legislated in, given what regulators already have on their plates and the fact that Harrah's and Co probably do want something that looks like a 15 month moratorium (given that was the original wording in the bill, I wouldnt be shocked to see this delayed until we get about a 15 month timeout.

I'm not sure which agency would control, but a licensing and regulating regime just isn't going to pop out of thin air, and I doubt the legislation will go into quite that much painstaking detail to leave little deference to an agency.

The more I think about it, the more 15 months seems inevitable tbh. Depends on how specific the wording of the legislation is?

However, I'm also VERY curious what they meant by states taking the main regulation role. Does that mean they just intend to lift the prohibitions with some caveats and punt to the states to control the rest? If so, the time length could be much shorter.

lol a side note: I was walking to school (near the capitol building) the other day and a guy in a suit with a briefcase was pacing in circles (so fast it was like he was running) screaming about the committee and budget outlays and budget authority. I couldn't make sense of exactly what he was saying because he was yelling, but it was pretty lol. These guys are all going to go crazy by the time this term ends.

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Well, not if they choose to opt out and UIGEA is strengthened. Then things would get worse in that state.

I think we've always sort of suspected that would be the case. No?

I know that you, me and some others have on occasion warned those to be aware of things like state opt-outs and such before before they supported any federal legislation, not because we were against legislation but just so players would be aware and not surprised by them.

Even going back to the hearing on the Frank bill it was clear lawmakers weren't going to repeal UIGEA but might in fact strengthen it for unlicensed sites, so if this is in the Reid bill it's not really a surprise, too mee anyway.

I think it was always going suck big time for players in opt-out states, as we've debated and talked about many times. We've warned them about this many times it should really be a shock to anyone language like this may be in the bill.

[Berge20]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Do you think Kyl's influence on START factors in as well? That's what Ive been most worried about for awhile now. Or do treaties acutally rise above petty politics?

Not 100% how they interact. Outside of the time left in the session, I don't think they have too much cross pollution.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Do you think Kyl's influence on START factors in as well? That's what Ive been most worried about for awhile now. Or do treaties acutally rise above petty politics?

Nothing rises above petty politics in Washington. Nothing.

[DrewOnTilt]

Hmmm, if Reid manages to boink something through the Senate, then what about the House? Doesn't there have to be companion legislation? One would think that I would know all of these things after all of the time that I have spent mucking up these threads...

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by Karak

I mean a time out period HAS to happen... regulatory agencies need to make rules, they need to establish a licensing procedure, etc., but 15 months seems extremely excessive.

Then again, consider how long it took for the UIGEA regs to come out.

How much deference does the bill give regulatory agencies? Who would control it?

I don't know if you were referring to my post below or not, but I was talking about the the 2 year "monopoly", so to speak, for US casinos, race tracks, etc. before maybe the possibility of others being allowed to enter the US market.

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

I think a time-out period isn't really a bad thing and as LG said it's something Harrah's and other US casinos, as well as some lawmakers would probably like. It gives the US sites a little time to play catch-up to foreign sites. I don't think it needs to be 2 years but some grace period for US operators to get things set up and going doesn't sound bad too me.

Though on the 15 month wait I don't thinks its really excessive, In fact I'll be surprised if in practice it doesn't take twice as long. It will take time for detailed reg's to be draw up (both federal and state), enforcement and compliance personal and procedures to be established, ect. This is the goverment after all and nothing is going to happen overnight.

[antneye]

Originally Posted by Berge20

Not 100% how they interact. Outside of the time left in the session, I don't think they have too much cross pollution.

Seeing Berge posting in here reminds me of the runnup to Port Security and UIGEA. This is all so Deja-Vu it would be funny if it didn't mean so much to me.

I'm feeling pretty good that this is a done deal....no reason other than pure cynicism that says this has been bought and paid for a long time ago. Our political system has been very badly corrupted but I'm not going to complain the one time it MAY work in my favor.

[permafrost]

Originally Posted by Karak

Every single state has the right to participate. You elect your state senators, representatives and governor. If you cannot get someone elected who will opt in, that's your problem, not mine. I'm not going to sit here and slowly suffer the suffocating end to online poker (and it will end if the status quo continues) because a few people from states which will opt out (or, rather, not opt in) are being pissy about it. This is American democracy at its finest, and, frankly, I'm pretty excited at the opportunity to get to fight for this on state levels. **** gets done much quicker there.

Like they would ever pass a bill allowing unlicensed corps to continue existing. Come on, man.

Why do you think only a few people in opt-out states will get upset? I would expect most will.

Also, assuming Fed license fees are still in the bill, why would poker business need to pay while the racing sites don't have that burden afaik? What extra attention are the Feds going to give their poker licensees to justify the fee?

Agreed we can be excited to fight for legalization in many states like racing did/does...however that luckily does not depend on an elusive Fed license bill.

[bigfishead]

Originally Posted by Karak

You are completely irrational and have no idea how politics or lawmaking works. I'm done replying to your arguments.

I wouldnt go so far as to say that.

I agree 100% with his opinion this is a CORPORATE for PROFIT bill and nothing more.

Lest we forget, just a short eight months ago Harry Reid was against online gaming. Why? because Harrahs told him so. Then they Hired a PARTY POKER exec to head their internet gaming infrastructure and Reid suddenly changed his mind?


Please, get you head out of the sand. This is clearly aimed at profiteering Harrahs first and foremost (I dont include MGM because we have not heard any rumblings of them being ready for anything online).

Imho, if it goes thru with the 2 yrs US land based only clause, we're screwed. This 2 yr time frame will be just what the DoJ wants/needs to totally lock out Stars/FTP and any other that has ever allowed US players. This is a windfall for Harrahs.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by bigfishead

I wouldnt go so far as to say that.

I agree 100% with his opinion this is a CORPORATE for PROFIT bill and nothing more.

Lest we forget, just a short eight months ago Harry Reid was against online gaming. Why? because Harrahs told him so. Then they Hired a PARTY POKER exec to head their internet gaming infrastructure and Reid suddenly changed his mind?


Please, get you head out of the sand. This is clearly aimed at profiteering Harrahs first and foremost (I dont include MGM because we have not heard any rumblings of them being ready for anything online).

Imho, if it goes thru with the 2 yrs US land based only clause, we're screwed. This 2 yr time frame will be just what the DoJ wants/needs to totally lock out Stars/FTP and any other that has ever allowed US players. This is a windfall for Harrahs.

Um, obv. I don't dispute anything you say. That's... like... how politics work.

However, online poker will dry up with the status quo, and allowing US casinos to compete under a regulatory regime ensures it will be around for the long haul.

Thankfully, a windfall for Harrahs will also likely benefit me. It's worth noting, IIRC, that MGM donated considerably more to Reid's campaign than Harrahs did. Wynn, Harrahs, MGM, all of them will be able to step up very quickly. Don't forget the tribes, either (one of which is already creating a site with the Cake network, if I remember right).

[Karak]

btw check this out guys: http://pokerati.com/2010/12/03/summa...forcement-act/

Key language:

An “Internet poker facility” means an “Internet gaming facility” (also defined) that provides bets or wagers only with respect to a game, hand, tournament, or other contest of poker. Only persons operating Internet poker facilities under a license issued by a Qualified Body (see below) may be licensees under the Bill.

A Qualified Body means a State or tribal regulatory body that has been qualified by the Secretary of Commerce as provided in of section 8202(c) of the Bill (including entities qualified as a matter of law under subsection (c)(1)). This part of the Bill automatically qualifies state and tribal agencies as bodies qualified to grant licences that, among other things: currently regulate casino gaming and have done so for 5 years preceding the date of enactment of the Bill; have regulated casino gaming facilities involving gross gaming revenue of at least 5% of the total US casino gaming revenue for at least 3 out of the last 5 years preceding enactment of the Bill; are in states or on Indian lands that are opted in under section 8204 of the Bill (see below). Those not automatically qualified under section 8202(c)(1) can apply to the Secretary of Commerce for designation as a Qualified Body.

Here's where it's going to take a long freaking time:

The Secretary of Commerce (not the Treasury Secretary, as under the Frank bill) is charged with establishing the Office of Internet Poker Oversight (OIPO) “with sufficient resources to exercise the functions set out in this chapter, to be led by a person with demonstrated experience and expertise in regulating gaming activities.” Among other things, the OIPO can issue licenses to and regulate the provision of Internet poker services by Indian tribes, exercise oversight over regulatory bodies, and issue regulations concerning minimum standards.

[poopcrew]

Does anyone have a good idea what the chances of this getting past are? Someone that follows politics and how these things usually work out when someone like HR wants to get something passed like this.? ty

And im using my SECOND TIME!!!