Quote:
Originally Posted by Richas
I'm puzzled by the positive reaction to this.
The $450k fee per gambling offering for a five year licence up front seems like just a big barrier to any new entrants. the 20% gross revenue tax seems a bit high but I guess that's the current charge.
The gaps in info - player protection, limits on total sites to be licenced etc etc make it hard to make a snap judgment but it looks like a bill designed to exclude international competition not a big liberalisation or a breakup of the state monopoly. Indeed the new powers to fine ISPs that allow access to non Hungarian licenced sites look terrible in principle.
Licencing should be cheap - it should be a fee for teh regulation costs not a revenue driver and not an up front 5 year barrier. Licencing should also be open to anyone who meets the regulatory standard not limited and the only standard published so far seems to be that they have a lot of working capital and likely a requirement to deposit that to reassure their taxman not players.
Without more detail its impossible to say but my initial reaction is that this is state monopoly protection wrapped up as liberalisation and sent to the EU as a stalling move more than anything else.
As written, that's exactly what it is, but it's only a proposal that with a few modifications could be a decent compromise between entirely open borders for internet gambling (dream) and State monopoly over internet poker (nightmare).
The simple addition of an requirement that Hungary must actually approve a minimum number of licensees within a reasonable time period, along with some tweaks to the fees/taxes etc would make this a far better solution than what seems to be on the horizon for most States here in the US.
The US seems locked on a course that will end with one of three results; no online gambling in many States, lottery only in some or commercial only in a few - with liquidity damned off by those categories.
This Hungary draft proposal is the first I've seen anywhere that even attempts to address a compromise between lottery and commercial, and wouldn't require a non-commercial gambling State to create a regulatory framework.
It's refreshing to me to see someone actually thinking outside of the two boxes (Gambling is a State Right! - Free Trade!); transferring that line of thinking to the US, it might be reasonable to allow State lotteries and/or Tribal governments a first-mover advantage within their State markets to bridge the gap that a brand name like WSOP or PokerStars would create.
Eventually the market walls will be taken down, but whether in the EU or US, through the courts, Congress or Parliament, that process could take several years, whereas a compromise idea like this one could prevent solid walls like those in Italy from ever being constructed.