U.S. ban sparks Web gaming crisis

[faisj]

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Online gaming firms faced their biggest-ever crisis on Monday after U.S. Congress unexpectedly passed legislation to ban online gaming there, threatening jobs and hitting stocks by as much as 70 percent.

Britain's PartyGaming Plc, operator of leading online poker site PartyPoker.com, and rivals Sportingbet and 888 Plc said they would likely pull out of the United States and warned on future profits.

PartyGaming's shares fell 59 percent by 0725 GMT, while Sportingbet lost 64 percent, 888 was down 45 percent and gaming software provider Playtech fell 55 percent. Austria's bwin.com Interactive Entertainment fell as much as 22 percent in the first few minutes of trading.

U.S. Congress unexpectedly approved a bill early on Saturday that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.

More:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/10/02/uk.betting.reut/index.html



Oh my God.... : (
My fabulous account holds 1000+ gambling/poker/casino domain names
and I was already feeling a huge drop in income...

 

[dgridley]

The lines between the parties are so blurred lately, I don't think it matters which party you belong to.. I've always considered myself a Republican because I'm for "less government".. it doesn't seem to be that way these days.

 

[RogueWriter]

slu- I must be looking at the wrong stats, I saw an article with only 2 voting against, overall, in the house.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

As if it will affect anything else. Gambling is a serious thing "online dating" is not... you can't stop life and love.

 

[dgridley]

Online daters meet up with alot of scammers and shysters..

"online dating" is not...

 

[dhscott]

Someone could steal the market now by introducing a payment system located solely in another country which accepted payments from the US, which could then be used as payment to gambling sites.

Like Paypal, but not based in America sorta thing

On that note, what's stopping people from using services like Paypal to bypass this law? How will Paypal stop people using it's services to gamble or bet?

(Ladbrokes accepts Paypal as a form of payment)

 

[danielr]

I strongly think you everyone should look at the whole anti gaming bill facts and demographics.

1. The reason why this bill passed unanimous in the senate is BECAUSE it was attached to the the Port Security Bill when was designed to force major ports to screen for bilogical warefare and nuclear terrorist threats. The port security bill would pass with flying colors and there is no way that the gambling issue would prevent it.

2. Who was it that attached the Anti Gambling Bill to the Port Security Bill? it was BILL FIRST a repulican Senator from Tennesee.

3. Who was it that introduced this bill to begin with? It was a Replublican Senator from VA.

4. The Democrats who are in favor of this bill are the ones in the Southern Babtist (bible belt states) who their constitents are actually book burning SOB's that should be wearing swastikas. The would should down porn, dancing, alcholol if they could.

People, this was a bill introduced and passed by the conservatives in the USA and I have to tell you was the republican influence.

I feel the republicans must be punished because they attched it to a bill that needed to be passed. I am ex military and was a hard core republican until now. I feel the freedoms of the Americans is much more important that anything else... and I urge everyone else to feel the same.

 

[Keynes]

This addendum to the bill is ultimately cutting a Gordian Knot: outright bans are never effective or enforceable, instead creating an undermarket that we see in many other industries. Any consumer protections are out the window, and online gamblers will instead be at the will of rogue groups. Good public policy seeks enlightened regulation and recognizes that an entrenched industry like this cannot be effectively buried in a free society. I sincerely hope that lawmakers will come to see the virtues in regulation of online commerce, rather than limiting our freedoms.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Online daters meet up with alot of scammers and shysters..

Yes, but so do people when it comes to ANY chatting/meeting system on the net. Meeting people is also a fact of life that can't be change.

I disagree with that it will affect anything else, completely.

 

[jeter4982]

I have a couple of thoughts about this - dealing both with the domaining side of things and the government side of things. First of all let me just say that I think it is pretty sad that Congress has nothing better to do with its time than try to crack down on online gambling. In a world full of terrorism, war, child pornography, drugs, etc, I think there are a lot greater evils than online gambling. Second of all, the bill was not passed as something just against online gaming, it was added on to the end of an exsisting bill. The only reason I see Congress passing this law is so they can tax the citizens more. In a casino, they can get your social security number, and then tax all of your winnings, however online they lose out on all tax revenues, as most people will not report this income.

Now for the domaining side of things. I think it will hurt some of the casino type domains, but have no effect on a lot of them. The domains that will really be hurt are the ones that pertain specifically to online gaming, and not just gaming in general. Something like PlayPokerOnline.com will no longer have US end users to sell to, and that will cut out a significant portion of the market. That being said, something dealing with just general casino terms like PokerTips.com, or something similar will not be affected that much in the long run IMHO. Luckily I have no casino related domains in my portfolio at all, but I will be very interested to see how the whole situation plays out.

Tom

 

[dgridley]

I agree.. was thinking the same thing myself.

It may, however, cut into ad revenue depending on what you promote.

I think it will hurt some of the casino type domains, but have no effect on a lot of them. The domains that will really be hurt are the ones that pertain specifically to online gaming, and not just gaming in general.

 

[.X.]

I have a couple of thoughts about this - dealing both with the domaining side of things and the government side of things. First of all let me just say that I think it is pretty sad that Congress has nothing better to do with its time than try to crack down on online gambling. In a world full of terrorism, war, child pornography, drugs, etc, I think there are a lot greater evils than online gambling. Second of all, the bill was not passed as something just against online gaming, it was added on to the end of an exsisting bill. The only reason I see Congress passing this law is so they can tax the citizens more. In a casino, they can get your social security number, and then tax all of your winnings, however online they lose out on all tax revenues, as most people will not report this income.

Now for the domaining side of things. I think it will hurt some of the casino type domains, but have no effect on a lot of them. The domains that will really be hurt are the ones that pertain specifically to online gaming, and not just gaming in general. Something like PlayPokerOnline.com will no longer have US end users to sell to, and that will cut out a significant portion of the market. That being said, something dealing with just general casino terms like PokerTips.com, or something similar will not be affected that much in the long run IMHO. Luckily I have no casino related domains in my portfolio at all, but I will be very interested to see how the whole situation plays out.

Tom

I agree Tom....it's incredable how this hit this stocks of the big online casino's ...not a good thing imo....I guess they want a online gaming commission to allow gambling online...the whole process of what is going on is totally ludicrous imo...what's next....ban forums aswell....it's all BS imo :td:

 

[slugraduate]

slu- I must be looking at the wrong stats, I saw an article with only 2 voting against, overall, in the house.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml

 

[IAmAllanShore]

How will this effect the industry?
It won't be the individual consumer prosecuted for gaming (Aside from maybe a couple for publicity's sake), but this does scare the "borderline" gamer into not playing, and makes it that much harder for them to play than it was already. Will this have a profoundly negative effect on gaming revenues? Certainly. While the market isn't perfect, I assure you that the collective conscience knows more of the effect on revenue this will have than any single poster trying to defend their pro/con position on this.
Best.

4. The Democrats who are in favor of this bill are the ones in the Southern Babtist (bible belt states) who their constitents are actually book burning SOB's that should be wearing swastikas. The would should down porn, dancing, alcholol if they could.

Daniel,
Aside from this, most of your posts have been well reasoned. Don't let the "emotion" in this case (Why the extreme emotion on online poker anyway?) push you to making such sweeping generalizations such as this (And I think you know better, anyway.)

-Allan

 

[Volholic]

I have always voted for the person who I thought was the best candidate---I voted for Reagan in the 80's but I cannot stomach the current Republicans anymore. They should not be shoving their morals down my throat.
You are right that they should have better things to work on---They have been in complete control for 6 years and what have they done----nothing---do nothing congress and white house---All they what to do is go to war and get 1,000 of our young people killed.
And they also want to restrict my rights as an American.
If I want to get online and gamble that should be my right------------whatever I want to do as long as it does not physically hurt someone else that should be my right because I am an american---Land of the Free----remember.
I pray everyday that this country survives until we get Bush out of office---even if its a republican that takes his place---as long as Bush is gone---worst president we have had in the last 100 years or longer

 

[viciouscircle]

No one would switch parties and lobby on that parties behalf over something as mundane as a gambling bill. Furthermore, did you even bother to research how many Democrats voted for the bill? Referencing this site, it shows that "Republicans voted in favor 201 to 17 (94.95%) and Democrats 115 to 76 (60.21%)".

Better join the Green Party since they didn't vote for it.

The lines between the parties are so blurred lately, I don't think it matters which party you belong to.. I've always considered myself a Republican because I'm for "less government".. it doesn't seem to be that way these days.

I believe you two are both looking for the Libertarian Party

 

[slugraduate]

4. The Democrats who are in favor of this bill are the ones in the Southern Babtist (bible belt states) who their constitents are actually book burning SOB's that should be wearing swastikas. The would should down porn, dancing, alcholol if they could.

Wrong again.

Without researching each and every name on the list, these prominent Democrats are far from Southern Baptists.

Cardin - Maryland
Emanuel - Illinois
Sanders - Vermont
Moore, - Kansas
Murtha - Pennsylvania
Shaw - Maryland
Pelosi - California
Waters - California

It is also worthwhile to note that this vote record is for HR4411 without attachment. Meaning, it was not the full Senate vote that attached this to other items. It was a vote on it's own merits.

 

[RogueWriter]

I strongly think you everyone should look at the whole anti gaming bill facts and demographics.

1. The reason why this bill passed unanimous in the senate is BECAUSE it was attached to the the Port Security Bill when was designed to force major ports to screen for bilogical warefare and nuclear terrorist threats. The port security bill would pass with flying colors and there is no way that the gambling issue would prevent it.

2. Who was it that attached the Anti Gambling Bill to the Port Security Bill? it was BILL FIRST a repulican Senator from Tennesee.

3. Who was it that introduced this bill to begin with? It was a Replublican Senator from VA.

4. The Democrats who are in favor of this bill are the ones in the Southern Babtist (bible belt states) who their constitents are actually book burning SOB's that should be wearing swastikas. The would should down porn, dancing, alcholol if they could.

People, this was a bill introduced and passed by the conservatives in the USA and I have to tell you was the republican influence.

I feel the republicans must be punished because they attched it to a bill that needed to be passed. I am ex military and was a hard core republican until now. I feel the freedoms of the Americans is much more important that anything else... and I urge everyone else to feel the same.

Smoke and mirrors, buddy. Either you ( Congressmen ) voted for or against it. Dems don't get a pass on this. They could have made this an issue, and chose not to. Bills get attached everyday, and in an election year, this was the perfect way for Democrats to stand out from the pack.

Until the Line Item Veto gets passed once and for all, there will always be Dems and Republicans attaching their kickbacks to bills that are important.

 

[slugraduate]

Smoke and mirrors, buddy. Either you ( Congressmen ) voted for or against it. Dems don't get a pass on this. They could have made this an issue, and chose not to. Bills get attached everyday, and in an election year, this was the perfect way for Democrats to stand out from the pack.

Until the Line Item Veto gets passed once and for all, there will always be Dems and Republicans attaching their kickbacks to bills that are important.

Nice summation.

 

[GoDesign]

This is very bad news for the gaming / betting industry, its also not good for the domain name market. I detest Bush, however i think he's done one thing here that i agree with.
I know this might sound contradictory, but i have had experiences with the online gaming industry and they are not (on a whole) very nice people. I'm also 100% sure that most, if not all, the online poker sites/casino's are heavily rigged in favour of the house.maybe this move will help clean up the online gaming industry, which i believe is largely corrupt.

 

[slugraduate]

Someone could steal the market now by introducing a payment system located solely in another country which accepted payments from the US, which could then be used as payment to gambling sites.

Wouldn't that be money laundering?