Home / Poker News December 2010 / A closer look at Reid’s online poker bill
A closer look at Reid’s online poker bill
Posted by: Jo Martin - Tue, 2010-12-07 09:05
As part of the online poker world rejoices over the prospect of online poker becoming legal in the US in the near future, many who have looked deeper into what’s in store, behold the unfolding events with an understandably increasing sense of caution. Sure,
online poker will technically become legal, but as far as the already established (and beloved) online poker operations are concerned, as well as the players who love them, there may be more letdowns than reasons to celebrate in Harry Reid’s Christmas gift package.
There are rumours of a stipulation in the bill that would exclude all operators, but actual US-based brick and mortar casinos which have been in the business for at least 5 years, from acquiring a license. Something like that would represent a huge disappointment as operators like
PokerStars and
Full Tilt Poker, where millions of players have accounts, have no affiliations with the US casino industry.
Another rumour regarding the bill is a provision about sites which intend to apply for a license having to stop accepting all US-based traffic no more than 30 days after the bill is passed. This stipulation, combined with the one stating that no licenses shall be granted for 15 months after the passing of the bill, essentially means that all US based online poker activities will grind to a standstill for more than a year’s time.
Unlike the provision about denying services to us players, the 15-month hiatus following the passing of the law makes perfect sense in light of the fact that the government needs time to set up the regulatory framework as well as the anti-problem gambling safeguards that will have to be instituted as well.
Obviously, the Poker Player’s Alliance, which – through Reid’s bill – must’ve gotten more than it’s bargained for, is not happy with some of the above detailed provisions. According to John Pappas, the PPA’s spokesman, powerful interests which don’t necessarily have players’ interests at heart, had to be appeased thrugh the bill too, hence the often overly restrictive language.
