tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post1039545478793803590..comments2024-03-05T08:25:01.029-05:00Comments on Poker Grump: BalkanizationRakewellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-64855523236453402952010-07-30T09:47:32.496-04:002010-07-30T09:47:32.496-04:00A major justification for the local control over s...A major justification for the local control over servers is to make regulation and inspection easier (think investigating the next superuser scandal). So, while I think the section could be read to allow Goliath Poker to have Goliath Poker US, Goliath Poker Australia, etc. with each subsidiary having local officers, control, location, etc., the big rub is <i>where do the servers with the RNG and the actual individual game data go</i>?<br /><br />It might be annoying but possible for each subsidiary to keep separate data on player funds, and each subsidiary could use its own skins for data interface. But at some point, the data from all the national skins has to conglomerate somewhere; players have to all be at the same table. If every country insists on hosting the server that has the actual game data, then balkanization must occur.<br /><br />Now, one solution is to possibly permit reciprocal inspections of servers with other countries that meet US standards. But so far, at least in Europe, that's not happening, In fact, the EU court recently ruled that countries could close off outside companies because of these kinds of regulatory concerns.<br /><br />Most likely, this is the type of provision that will pass because of nationalistic jingoism (combined with paternalistic protection for American gamblers), but it will quietly be reworked once Harrahs decides it wants an international network (although, who knows if it minds a fractured market approach?).Grange95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-23401480872090286652010-07-30T09:25:11.111-04:002010-07-30T09:25:11.111-04:00Any way you slice it, all they want is their tax t...Any way you slice it, all they want is their tax take. That's all it has ever been.Wine Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810137648194529582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-41775515888873866342010-07-30T04:13:56.718-04:002010-07-30T04:13:56.718-04:00Your argument seems to be this:
(1) Transmission...Your argument seems to be this: <br /><br />(1) Transmission of data between a player and the server, assuming it is via the Internet, cannot be guaranteed to be completely within the US because data packets might bounce outside our borders en route. <br /><br />(2) The bill's author's couldn't intend a result so absurd as to make impossible the very thing they're purporting to license and regulate. <br /><br />(3) Therefore, the bet "processing" language can't limit games to mean only players located in the U.S.<br /><br />Assuming I've understand that correctly, I agree with (1) and (2). But you make a leap of logic with (3). <br /><br />I agree that bet "processing" cannot include simple transmission of raw data, or we get the absurd result you suggest. But it does not follow that "processing" can't mean anything that involves the Internet and/or that would exclude non-US players. <br /><br />To the extent that you are just saying that I can't be sure that either those writing the rules that will govern interpretation or the courts will read "processing" the way I'm suggesting, I agree. I don't know that they will. But it's hardly a far-fetched possibility. I still maintain that what I have suggested is not only *a* natural reading of the language, but the *most* natural reading of it. <br /><br />Unless the "processing" language gets further clarified in the later legislative steps, I don't think anybody could plan to enter the field with confidence that an international game was going to be allowed.Rakewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-32245196507592788582010-07-30T03:32:23.742-04:002010-07-30T03:32:23.742-04:00If the language is to be interpreted the way you s...If the language is to be interpreted the way you suggest, the sites couldn't use the public intertubes at all. All such internet traffic is potentially routed through facilities outsides the US even if its two end-points are within the US, and no commercial entity operating in the US can guarantee otherwise unless they are using infrastructure exclusively under their control.<br /><br />It would be absurd to limit communication of information across the net in the way you describe. (It's not impossible that Congress would pass a completely absurd law, I grant you. But I can't imagine them knowingly drafting a law that was nothing more than a huge practical joke: Here, we license internet poker! Except you can't actually ever qualify, because you're using the internet! Hahahaha! Thanks for playing!")<br /><br />What constitutes "bet processing?" Until you know the answer to that question (and my guess is that it's much more narrowly defined than you posit), the balkanization concern seems unwarranted. If I had to guess, I'd bet ~ ha! ~ it will be similar to what is required of US Banks when it comes to electronic monetary transactions.Cardgrrlhttp://raiseorfold.cardgrrl.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-67614554920623047162010-07-30T03:14:30.437-04:002010-07-30T03:14:30.437-04:00An Italian poker writer told me in Italy they have...An Italian poker writer told me in Italy they have poker sites only for Italians.<br /><br />You're right, if the whole world can't play poker together, what's the goddamn point of the Internet?<br /><br />As for the balkanization issue - Americans can only use American Amazon. I wish I could order stuff from England, but I can't.<br /><br />I really don't see anything wrong with online poker as it was pre 2006. Licenses? Regulations? Bullshit.Wolynskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04428782184898610640noreply@blogger.com