Just wanted to ask all of you what your thoughts were of this. Will the bill pass? What will it do to the industry as a whole? What will it do to sports gambling sites? Read some things here and there, but I don't have a clue what to think. Is this thing gonna be bad or what?
Goodlatte Bill
- Thread starter jpblack34
- Start date
here's the whole key to this bill.
The bill would update an existing ban against interstate gambling over telephone lines to also outlaw use of the Internet and related technology, Goodlatte said.
The legislation would specifically prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers in illegal gambling transactions. It also would set a maximum prison sentence of five years for violations.
it harldly affects anything that's not already in place.
plus, i really don't think they will pass it and that's IF they get around to voting on it. there are a lot more important things on the agenda AND if it did pass, it would then have to go to senate and pass there too.
am i concerned? yes, a little. am i going to sit around and worry about it. nope.
The bill would update an existing ban against interstate gambling over telephone lines to also outlaw use of the Internet and related technology, Goodlatte said.
The legislation would specifically prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers in illegal gambling transactions. It also would set a maximum prison sentence of five years for violations.
it harldly affects anything that's not already in place.
plus, i really don't think they will pass it and that's IF they get around to voting on it. there are a lot more important things on the agenda AND if it did pass, it would then have to go to senate and pass there too.
am i concerned? yes, a little. am i going to sit around and worry about it. nope.
it doesn't affect the players, ONLY the gambling businesses. the sportsbooks, poker sites, online casinos, etc.
there will always be a way to get the money to your favorite book.
i hope
there will always be a way to get the money to your favorite book.
i hope
http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20060220-113142-1864r
Online gambling ban reintroduced
By STOKELY BAKSH
UPI Technology Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- A bill reintroduced in Congress that would crack down on illegal, offshore gambling or interstate gambling via phone or Internet technologies is expected to pick up momentum, now that a 115 members from the U.S. House of Representatives are standing behind it.
But those in the online gambling industry say Congress is too quick to prohibit the activity.
Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., reintroduced the 2000 bill, after they said it was "derailed" by efforts made by now infamous Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who led a campaign of misinformation and lacked the two-thirds required for passage under suspension of the rules.
According to the two congressmen, online gambling sucks billion of dollars per year out of the U.S. economy, serves as a vehicle for money laundering, undermines families, and threatens the effectiveness of states' enacting or enforcing laws, they said last week.
"The explosive growth of the Internet has provided a means for gambling operations to evade existing anti-gambling laws," Boucher stated. "These Internet gambling Web sites typically operate offshore and often serve as a prime vehicle for money laundering and other criminal enterprises. Our bill sensibly updates federal law to keep pace with new technologies by bringing the Internet within the fold of the anti-gambling restrictions that govern telephones."
Goodlatte added that the activity has flourished into a $12 billion industry, and called for measures to curb it.
If approved, the lnternet Gambling Prohibition Act would amend the federal 1961 Wire Act by prohibiting all forms of interstate gambling and Internet technologies used in the activity.
In addition, it would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting payments such as credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers, in illegal gambling transactions as well as giving law enforcement injunction authority to uphold the act.
It also increases the maximum prison term for a violation of this act from two years to five years.
But such prohibition campaigns made by the United States to ban Internet gambling has put U.S. lawmakers in the hot seat with the World Trade Organization, who ruled in 2005 that the United States had until April 3, 2006 to bring its laws into compliance with its decision. The decision ruled in favor of a complaint filed by the Caribbean nation Antigua and Barbuda who claimed that United States' aggressive efforts unfairly discriminated against online gambling companies especially a small island nation such as theirs.
And with the reintroduction of this bill has fueled renewed protests from the Caribbean nation, who say it goes against the WTO decision.
Yet, lawmakers may want to rethink their prohibition strategy, as the number of American participants who gamble online continues to grow, thanks to the Internet and evolving gambling software.
Online gambling revenue is projected to triple by 2009 with $16.929 billion up from an estimated $5.691 billion in 2003, according to research from Christiansen Capital Advisors.
It reported that more than 2,000 gambling Web sites would make nearly $10 billion in revenue in 2005, up by 40 percent in 2004.
CCA also estimated of the nearly 12 million people who gambled on the Internet in 2003, approximately 4.5 million of those gamblers were from the United States.
And gambling sectors within the industry are continuing to boom especially in the United Kingdom, which are enticing more U.S. companies to go online to keep revenue at home.
For instance, according to the November 2005 eGaming Review, online poker would grow by 149 percent this year and taken in U.S. $3.5 billion in revenues said investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.
But many in the U.S. online gambling industry are calling Congress too quick to jump on the prohibition bandwagon, saying they run legitimate businesses.
According to John Derossett, CEO of Maryland-based Gambling Portal Webmasters Association, he says those in the industry welcome regulations -- not illegalization.
The GPWA represents some 3,000 registered users, mostly webmasters, who sell advertisements for online gambling companies.
"These are legitimate businesses I conduct business with," Derossett said. "I don't know of anyone who belongs to Al-Qaeda and it doesn't hurt the economy. People like myself are registered corporations by a state and who pay taxes. We want to work with the U.S. in taxing us, rather than throwing a lot of businesses out of business."
And taxing would be the most intelligent way to acknowledge Americans who want to gamble, says David Schwartz, author of "Uneasy Convictions: The American Pursuit of Gaming and the Wire Act" and director of Gaming Studies Research Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
According Schwartz, banning online gambling would be a difficult task for lawmakers especially since their jurisdiction does not extend to off shore companies since those companies pay taxes, licensee fees, and adhere to regulations in their homebased countries. Past bills have suggested preventing access to such sites or blocking financial payments.
Moreover, he says the biggest reason such legislation is ineffective is simply due to institutional inertia.
"In 1909, lawmakers were debating banning online gambling, and it was finally made into law in 1961," he said. "The U.S. Congress in the past has not been the body that can regulate gambling and evolving technology."
Instead, Scwhartz notes the federal government should take steps to develop a system of taxing, work with states regulating such companies, and let such companies expand operations online. The industry is bringing a revenue that most states won't pass up even if it just took 1 percent in taxes, he says.
And indeed states' regulators are the answer, believes Frank Cantania, an attorney at Catania Consulting Group, Inc.
Cantania is the former chairman of the International Association of Gaming Regulators and former director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.
"Our land-based state regulators are the best in the world," Cantania said. "They easily could regulate the online gambling industry since they already protect against compulsive gamblers, the underage player, and at the same time, collect revenue for the state."
Moreover, while those in the industry say the bill is in the right direction trying to clarify illegal and legal gambling, prohibition is not the answer. Moreover, it carves out certain sectors including state horse racing, Native Americans, and fantasy sports. In fact, past legislations have carved out these sectors in the past.
Cantania also sees that online poker could be excluded since it would not be considered "predominantly subject to chance."
"This legislation is the wrong approach," Cantania said. "Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol, and it won't work now. This bill is not going to stop Internet gambling or its licensing in other jurisdictions -- there is just no way you can put a border around the U.S. when it comes to the Internet."
Online gambling ban reintroduced
By STOKELY BAKSH
UPI Technology Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- A bill reintroduced in Congress that would crack down on illegal, offshore gambling or interstate gambling via phone or Internet technologies is expected to pick up momentum, now that a 115 members from the U.S. House of Representatives are standing behind it.
But those in the online gambling industry say Congress is too quick to prohibit the activity.
Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., reintroduced the 2000 bill, after they said it was "derailed" by efforts made by now infamous Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who led a campaign of misinformation and lacked the two-thirds required for passage under suspension of the rules.
According to the two congressmen, online gambling sucks billion of dollars per year out of the U.S. economy, serves as a vehicle for money laundering, undermines families, and threatens the effectiveness of states' enacting or enforcing laws, they said last week.
"The explosive growth of the Internet has provided a means for gambling operations to evade existing anti-gambling laws," Boucher stated. "These Internet gambling Web sites typically operate offshore and often serve as a prime vehicle for money laundering and other criminal enterprises. Our bill sensibly updates federal law to keep pace with new technologies by bringing the Internet within the fold of the anti-gambling restrictions that govern telephones."
Goodlatte added that the activity has flourished into a $12 billion industry, and called for measures to curb it.
If approved, the lnternet Gambling Prohibition Act would amend the federal 1961 Wire Act by prohibiting all forms of interstate gambling and Internet technologies used in the activity.
In addition, it would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting payments such as credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers, in illegal gambling transactions as well as giving law enforcement injunction authority to uphold the act.
It also increases the maximum prison term for a violation of this act from two years to five years.
But such prohibition campaigns made by the United States to ban Internet gambling has put U.S. lawmakers in the hot seat with the World Trade Organization, who ruled in 2005 that the United States had until April 3, 2006 to bring its laws into compliance with its decision. The decision ruled in favor of a complaint filed by the Caribbean nation Antigua and Barbuda who claimed that United States' aggressive efforts unfairly discriminated against online gambling companies especially a small island nation such as theirs.
And with the reintroduction of this bill has fueled renewed protests from the Caribbean nation, who say it goes against the WTO decision.
Yet, lawmakers may want to rethink their prohibition strategy, as the number of American participants who gamble online continues to grow, thanks to the Internet and evolving gambling software.
Online gambling revenue is projected to triple by 2009 with $16.929 billion up from an estimated $5.691 billion in 2003, according to research from Christiansen Capital Advisors.
It reported that more than 2,000 gambling Web sites would make nearly $10 billion in revenue in 2005, up by 40 percent in 2004.
CCA also estimated of the nearly 12 million people who gambled on the Internet in 2003, approximately 4.5 million of those gamblers were from the United States.
And gambling sectors within the industry are continuing to boom especially in the United Kingdom, which are enticing more U.S. companies to go online to keep revenue at home.
For instance, according to the November 2005 eGaming Review, online poker would grow by 149 percent this year and taken in U.S. $3.5 billion in revenues said investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.
But many in the U.S. online gambling industry are calling Congress too quick to jump on the prohibition bandwagon, saying they run legitimate businesses.
According to John Derossett, CEO of Maryland-based Gambling Portal Webmasters Association, he says those in the industry welcome regulations -- not illegalization.
The GPWA represents some 3,000 registered users, mostly webmasters, who sell advertisements for online gambling companies.
"These are legitimate businesses I conduct business with," Derossett said. "I don't know of anyone who belongs to Al-Qaeda and it doesn't hurt the economy. People like myself are registered corporations by a state and who pay taxes. We want to work with the U.S. in taxing us, rather than throwing a lot of businesses out of business."
And taxing would be the most intelligent way to acknowledge Americans who want to gamble, says David Schwartz, author of "Uneasy Convictions: The American Pursuit of Gaming and the Wire Act" and director of Gaming Studies Research Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
According Schwartz, banning online gambling would be a difficult task for lawmakers especially since their jurisdiction does not extend to off shore companies since those companies pay taxes, licensee fees, and adhere to regulations in their homebased countries. Past bills have suggested preventing access to such sites or blocking financial payments.
Moreover, he says the biggest reason such legislation is ineffective is simply due to institutional inertia.
"In 1909, lawmakers were debating banning online gambling, and it was finally made into law in 1961," he said. "The U.S. Congress in the past has not been the body that can regulate gambling and evolving technology."
Instead, Scwhartz notes the federal government should take steps to develop a system of taxing, work with states regulating such companies, and let such companies expand operations online. The industry is bringing a revenue that most states won't pass up even if it just took 1 percent in taxes, he says.
And indeed states' regulators are the answer, believes Frank Cantania, an attorney at Catania Consulting Group, Inc.
Cantania is the former chairman of the International Association of Gaming Regulators and former director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.
"Our land-based state regulators are the best in the world," Cantania said. "They easily could regulate the online gambling industry since they already protect against compulsive gamblers, the underage player, and at the same time, collect revenue for the state."
Moreover, while those in the industry say the bill is in the right direction trying to clarify illegal and legal gambling, prohibition is not the answer. Moreover, it carves out certain sectors including state horse racing, Native Americans, and fantasy sports. In fact, past legislations have carved out these sectors in the past.
Cantania also sees that online poker could be excluded since it would not be considered "predominantly subject to chance."
"This legislation is the wrong approach," Cantania said. "Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol, and it won't work now. This bill is not going to stop Internet gambling or its licensing in other jurisdictions -- there is just no way you can put a border around the U.S. when it comes to the Internet."
The bill not only forbids a gambling business from accepting payments made by credit cards and electronic transfers, but also includes an enforcement mechanism to address gambling operations, located offshore, that use bank accounts in the U. S. Violations of the law would result in five year prison terms, instead of the current two years under the way the Wire Act is currently written. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act would also allow federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials to seek help from Internet service providers to remove or disable access to Internet gambling sites that violate the act.
How this would be implemented is the question. Because most of the online gaming sites are located on foreign soil, it would be almost impossible to enforce the Act against them. If the bill is passed, there would be virtually no one who would either have the authority or the ability to arrest and/or prosecute the multitude of offshore sites. Furthermore, how would the government be able to check on gambling activity? With perhaps millions of Americans online in poker rooms daily and also in the Internet casinos and sports books, would the government then start tracing the free activities of American Internet users?
For his part, Rep. Goodlatte is pulling up an old chestnut of an argument when he speaks about why he has brought the bill back. "For too long our children have been placed in harm's way as online gambling has been permitted to flourish into a $12 billion industry," Goodlatte said in a statement. "The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings the current ban against interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology." Rather than clarifying any status on the legalities of Internet gaming, all Goodlatte's bill does is potentially put a unenforceable law onto the books that will have little if any effect on the business of online gaming.
Goodlatte's statement on the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act being a way to "save the children" is particularly appalling. I don't see twelve year olds playing poker on the Internet or spinning the virtual Roulette wheel. I see in America today twelve year olds without enough schoolbooks dealt out in their classrooms. Perhaps that is what Goodlatte should be concentrating on.
How this would be implemented is the question. Because most of the online gaming sites are located on foreign soil, it would be almost impossible to enforce the Act against them. If the bill is passed, there would be virtually no one who would either have the authority or the ability to arrest and/or prosecute the multitude of offshore sites. Furthermore, how would the government be able to check on gambling activity? With perhaps millions of Americans online in poker rooms daily and also in the Internet casinos and sports books, would the government then start tracing the free activities of American Internet users?
For his part, Rep. Goodlatte is pulling up an old chestnut of an argument when he speaks about why he has brought the bill back. "For too long our children have been placed in harm's way as online gambling has been permitted to flourish into a $12 billion industry," Goodlatte said in a statement. "The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings the current ban against interstate gambling up to speed with the development of new technology." Rather than clarifying any status on the legalities of Internet gaming, all Goodlatte's bill does is potentially put a unenforceable law onto the books that will have little if any effect on the business of online gaming.
Goodlatte's statement on the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act being a way to "save the children" is particularly appalling. I don't see twelve year olds playing poker on the Internet or spinning the virtual Roulette wheel. I see in America today twelve year olds without enough schoolbooks dealt out in their classrooms. Perhaps that is what Goodlatte should be concentrating on.
Online gaming company PartyGaming, which operates PartyPoker.com and StarluckCasino.com, has said that state and locals laws that prohibit or restrict online gaming and related services are a violation of the "dormant commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that state and local regulation of interstate activities is an impermissible restriction on interstate commerce.
but let's keep printing those lottery tickets and racing the horses and manufacturing more slot machines for the casinos here in the good ole US of A. these methods are not a threat at all!
Thanks Jack. Thats some good info there. I did read last night somewhere that the legislative session ends this year which is a good thing I guess, maybe the Bill can't go there?
San Francisco Chronicle
"The genie of Internet gambling is never going to be put back in the bottle, " said Michael Pollock, the publisher of Gamingobserver.com, based in Atlantic City. "This bill addresses yesterday's issue, not tomorrow's."
Online gambling bill in Congress far from being sure bet
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Washington -- Congress is considering ways to stop gamblers from placing bets online,
one of the Internet's fastest-growing sectors, and about the only thing the smart money can say for sure is there are no fence straddlers on the issue.
Operating online sites for sports betting or such virtual casino games as blackjack or poker is already illegal in this country, but that hasn't stopped millions of Americans from making their way to about 2,000 overseas sites based in nations big and small, from Britain to Antigua.
The annual worldwide betting volume is $6 billion and could hit $9 billion in a few years, according to industry estimates.
The future of Internet gaming melds two key issues: whether society should allow the rising tide of gambling to reach into every American's home computer and whether it's right to rein in the Internet's wide world to stamp out what some view as a social and moral evil but others view as good, clean fun.
The House and Senate have backed bills against Internet gambling in recent years but never in the same year or in the same form, so they never became law.
But the idea that Americans, even residents of states where all forms of gambling are illegal, can sit at home and make bets has raised the ire of such anti-gambling legislators as the current measure's author, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who has pushed the Internet ban for five years.
"Family problems, children gambling, organized crime, debt, bankruptcy -- it's the same problem whether it's casinos or online gambling," he said Thursday as the House Judiciary Committee debated his bill.
Goodlatte's latest bill, which updates the 40-year-old Interstate Wire Act, tries to stamp out overseas Internet gambling by allowing the Justice Department or state prosecutors to get a court order cutting off bettors' payments to the Web sites. The legislation also would force Internet providers to ban the sites and block their ability to post pop-up ads.
Although the wire act makes it illegal to place bets using phone lines, hardly any bettors have ever been prosecuted, and only a few operators of offshore Web sites have been convicted.
Another bill pending in the House, sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, would ban the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers for Internet gambling. Bets placed with a legal casino operation within a bettor's state would be exempt, as would operations on Native American-owned land. Horse racing, a sport that already operates some Web betting sites, would also be exempt, which has drawn opposition from dog tracks and jai alai arenas.
Opponents of Goodlatte's measure mocked his proposal on Thursday.
"There is a simple principle here," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "If American citizens want to gamble, let them. Why is it our business?"
Rep. Chris Cannon, a Republican from Utah, a state that has no legalized gambling, said the Goodlatte bill posed a dilemma for him. "We have to deal here with two things I don't like -- gambling and regulating the Internet," he said. "Maybe the Internet needs to be regulated, as much as I hate to do it."
The debate got so protracted that the Judiciary Committee put off its scheduled vote, which is just as well, according to gambling industry analysts.
They say Goodlatte's measure would be unenforceable anyway.
"The genie of Internet gambling is never going to be put back in the bottle, " said Michael Pollock, the publisher of Gamingobserver.com, based in Atlantic City. "This bill addresses yesterday's issue, not tomorrow's."
Pollock, a former official with New Jersey's Casino Control Commission, joined others in the industry to suggest the better route for the government is to regulate the industry, which would ensure the fairness of games, collect taxes and keep children away from the virtual casinos.
"Regulation of gambling does work," he said, adding that emerging technology could block minors from joining online and screen out compulsive gamblers.
He also said rapidly evolving computer technology would soon allow players to engage in "live remote gambling" in which they could sit at home and play blackjack or other games with actual dealers at a real casino.
"Seventy governments around the world regulate Internet gambling," said Sue Schneider, publisher of the Interactive Gaming News in St. Louis. "But regulating it doesn't appear to be on Congress' radar screen."
But Goodlatte said gambling regulation traditionally had been left to the states, which would oppose any federal attempt to do so. Also, he said, the growing U.S. casino industry, which has endorsed his bill, doesn't want online competition.
Still, some U.S. casino operators are hedging their bets. MGM Mirage has taken out a license for an online casino on the Isle of Man, an island off England, and Playboy Enterprises is already in the online gaming business with Ladbroke's, the British bookmaker. But their joint venture, based in Gibraltar, won't take bets from U.S. residents.
E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.
"The genie of Internet gambling is never going to be put back in the bottle, " said Michael Pollock, the publisher of Gamingobserver.com, based in Atlantic City. "This bill addresses yesterday's issue, not tomorrow's."
Online gambling bill in Congress far from being sure bet
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Washington -- Congress is considering ways to stop gamblers from placing bets online,
one of the Internet's fastest-growing sectors, and about the only thing the smart money can say for sure is there are no fence straddlers on the issue.
Operating online sites for sports betting or such virtual casino games as blackjack or poker is already illegal in this country, but that hasn't stopped millions of Americans from making their way to about 2,000 overseas sites based in nations big and small, from Britain to Antigua.
The annual worldwide betting volume is $6 billion and could hit $9 billion in a few years, according to industry estimates.
The future of Internet gaming melds two key issues: whether society should allow the rising tide of gambling to reach into every American's home computer and whether it's right to rein in the Internet's wide world to stamp out what some view as a social and moral evil but others view as good, clean fun.
The House and Senate have backed bills against Internet gambling in recent years but never in the same year or in the same form, so they never became law.
But the idea that Americans, even residents of states where all forms of gambling are illegal, can sit at home and make bets has raised the ire of such anti-gambling legislators as the current measure's author, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who has pushed the Internet ban for five years.
"Family problems, children gambling, organized crime, debt, bankruptcy -- it's the same problem whether it's casinos or online gambling," he said Thursday as the House Judiciary Committee debated his bill.
Goodlatte's latest bill, which updates the 40-year-old Interstate Wire Act, tries to stamp out overseas Internet gambling by allowing the Justice Department or state prosecutors to get a court order cutting off bettors' payments to the Web sites. The legislation also would force Internet providers to ban the sites and block their ability to post pop-up ads.
Although the wire act makes it illegal to place bets using phone lines, hardly any bettors have ever been prosecuted, and only a few operators of offshore Web sites have been convicted.
Another bill pending in the House, sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, would ban the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers for Internet gambling. Bets placed with a legal casino operation within a bettor's state would be exempt, as would operations on Native American-owned land. Horse racing, a sport that already operates some Web betting sites, would also be exempt, which has drawn opposition from dog tracks and jai alai arenas.
Opponents of Goodlatte's measure mocked his proposal on Thursday.
"There is a simple principle here," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "If American citizens want to gamble, let them. Why is it our business?"
Rep. Chris Cannon, a Republican from Utah, a state that has no legalized gambling, said the Goodlatte bill posed a dilemma for him. "We have to deal here with two things I don't like -- gambling and regulating the Internet," he said. "Maybe the Internet needs to be regulated, as much as I hate to do it."
The debate got so protracted that the Judiciary Committee put off its scheduled vote, which is just as well, according to gambling industry analysts.
They say Goodlatte's measure would be unenforceable anyway.
"The genie of Internet gambling is never going to be put back in the bottle, " said Michael Pollock, the publisher of Gamingobserver.com, based in Atlantic City. "This bill addresses yesterday's issue, not tomorrow's."
Pollock, a former official with New Jersey's Casino Control Commission, joined others in the industry to suggest the better route for the government is to regulate the industry, which would ensure the fairness of games, collect taxes and keep children away from the virtual casinos.
"Regulation of gambling does work," he said, adding that emerging technology could block minors from joining online and screen out compulsive gamblers.
He also said rapidly evolving computer technology would soon allow players to engage in "live remote gambling" in which they could sit at home and play blackjack or other games with actual dealers at a real casino.
"Seventy governments around the world regulate Internet gambling," said Sue Schneider, publisher of the Interactive Gaming News in St. Louis. "But regulating it doesn't appear to be on Congress' radar screen."
But Goodlatte said gambling regulation traditionally had been left to the states, which would oppose any federal attempt to do so. Also, he said, the growing U.S. casino industry, which has endorsed his bill, doesn't want online competition.
Still, some U.S. casino operators are hedging their bets. MGM Mirage has taken out a license for an online casino on the Isle of Man, an island off England, and Playboy Enterprises is already in the online gaming business with Ladbroke's, the British bookmaker. But their joint venture, based in Gibraltar, won't take bets from U.S. residents.
E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.
