Gamblers Get High Speed Options could it be a loophole?? (look at the last part of this article)

Dante · Oct 8, 2003

A federal court overruled a FCC regulation that allowed cable companies a monopoly over high-speed Internet provision over cable TV lines. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that high speed internet was a telecommunications service and was thus governed under the same legislation that initiated the breakup of the Bell Telephone monopoly.

This ruling, if upheld on appeal, would mean that consumers would have a choice of high-speed Internet providers using their cable lines. The increased competition would drive down broadband prices and increase service options for millions of users across America.

Gamblers might have the option to pick taylor-made broadband packages including closed loop packages that would bring online casino gambling within their state’s jurisdictional control, rather than leaving it as an item on the Federal agenda.@@@

[This message was edited by Dante on October 08, 2003 at 11:28 AM.]

Dante · Oct 8, 2003

could the fact people use "CABLE" modems be a potential Loop hole in the gaming over phonelines/wires??

interesting

Dante · Oct 8, 2003

any thoughts on the CABLE issue being a possible loophole?

LIFESABET · Oct 8, 2003

My understanding of the laws are that its more about an 'Interstate Wire Communication Device'. Cable certainly uses a wire, and besides, I dont think that there must be a wire that crosses state bounds. In an era of fiber and satelite radio communications (which arguably are NOT wire devices), I dont think it even matters. I suspect the govt would use the old wire act just so long as there was a 'wire communications device' somewhere along the route between bettor and writer.

The closed loop network loophole is more important I believe, because closed loop implies that the outreach of the network can be strictly controlled, and if it can be then a state would have the jurisdiction (assuming that the fed govt has left intrastate gaming in the jurisdictions of each individual state). As long as the entire roundtrip between bettors and writers were within a particular state, and outside of federal reach, then it may be possible that the only hurdle would be to find a way for states to approve the gaming (ethically and hypocratically a very high hurdle as most states have been pushing the fear that gaming is a moral wrong, and more gaming would be even more wrong).

It makes sense to me, but then common sense doesnt not seem to reign when it comes to money and politics.

my 2 cents,
-lab