Peter Sinclair: First round in gambling control war

A bill that would have banned many forms of internet gambling failed to receive a two-thirds majority in the US House of Representatives last week.

The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which included the sale of lotto tickets online, was supported by 245-159, not enough for enactment.

But the matter is unlikely to rest there.

The unholy alliance of Christians and entrenched gaming interests that brought the bill before the House has vowed to reintroduce it under terms where a simple majority will suffice.

Basically, though, the issue is not so much the imperilled souls of the American people as the endangered wallets of the Nevada casino operators (aka the Mafia).

As in the current MP3 wars, it's a case of old business models versus new, of vested interests under threat from the net, and the sanctimony is deafening: "The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is vital to protect our children and communities from the problems of addiction, crime, bankruptcy and family difficulties that come from [gambling/free music/smoking/political expression - pick one]..."

Its supporters failed to produce the slightest evidence that United States children have taken to playing the pokies or following the ponies.

The bill again highlighted the difficulty of applying existing law to the internet and would have entailed the usual shattered freedoms.

To impose US law on other countries, in effect, it sought to force internet service providers to block access to foreign websites under threat of prosecution, a field in which China, Singapore, Cuba and Australia currently stand tall. Its attempt to ban this type of website, in the same peremptory manner as Helen Clark extinguished the cigars of Havana House, also involved a fresh attack on the hyperlink.

In fact, a Houston company, MonetizeMedia, was already under investigation in anticipation of the bill's passage, for listing links to casinos.

All things being equal, world revenues from internet gambling are expected to exceed $US3 billion ($6.5 billion) by 2002 and new sites are springing up every day.

US legislators' efforts to curb them are likely to be on a par with Canute's, and I suspect our own TAB is probably safe for now unless the PM gets it into her head that it's a bit too blokey.

Westminster, with the wisdom of the centuries, has more sense than to try. In fact, British net entrepreneurs have even come up with a new wrinkle on this ancient sin.

Inviting you to "put your money where your mouse is," flutter.com bills itself as the "world's first person-to-person online betting site."

When you make a bet - on almost anything under the sun - your money is held in trust, a service for which flutter.com takes a small commission. The company claims to "remove the bookmaker and hand you the controls."

There's something terribly British about the whole thing. "Will Prince William pass all his A-levels?" And if so: "Which university will he choose?"

William Hill mightn't be too thrilled with all the sporting bets being registered, certainly, but I don't see the Mafia mixing the cement over "Will Madonna name her baby Jesus?"

Links

Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

Monetize Media

winnings.com

gplotto.com

lucky7.com

TAB

flutter.com

William Hill

BOOKMARKS

Teeniest: 5k Contest

In the war against software bloat, the winner of the annual 5k Contest is Cornell University's Web Production Group, which managed to squeeze an entire store (complete with shopping basket) into 5120 bytes.

I rather like the The Web's Smallest Art Museum (2588 bytes).

Advisory: will Microsoft make them an offer?

Handiest: iAnalyst

As cyberstocks soar and plummet, uncertain investors can now call on real live analysts at iAnalyst for real-time help.

Wonder if they've even heard of Flying Pig?

Advisory: pay someone else to make your mistakes for you.

E-mail: petersinclair@email.com