highnote
05-06-2007, 10:56 AM
I was hoping my letter would appear on May 5, but Oaks day is OK, too.
DRF edited my editorial. They did a nice job. However, they left out my opinion that I thought the State of Connecticut is engaging in restraint of trade by allowing internet wagering into the state, but not allowing CT residents to bet over the internet with ADWs outside the state.
Headlines | Posted 5/4/2007, 6:43 pm
Letters to the Editor
By DRF READERS
Connecticut stance a double standard
The Connecticut attorney general's office has, on more than one occasion, decreed that it is illegal for advance-deposit wagering companies to take bets over the Internet from Connecticut residents. This past week, the attorney general's office put the New York Racing Association on notice that it would be breaking Connecticut law if it allowed Connecticut residents to bet with its account-wagering service (" 'Net delay for NYRA," May 4).
Never mind that this is an absurd law, given that the state has licensed Connecticut OTB to run a telephone wagering service. What makes this law more ridiculous is that Connecticut already in effect allows Internet wagering and seems not to know it.
An individual with Internet access can open an Internet telephone account with a service such as Net2Phone or Vonage. That account can be used to place a telephone call over the Internet to Connecticut OTB's automated telephone service. The user can speak with a human operator to place a bet, or can use the automated wagering service, wherein a computer keyboard can be used to punch bets at computerized voice prompts. The transactions are transmitted over the Internet.
By this method, it seems to me it is perfectly legal for Connecticut residents to bet on the Internet. It seems incongruent for the attorney general to say it is illegal for companies outside Connecticut to take wagers over the Internet from Connecticut residents and at the same time allow individuals inside and outside Connecticut to bet into Connecticut over the Internet.
John Swetye - Darien, Conn.
DRF edited my editorial. They did a nice job. However, they left out my opinion that I thought the State of Connecticut is engaging in restraint of trade by allowing internet wagering into the state, but not allowing CT residents to bet over the internet with ADWs outside the state.
Headlines | Posted 5/4/2007, 6:43 pm
Letters to the Editor
By DRF READERS
Connecticut stance a double standard
The Connecticut attorney general's office has, on more than one occasion, decreed that it is illegal for advance-deposit wagering companies to take bets over the Internet from Connecticut residents. This past week, the attorney general's office put the New York Racing Association on notice that it would be breaking Connecticut law if it allowed Connecticut residents to bet with its account-wagering service (" 'Net delay for NYRA," May 4).
Never mind that this is an absurd law, given that the state has licensed Connecticut OTB to run a telephone wagering service. What makes this law more ridiculous is that Connecticut already in effect allows Internet wagering and seems not to know it.
An individual with Internet access can open an Internet telephone account with a service such as Net2Phone or Vonage. That account can be used to place a telephone call over the Internet to Connecticut OTB's automated telephone service. The user can speak with a human operator to place a bet, or can use the automated wagering service, wherein a computer keyboard can be used to punch bets at computerized voice prompts. The transactions are transmitted over the Internet.
By this method, it seems to me it is perfectly legal for Connecticut residents to bet on the Internet. It seems incongruent for the attorney general to say it is illegal for companies outside Connecticut to take wagers over the Internet from Connecticut residents and at the same time allow individuals inside and outside Connecticut to bet into Connecticut over the Internet.
John Swetye - Darien, Conn.