The Australian federal government seems content to disregard what the Internet Industry Association (IIA) of Australia feels is a compelling and thought-out argument against permanently banning online gaming.
The government announced this week that it would seek a permanent ban on all online casinos but will allow sports betting, horse betting and lottery services to operate online. Supporters of the ban feel that it's possible to control what sites Australian residents visit--an argument that doesn't hold much water, according to the Gartner Consulting Group, one of the country's leading technology consulting firms.
The IIA recently released the findings of a Gartner study, commissioned by the IIA, that criticizes the prohibitive approach. In short, the report says that the proposed interactive gambling bill is full of technological flaws. Chief among them is expecting Australian Internet service providers to block access to services located overseas--a policy very similar to the heavily criticized one proposed by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl through his prohibition bill.
IIA Chief Executive Peter Coroneos said in a statement that the report gives some validity to what his group has been saying for years.
"The report supports what we have been saying for some time," Coroneos explained. "The legislation is technically inept and has no real prospects of protecting those whom it claims to protect. From a technical viewpoint, the bill will damage industry participants who are forced to try to make it work while delivering no tangible benefit to end users. We believe that it is so fundamentally flawed that no amount of amendment on the floor of the Senate can salvage it. We therefore call upon the Senate to vote it down entirely."
Coroneos attacked the government for proposing such a ban when Australia has in the past been a very Internet-friendly country.
"This legislation is utterly, utterly disappointing from a government which has in other areas tried hard to get people online," he said. "We credit them for that. But this message is confusing. Is the Internet good or bad? If you read this bill, you would think it the most pernicious influence in our lives. Why else would you subject Internet service providers to criminal sanctions for providing access to sites they have no knowledge of or control over, especially when the same services are legal offline?"
For more than a year now the IIA has been a strong advocate of the Australian model for regulating online gaming, and Coroneos feels a permanent ban goes nowhere in addressing the true problems with Internet gambling. He's appalled at recent moves in the Senate to allow sports betting sites to remain operational.
"It is not an answer for government to say, 'Well, the Internet is more accessible.' If that is so, why are they not banning phone betting," he said. "There is a phone in every home. They have the power to do this,
but they choose not to."
Coroneos feels the government is doing more harm than good by addressing the issue with what he sees as a half-hearted effort.
"Nor can the government say: 'It may be hard, but at least we must be seen to be trying,'" he said. "This legislation will create a worse outcome than not trying at all. This is because the proposed law will
remove any incentive for the tough state-based player protections under the new AUS model to be made available to those Australians who intend using the Internet for betting."
The IIA felt it was necessary to release the report among the mounting piles of material on both sides of the argument. The group looked into the area it knows best, according to Coroneos.
"We can't help feeling that the government is playing on people's ignorance and to some extent fear of technology to win political points," he said. "That is not good leadership; it is predatory leadership. As custodians of the technology, we feel duty bound to report the real situation."
The main area of the report focuses on the use of filters in controlling what sites Australian residents visit. The IIA and Coroneos admit that the filters are not 100 percent foolproof, but the government's plan
would be misusing them.
"Our assessment is impartial," he said. "The Gartner report says that filters are not perfect, and we agree. But where they are used voluntarily in homes to augment family supervision they can still be
useful, so we support filtering in those circumstances. Indeed our Content Codes of Practice rely on them in part. However, the main finding of the Gartner report is far more severe. It says that where filters are used compulsorily, as this law seems to propose, they will have severe unintended consequences with negligible public benefit to show for it."
In the end Coroneos feels the report gives more credence to tougher regulation as a way to control the industry instead of trying to ban it all together.
"This report therefore serves as a warning that banning cannot succeed and that the alternative path of tough regulation via AUS Model is a far preferable route to take," he explained. "We hope that the Senate, in its wisdom, arrives at the same conclusion in the days ahead."
Click here to view the Gartner report.