Over the weekend, Janet Morrissey of The New York Times posted an excellent article on the U.S. government’s continuing crackdown on Internet gambling. (“Poker Inc. to Uncle Sam: Shut Up and Deal“) Ironically, her article arrives on the same week during which PBS aired the terrific new Ken Burns and Lynn Novick documentary on the history of alcohol prohibition in the United States. It’s a highly-recommended look at the utter hypocrisy and futility of prohibiting a product that millions of people find enjoyable. If there’s a simple moral to the story of Prohibition, it’s that you can’t repress human nature–not for long, at least, and not without serious unintended consequences. Which is why Morrissey of the Times notes:

And so the poker world now finds itself in a situation many liken to Prohibition. America didn’t stop drinking when the government outlawed alcoholic beverages in 1919. And, in this Internet age, it won’t be easy to prevent people from gambling online, whatever the government says. “It’s a game of whack-a-mole,” says Behnam Dayanim, an expert on online gambling and a partner at the Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider law firm. “They’ve whacked three very large moles, but over time, more moles will pop up.”

Exactly right (except that it should be “whac” not “whack”! There’s no K in whac-a-mole.)  It reminds me of the paper that my blogging colleague Tom Bell penned back in 1999 for the Cato Institute with its perfect title: “Internet Gambling: Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal.” As Tom noted back then:

Consumer demand and lost tax revenue will create enormous political pressure for legalization, which we should welcome if only for its beneficial policy impacts on network development and its consumer benefits. We should also welcome it for a more basic reason: as the Founders recognized, our rights to peaceably dispose of our property include the right to gamble, online or off.

Again, you can’t hold back human nature and the effort of millions to pursue happiness as they see fit. It was true of alcohol and it will be true of online gambling–eventually.

And although it represents the worst argument for legalization, Tom was right about the tax revenue benefits as a primary factor leading to legalization. As Morrissey notes in her Times piece:

Uncle Sam is leaving a lot of money on the table. Over 10 years, legal online gambling could generate $42 billion in tax revenue, according to the Congressional Committee on Taxation. An estimated 1.8 million Americans played online poker last year, and some make a living at it. Because of the legal issues in the United States, online card rooms typically base their computer servers elsewhere, in places like Costa Rica or, in the case of Full Tilt, in the Channel Islands.

It was the same story back during alcohol prohibition, of course. All the “money left on the table” was snatched up by foreign governments and organized crime, who were all too happy to satisfy the thirst Americans had. Some State governments have already realized this and are taking steps to partially legalize online gambling and get in on the action, as Morrissey reports:

Oddly enough, Internet gambling is already legal in the nation’s capital. Earlier this year, the District of Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the United States to legalize it. Officials there said they hoped the move would bring in $13 million to $14 million a year in tax revenue. But Washington may only be the start. Several bills now working their way through the House of Representatives would give online poker the run of the country.

Again, as Bell’s paper argued, it’s popular, inexorable, and it will eventually be fully legal. We just have to be patient while some lawmakers play through this latest silly experiment in legislating morality.

After gaining final approval to rollout FiOS in New York City a few weeks ago, Verizon has come to a preliminary agreement with the District of Columbia to deploy FiOS television service in the nation’s capital. This long-awaited announcement follows nearly a year of negotiation between Verizon and D.C. franchising authorities.

Thanks to its especially onerous franchising regime, the District of Columbia has lagged behind surrounding areas in fiber-optic connectivity. Neighboring communities such as Arlington, Fairfax, and Bethesda have had FiOS for years, and D.C.’s lack of fiber-optic service has long been a sore spot for the city.

D.C. residents can’t celebrate just yet, though. Verizon must overcome one more regulatory hurdle before starting to dig up the streets. The franchise agreement must receive a green-light from both the D.C. city council and the Attorney General. If the New York City episode is any indication, getting politicians to acquiesce will involve expensive demands and forced concessions, resulting in higher prices for everyone.

As the nation’s second largest telecom, Verizon has the resources and legal know-how needed to navigate the municipal franchising process. But what about the entrepreneur who simply wants to offer service to a single neighborhood? Because of build-out requirements, revenue-sharing provisions, and other artificial entry barriers, it’s no wonder that there are so few new players in last-mile service. Getting permission to bring new television service to a community should be simple and straightforward, not costly and drawn-out.

We often hear complaints about the lack of choice in broadband and television service, but governmental attempts to enhance choice are mistakenly focused on prying open incumbent networks to let competitors leech off existing infrastructure. But as Verizon has demonstrated, what’s really needed is more infrastructure competition. Laying redundant sets of wires does have duplicative costs, but these are outweighed by the competitive benefits of greater choice. There’s room in the marketplace for multiple television and broadband providers. Last-mile service is not a natural monopoly.

Adding FiOS to the mix will bring the benefits of greater competition to D.C. subscribers. In northern Virginia, a fierce rivalry between Verizon and Comcast has pushed prices downward, even for consumers whose residences have yet to be “lit.” Cable companies have responded to FiOS with infrastructure upgrades focused on the most competitive markets. Comcast’s Blast! tier, which offers a 16mbps downstream pipe for about $50 a month, is available across Arlington and Fairfax counties, while most subscribers residing outside of the FiOS footprint can only get up to 8mbps.

Competition works, and consumers deserve more of it. Franchise reform, along with spectrum liberalization, must play an essential role in any legislative attempt to improve last-mile residential communications services in the United States.