8 ms·

Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. Look at

Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. Look at what Amazon does in order to avoid sales tax in various jurisdictions. In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number I detailed more of it here: https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamming-the-austin-tech-community-399d12b976e9 https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...

studentrob 10y ago
Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out. By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan. This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things. Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you? People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves. Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo
- aioprisan 10y ago
  Who are they supposed to ask for a concensus on regulation? Every city has their own taxi regulations and very powerful lobbies. Is that even feasible given in how many cities Uber operates in?
  - studentrob 10y ago
    10 cities, 10 mayors. Approach each, begin with the relationship, and publicize meeting notes. It can be done. They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing. U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone. Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10. Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved. U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y. It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber. > The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.
SilasX 10y ago
>Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. But they already comply with fingerprinting requirements (and other variations in laws) for other juridictions, like NYC, which requires Ubers to get a special TLC number, and IIRC Houston and San Antonio, where they fingerprint.

studentrob 10y ago

Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out. By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan. This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things. Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you? People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves. Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo

aioprisan 10y ago
Who are they supposed to ask for a concensus on regulation? Every city has their own taxi regulations and very powerful lobbies. Is that even feasible given in how many cities Uber operates in?
- studentrob 10y ago
  10 cities, 10 mayors. Approach each, begin with the relationship, and publicize meeting notes. It can be done. They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing. U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone. Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10. Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved. U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y. It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.
EdHominem 10y ago
The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber. > The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

SilasX 10y ago

>Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. But they already comply with fingerprinting requirements (and other variations in laws) for other juridictions, like NYC, which requires Ubers to get a special TLC number, and IIRC Houston and San Antonio, where they fingerprint.