12 ms·

And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with tens

by flexie 9y ago

And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with tens of thousands of tiny taxi companies that followed rules and acquired licenses, expensive mandatory equipment etc. I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of legislation.

optimuspaul 9y ago
What would it mean for the taxi industry to be liberalised?
- simias 9y ago
  At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition. Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Where I live, starting a service like uber requires an appropriate drivers license and insurance. No licenses, nothing. (But you can't pick people up off the streets, that is something else, and licensed). As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill.
    - simias 9y ago
      Yeah I think there's a similar "loophole" in France but since everybody has a smartphone these days many taxis feel like it's unfair competition anyway. I'm kind of torn on this issue frankly, on one hand the taxis have had a de-facto monopoly for decades and as such ended up with a rather high price for a sub-par service so I'm glad uber shook them up a bit. On the other Uber is clearly playing dirty and we might end up being worse off in the end if taxi drivers don't manage to earn their life decently while most of our fare money ends up in some tax heaven never to be seen again.
    - rbehrends 9y ago
      > As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill. The German government had nothing to do with it. The lawsuits were brought by Uber's competitors under §3a of the Unfair Competition Act [1], which prohibits violating laws in order to gain a competitive advantage. They have standing under §8 (3), item 1, of the same law. The courts had no choice but to rule in their favor; it was pretty much as open and shut as a civil case can be. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg.html#p0035 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg...
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Correct, but the federal government offered to reduce the requirements for running this service for all competitors on the market, according to Dobrindt.
        rbehrends 9y ago
        Oh, it appears I misunderstood you. Yes, the federal government was willing to review the regulatory requirements, at least in principle. I was focusing on the last subclause of your sentence.
  - juandazapata 9y ago
    This happens for a reason. If no licenses are required, the market will be flooded with more offer than demand. Also the environmental impact, traffic jams, etc.
    - donatj 9y ago
      Demand meets need naturally. That’s how all other businesses works.
      - johannes1234321 9y ago
        The point is that taxi is not seen as a pure business. It is seen as a part of infrastructure. Elderly or disabled people should have a reliable way of transport. The goal of the regulation is that taxi companies don't only did lucrative rides (from the airport to träfe fair) but also less lucrative rides (from one's Appartment to the doctor few blocks down) and provide enough (realtively cheap) capacity even at uncommon times (4am or such)
        Kalium 9y ago
        I recently spoke with an elderly woman in San Francisco on exactly this subject. She regarded Uber as the best thing that's happened to her life in the past decade. It enables her mobility in ways that taxis never did.
        johannes1234321 9y ago
        This is hard to argue. For one since American perspective is different from my German/Europe and that's an individual, not a larger perspective on society.
        Kalium 9y ago
        The key difference, I think, is that in your background taxis are an affordable and reliable source of transportation services for all. They provide peak and off-peak services, for routes lucrative and otherwise. The American experience I have had with taxis is that taxis are expensive, unreliable, and will try to ditch you if they deem your destination insufficiently lucrative. When you need them most, there's a very good chance that they won't show in a reasonable timeframe... or show at all. Which is to say that they avoid providing as many of the society-level benefits you describe as possible. San Francisco in particular was a hell of useless taxis. For a long time, calling dispatch to get a taxi left you with odds of under 50% of one actually showing up.
ErikVandeWater 9y ago
> competed on unfair terms Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret... > I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires And the consumer...
- donatj 9y ago
  I’d say the major dip in drunk drivers has benefited humanity at large.
  - JohnnyConatus 9y ago
    That's one hell of a post hoc justification to justify the unethical and illegal behavior of the 1% to capture even more of the economic pie.
    - abakker 9y ago
      It is backed up by evidence, though[0]. I think it was meant to validate that the model of ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt merely because it is owned by venture capitalists. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-driving-prevention.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt when properly delivered and regulated. Uber is morally bankrupt, regardless of the positive impacts they've had. There are some holes that are simply too deep to be dug out of.
        abakker 9y ago
        Probably. It is a very interesting case study in corporate culture and corporate viability. Unless the culture changes, it seems difficult to believe that they can stay operational. it is also interesting to watch something with that much inertia slowing down by inches.
sedtrader 9y ago
Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. Or calling a bed and breakfast a hotel. Don't get me wrong Uber should pay its fair share of taxes/fees, but bunching apples and oranges together for the sake of policy simplicity comes off as non-progressive in my view.
- kaeluka 9y ago
  I don't follow your examples. How is workout-equipment:gym like uber:taxi-firm? > non-progressive I'm not sure what you mean by progress, exactly, but policy simplicity is progress IMHO.
- acdanger 9y ago
  Do Bed and Breakfasts usually operate under contracts with larger corporate entities that set service standards and reap a share of the profits? I'd assume most are small, family run businesses.
- foepys 9y ago
  > Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. You got that exactly right. If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating a gym. Uber let's people pay to be driven around and is thus called a taxi service.
  - sedtrader 9y ago
    >If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating gym. If I let people pay to use my phone, then I am operating a cellular company. If I let people pay to use my lawn mower, then I am operating a grass cutting company. etc... No logically this ruling makes no sense. Just upset taxi companies that want to maintain the status quo.
    - TillE 9y ago
      In those examples you'd be operating equipment rental companies. I'm really not sure how this fits into an analogy with Uber, whose failed rationalization is that they're just a digital service connecting customers with freelance drivers. Filling exactly the same role as a taxi company with a slightly different setup.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sebleon 9y ago
For consumers, Lyft/Uber/etc = best things to happen in years in transportation. Private car experience at the price of a subway ticket is great, while making car ownership optional in places with lousy public transit. Surprised you care more about people following the rules than enjoying the benefits of VC-subsidized rides :)
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Maybe they just remember the same arguments made about Google, FB, etc... and worry about the future?
matte_black 9y ago
For the benefit of who then?
dumbfounder 9y ago
That legislation isn't going to change itself. It needs to be challenged. Kudos (from me), and money (from willing consumers, including me), go to the companies that challenge it. I see no problem with this whatsoever.
pwaai 9y ago
I agree. But this is the new form of economic imperialism--nobody suspects a bunch of nerdy billionaires under 40 with multi-national employee pool linked to target countries elite educational institutions...good luck telling your best and the brightest why they shouldn't take that 7 digit salary from Americans, especially when no other domestic enterprises exists or willing to absorb that many new graduates.

by flexie 9y ago

optimuspaul 9y ago

What would it mean for the taxi industry to be liberalised?

simias 9y ago
At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition. Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Where I live, starting a service like uber requires an appropriate drivers license and insurance. No licenses, nothing. (But you can't pick people up off the streets, that is something else, and licensed). As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill.
  - simias 9y ago
    Yeah I think there's a similar "loophole" in France but since everybody has a smartphone these days many taxis feel like it's unfair competition anyway. I'm kind of torn on this issue frankly, on one hand the taxis have had a de-facto monopoly for decades and as such ended up with a rather high price for a sub-par service so I'm glad uber shook them up a bit. On the other Uber is clearly playing dirty and we might end up being worse off in the end if taxi drivers don't manage to earn their life decently while most of our fare money ends up in some tax heaven never to be seen again.
  - rbehrends 9y ago
    > As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill. The German government had nothing to do with it. The lawsuits were brought by Uber's competitors under §3a of the Unfair Competition Act [1], which prohibits violating laws in order to gain a competitive advantage. They have standing under §8 (3), item 1, of the same law. The courts had no choice but to rule in their favor; it was pretty much as open and shut as a civil case can be. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg.html#p0035 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg...
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Correct, but the federal government offered to reduce the requirements for running this service for all competitors on the market, according to Dobrindt.
      - rbehrends 9y ago
        Oh, it appears I misunderstood you. Yes, the federal government was willing to review the regulatory requirements, at least in principle. I was focusing on the last subclause of your sentence.
- juandazapata 9y ago
  This happens for a reason. If no licenses are required, the market will be flooded with more offer than demand. Also the environmental impact, traffic jams, etc.
  - donatj 9y ago
    Demand meets need naturally. That’s how all other businesses works.
    - johannes1234321 9y ago
      The point is that taxi is not seen as a pure business. It is seen as a part of infrastructure. Elderly or disabled people should have a reliable way of transport. The goal of the regulation is that taxi companies don't only did lucrative rides (from the airport to träfe fair) but also less lucrative rides (from one's Appartment to the doctor few blocks down) and provide enough (realtively cheap) capacity even at uncommon times (4am or such)
      - Kalium 9y ago
        I recently spoke with an elderly woman in San Francisco on exactly this subject. She regarded Uber as the best thing that's happened to her life in the past decade. It enables her mobility in ways that taxis never did.
        johannes1234321 9y ago
        This is hard to argue. For one since American perspective is different from my German/Europe and that's an individual, not a larger perspective on society.
        Kalium 9y ago
        The key difference, I think, is that in your background taxis are an affordable and reliable source of transportation services for all. They provide peak and off-peak services, for routes lucrative and otherwise. The American experience I have had with taxis is that taxis are expensive, unreliable, and will try to ditch you if they deem your destination insufficiently lucrative. When you need them most, there's a very good chance that they won't show in a reasonable timeframe... or show at all. Which is to say that they avoid providing as many of the society-level benefits you describe as possible. San Francisco in particular was a hell of useless taxis. For a long time, calling dispatch to get a taxi left you with odds of under 50% of one actually showing up.

ErikVandeWater 9y ago

> competed on unfair terms Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret... > I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires And the consumer...

donatj 9y ago
I’d say the major dip in drunk drivers has benefited humanity at large.
- JohnnyConatus 9y ago
  That's one hell of a post hoc justification to justify the unethical and illegal behavior of the 1% to capture even more of the economic pie.
  - abakker 9y ago
    It is backed up by evidence, though[0]. I think it was meant to validate that the model of ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt merely because it is owned by venture capitalists. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-driving-prevention.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt when properly delivered and regulated. Uber is morally bankrupt, regardless of the positive impacts they've had. There are some holes that are simply too deep to be dug out of.
      - abakker 9y ago
        Probably. It is a very interesting case study in corporate culture and corporate viability. Unless the culture changes, it seems difficult to believe that they can stay operational. it is also interesting to watch something with that much inertia slowing down by inches.

sedtrader 9y ago

Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. Or calling a bed and breakfast a hotel. Don't get me wrong Uber should pay its fair share of taxes/fees, but bunching apples and oranges together for the sake of policy simplicity comes off as non-progressive in my view.

kaeluka 9y ago
I don't follow your examples. How is workout-equipment:gym like uber:taxi-firm? > non-progressive I'm not sure what you mean by progress, exactly, but policy simplicity is progress IMHO.
acdanger 9y ago
Do Bed and Breakfasts usually operate under contracts with larger corporate entities that set service standards and reap a share of the profits? I'd assume most are small, family run businesses.
foepys 9y ago
> Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. You got that exactly right. If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating a gym. Uber let's people pay to be driven around and is thus called a taxi service.
- sedtrader 9y ago
  >If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating gym. If I let people pay to use my phone, then I am operating a cellular company. If I let people pay to use my lawn mower, then I am operating a grass cutting company. etc... No logically this ruling makes no sense. Just upset taxi companies that want to maintain the status quo.
  - TillE 9y ago
    In those examples you'd be operating equipment rental companies. I'm really not sure how this fits into an analogy with Uber, whose failed rationalization is that they're just a digital service connecting customers with freelance drivers. Filling exactly the same role as a taxi company with a slightly different setup.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sebleon 9y ago

For consumers, Lyft/Uber/etc = best things to happen in years in transportation. Private car experience at the price of a subway ticket is great, while making car ownership optional in places with lousy public transit. Surprised you care more about people following the rules than enjoying the benefits of VC-subsidized rides :)

QAPereo 9y ago
Maybe they just remember the same arguments made about Google, FB, etc... and worry about the future?

matte_black 9y ago

For the benefit of who then?

dumbfounder 9y ago

That legislation isn't going to change itself. It needs to be challenged. Kudos (from me), and money (from willing consumers, including me), go to the companies that challenge it. I see no problem with this whatsoever.

pwaai 9y ago

I agree. But this is the new form of economic imperialism--nobody suspects a bunch of nerdy billionaires under 40 with multi-national employee pool linked to target countries elite educational institutions...good luck telling your best and the brightest why they shouldn't take that 7 digit salary from Americans, especially when no other domestic enterprises exists or willing to absorb that many new graduates.