3 ms·
>A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term. As opposed to a city ineffectively deli
by seehafer 8y ago
>A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term.
As opposed to a city ineffectively delivering transportation to such an extent that people have to drive their personally-owned cars everywhere?
Anyone in SF who was here before Uber will tell you that Uber and Lyft were and remain a godsend. Cabs were few and far between (there's an Eddie Izzard bit about this actually) and Muni is slow and unreliable.
- WisNorCan 8y agoYou are attacking a position that I am not advocating. I am not suggesting government run transportation. I am suggesting that government ensure that the private market remains competitive with multiple players by allocating capacity. In any case, the only thing worse than government running services is a company with a monopoly running services. The first tends to be inefficient. The second tends to be inefficient with a profit motive (see Comcast).
- ams6110 8y agoNo, government services are worse. I can opt out of Comcast.
- NegativeLatency 8y agoSure if you want DSL. Choices in my market are: dialup, dsl, and Comcast.
- baddox 8y agoDoes your state or local government have a deal with Comcast effectively awarding it a monopoly? There’s a fairly good chance the answer is yes.
- NegativeLatency 8y agoI live in Portland, OR. I don't think there's a granted monopoly to Comcast here. There is actually a small independent WISP here I would love to use, but they don't serve my particular location currently.
- mavhc 8y agoWhy is DSL so bad in USA? Everywhere else people seem fine with it
- emodendroket 8y agoYeah you can opt out of the water utility too, if you don't mind going without.