
Uber CEO: I Think I’ve Got 20,000 Years Of Jail Time In Front Of Me - bjonathan
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/25/uber-airbnb-jail-time/
======
nostromo
The taxi situation in SF is so miserable. For example, right now and for the
past week or so, almost every cab in SF is telling their riders that their
credit card machine is broken.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22bctaxi.html> Basically, they aren't
happy that they have to pay credit card fees -- well sorry, nobody does, but
that's a cost of doing business.

And next time you can't find a cab, keep this in mind -- SF didn't add any
(transferable) cab licenses for 33 years, until 2010.
<http://www.ktvu.com/news/24519083/detail.html>

It's pretty clear who is writing the rules for taxis in SF, and it's not
someone with the consumer in mind.

~~~
briancurtin
> For example, right now and for the past week or so, almost every cab in SF
> is telling their riders that their credit card machine is broken.

"Thanks for the free ride!" - At least in Chicago, it's a part of the
passenger "bill of rights" that you are able to pay by credit card. They've
pulled the same thing on me a few times and, assuming I'm not in a rush, I've
offered to ride with the meter turned off to the closest ATM...then the
machine suddenly works.

~~~
tptacek
Same experience. They always back down. I would never in a million years offer
to ride to a nearby ATM. They can do card-not-present auth with their
dispatchers even if "their machine is broken".

~~~
patio11
_Same experience. They always back down._

Not to continue an old argument, but to continue an old argument, these are
the good medallioned guys who are regulated by the state so that they can't
scam you. This is supposed to provide an advantage over e.g. Ubercab, where
the perils of unregulated capitalism would allow a driver to cheat you. But
they still try to scam you and their medallion is not going to get yanked for
it. Meanwhile, Uber solves this technologically: they can't run payment scams
because the system doesn't trust drivers with any part of the payment flow
aside from hitting "The Ride Is Over."

~~~
tptacek
So:

* Regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast. Uber is good.

* Cabs should be regulated, for public safety and consumer protection. They're a unique intersection of low-barrier-to-entry, vulnerable-consumer, and serious externalities.

* Cabs are not well regulated now.

* I am ambivalent about business plans premised on "everyone recognizes that reg X is broken, so we'll force the issue by ignoring the reg and going right to market". If Uber gets to, maybe so do investment banks.

~~~
gojomo
Until there's evidence of abuse, _why_ do "regulations need to catch up to
Uber, fast"? (Unless by 'catch up to' you mean 'legalize unconditionally'.)

Perhaps smartphone-dispatching, sticky reputations, and non-cash payments
solve _all_ the safety and 'consumer protection' issues better than the
corrupt, captured, regulatory-commission system. That regulatory system,
despite decades (or centuries!) of head-start, has resulted in a situation
where "cabs are not well regulated now".

~~~
hartror

        Until there's evidence of abuse, why do "regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast"?
    

The ideal of course is regulators are proactive in regulating, rather than
waiting for the horse to bolt before deciding the door should be kept closed.

The Ubercab situation is a strong signal to regulators that the landscape is
changing and they should be considering changes.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The ideal of course is regulators are proactive in regulating, rather than
waiting for the horse to bolt before deciding the door should be kept closed._

This is a good idea in the case of low probability, high impact events. For
example, counterparty contagion in the financial system or oil spills.

But in the case of low impact events, it's pointless. Take a few obvious
precautions (e.g., track all the drivers) but otherwise just wait for problems
to arise before fixing them.

The risk of an unregulated system is very low - a few consumers get scammed
out of $12. The risk of regulation is very high - many consumers may be
deprived of a considerable consumer surplus (i.e., they may not get a ride at
all, or may be forced to overpay for a regulated cab).

~~~
anigbrowl
_The risk of an unregulated system is very low - a few consumers get scammed
out of $12._

Hmmm, no.

[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-08-19/news/29439015_1_l...](http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-08-19/news/29439015_1_livery-
cab-tlc-license-royal-car)

~~~
gojomo
Aren't NYC livery cabs already regulated? How does a bit of violence from a
_regulated_ driver imply higher risks from unregulated operation?

~~~
anigbrowl
Not the point being made here.

------
cwilson
On one hand I don't feel bad for Uber because they knew exactly what they were
getting into but the idealist part of me also wants to cheer them on. I'm
absolutely tired of asshole cab drivers, dirty cabs, and no-shows multiple
times per week. Thus loving Uber.

------
inmygarage
I think Travis enjoys living on the edge. One of his previous companies,
Scour, was sued for $250 billion. (Source:
<http://www.crunchbase.com/person/travis-kalanick>). I guess he fits pg's
definition of "naughtiness"?

------
3pt14159
Remember this TechCrunch?

[http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/12/ill-never-let-canada-
live-t...](http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/12/ill-never-let-canada-live-this-
down/)

Yeah, so do I.

------
davidtgoldblatt
I'm a little bit confused - it seems obvious to me that Uber is running an
unlicensed dispatch service. What's their argument here?

[http://search.municode.com/html/14143/level2/DIVII_ART1100RE...](http://search.municode.com/html/14143/level2/DIVII_ART1100REMOVEHI.html)

~~~
bh42222
Anyone know why they can't get licensed in every city?

Or is something preventing them form doing that, because licensing is
inherently a way to protect old cartels from new cheaper/better upstarts?

~~~
uvdiv
Taxis are state-sanctioned cartels in many cities. The number of "licenses"
(medallions) is capped to inflate the revenues of existing businesses. In San
Francisco (where Uber's legal problems are), the quota is ~1,400, and there's
a waiting list more than 10 years long to get a "license".

<http://www.medallionholders.com/medallions.html> (n.b. this is cartel-funded
propaganda)

[http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-01-27/news/cabbies-cry-foul-
ove...](http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-01-27/news/cabbies-cry-foul-over-plan-to-
sell-medallions/)

It's exactly what it looks like: they've criminalized competition. You get
prison for "stealing" business from union thugs.

~~~
anigbrowl
This cartel appears to be the product of a joint effort between the taxi
corporations and the drivers union. I don't hear the cab firms arguing for
greater competition or an increase in the number of taxis either.

------
antihero
I think what could be interesting is to write a site/app that would allow
people to order taxis with ease (using GPS, etc), but instead sell it to cab
companies as a way of getting business, so essentially anyone can be as
accessible as Uber. A bit like what E-Resistible did here in the UK.

~~~
enki
there aren't enough cabs in SF - people aren't using cabs because they can't
get any. only way to get cabs more business is more cabs.

~~~
dotBen
Indeed there's no addressable need here for cab companies to find passengers
when there are not enough cabs to begin with.

------
neworbit
Travis kind of thrives on stepping over the line - his first big deal was P2P
service Scour and he likes to tell everyone about how there was a half-
trillion dollar judgement against them. I don't think he's likely to face
anything like that with Uber!

------
JonnieCache
Hah, he best hope that this on-the-record comment isn't taken in court as a
tacit acceptance of guilt/culpability/whatever.

IANAL, but isn't this the kind of offhand comment that frequently comes back
to haunt people? I guess its very dependent on which country you're in.

~~~
anigbrowl
'On the record' in legal terms means being under oath, eg during a deposition
or when testifying in court. A comment like this could be offered as evidence,
but the outlandish idea of spending 20,000 years in jail means it could just
as easily be taken as a complaint about the unfairness of the charge.

------
dreamdu5t
Disruptive? Please. Uber is a driver service where you simply book it over the
web. It's hardly disruptive, or much different than services already out
there.

~~~
dreamdu5t
Downvotes but no reply? Could someone point out exactly what is disruptive
about ubercab? Disruptive to me is Netflix. The cab industry could easily add
a web-interface for booking cabs... and it's not going to be destroyed by
uber. Which industry are they disrupting?

~~~
dotBen
I've not up or down voted you but it's pretty obvious to me why you are being
down-voted:

As you can see from the debate at the top of this page, it's disrupting the
regulation of the cab industry which is about creating artificial scarcity of
the cabs in order to keep the prices of rides inflated. (EDIT: actually the
price of rides is regulated and would be the same regardless of how many cabs
there were. It is actually to ensure daily revenues for the cabs remains high
by ensuring optimum utilization)

From that perspective it is even more disruptive than Netflix because Netflix
operates in a free-market environment. You could choose to rent your DVD's
from Amazon or Blockbuster. With cabs in cities like SF you have no real
direct alternative.

 _The cab industry could easily add a web-interface for booking cabs._

They could but they won't because they already have more potential customers
standing on street corners wanting cabs then they can service (because, as
already explained, the number of cabs is artificially restricted).

There is no benefit to the cab industry to innovate in any way (such as build
an app) unless regulator steps in. Which is why a private player able to do
this is so disruptive.

Sounds to me like you don't really understand the way the cab market works
which is why you're not getting the disruptive element.

------
Philip_M
good, He should go to jail for running an unlicensed cab service

~~~
aberkowitz
Uber runs a livery cab service. At the disadvantage of not being able to pick
up street hails, they do not require a medallion, and operate under different
terms than a taxi.

~~~
andrewpi
Actually Uber doesn't operate the cabs, they operate a dispatching service.
The livery cabs are independently owned and operated.

------
kucin
I agree with the permit restrictions in San Francisco. Without it, you would
have monopolies dominated by big business and the rich, which hurts minorities
from having their own taxi services. Uber is a clear example of the rich
trying to take over business from minorities and people who need money most.

~~~
anigbrowl
Really. Please tell us which taxi firms are minority owned and operated then,
since you seem to have joined HN specifically to educate us about this issue.
I'm curious about this, because there seem to be far fewer Asian or Latino cab
drivers than one would expect from looking at the city's demographics.

Perhaps you can also explain how it benefits minority folk who have arrived in
SF in the last ~30 years that virtually no new medallions were issued from
1978-2010 despite a ~15% increase in the city's population during that time.

