
DC Taxi Commission Proposes New Rules to Shut Down Uber - japhyr
http://blog.uber.com/2012/09/20/here-we-go-again-dc-taxi-commission-proposes-new-rules-to-shut-down-uber/
======
robomartin
As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government
working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to
improve quality of service or to allow competition to lower costs. It is
simply repugnant. When will people realize that unions --and those in
government who favor and feed them-- are helping destroy this country from the
inside out?

~~~
confluence
As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society
supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males
realise that the government created the industries they worked in through
decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. When will they
realize that their entire philosophy centers around a sociopathic
psychological bias (<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis>)
and should essentially be known as a little more than a psychological
disorder? When will they understand that free markets are not natural
phenomena but the artificial creation of governments for the benefit of
society and subject to the corrupting influences of market participants which
turn most free markets into cartels without the pressure of regulation holding
it back?

~~~
kiba
Whoa, you should at least steelman libertarian beliefs before you assault a
strawman position.

Anyway, government is also responsible for creating cartels and monopolies,
some of which lot of people justify. For example, patents should be granted to
people for the purpose of encouraging innovation. However, it's more like
granting a legal weapon to beat competitors into submission. The AT&T for
example, wages war against the telephone independents using their patents.

How do you prevent governments from simply becoming the lackeys of rent-
seeking corporations? I had no fricking clues. Those libertarians seem to
think elimination is the answer.

~~~
robomartin
I don't think elimination is reasonable. I do think that massive reduction in,
numbers, reach and powers is.

As and example: I don't want to be at war with ANYONE. I don't want my
government to have the power to unilaterally start them or get involved in
them. If there's conflict it should be US, the people, who vote on these
things. Why? Because these kinds of things can and will affect us, our
children and their children. I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to
make those decisions.

War is just one example of what I see as government over-reach. It happens to
be one of the best examples that everyone can easily understand.

Look at the history of the World Wars. Government started them. Governments.
Not people. Tens of millions of people died. Imagine the entire population of
California, Florida, Illinois, New York state, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas
killed off. Everyone dies. That's probably less people than those who died
during the World Wars. Isn't that sickening? You an imagine that, right? Well,
governments started these wars. Not the people who died. Not their kids.

We've become overly permissive with those who govern us. They get away with,
almost literally, murder. Not sure what will stop it or change the course.

~~~
jasonlotito
> Governments. Not people.

I've never known a government to start a war. I've known people that make up a
government to start one, however.

> We've become overly permissive with those who govern us.

We are not qualified to decide how we are governed, but we are qualified to
start a war?

> I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to make those decisions.

So who should make the decision? Only those that vote?

> Not sure what will stop it or change the course.

Definitely not with flame-induced rants like this. You choose words precisely
to evoke emotion. Rather than approach this rationally, you hide behind
passion, and hope that anyone reading this will be to emotional one way or
another to understand what you are trying to say.

In every way, you are acting the part of the vote-grabbing whore you so
disdain.

~~~
jswinghammer
That's seriously splitting hairs. By extension you are saying "I don't know
anyone in government who started a war they simply signed a piece of paper
giving authority to other humans to start killing another group of humans and
the money to do so."

Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way
engaging in them is crazy.

~~~
jasonlotito
> That's seriously splitting hairs.

No, it's not. And by extension, I'm saying anything of the sort.

OP keeps using the word government and then people, as if the two are distinct
and different. It's a technique to make you ignore the fact that the
government isn't some other being. It's made up of people.

Treating the government as some alien entity is a political tactic used to
frighten people.

> Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way
> engaging in them is crazy.

That's a rather naive look, and ignores the own premise set forth by the OP I
was responding to (in his case, the people should decide).

He's under the belief that the people wouldn't have supported war with Iraq
(despite overwhelming support in 2003 for the war).

So, I'm not sure what you are really trying to say? On one hand, the OP says
we should attack regardless of a direct threat. On the other hand, you say we
should only attack unless we are seriously threatened (and the will of the
people be damned). Maybe you think we should be seriously threatened _and_
require that people support the war? This would of course require that people
be told how the threat is seriously threatening them.

And that's how we got into the war with Iraq.

~~~
jswinghammer
Ok well it seems like you are confusing the concept of society and government.
They aren't the same thing.

By serious threat I really mean someone is attacking you actively. No sure how
you would ever seriously think Iraq could injure the United States. They had
to tell quite a few lies to convince people of that.

~~~
jasonlotito
> They had to tell quite a few lies to convince people of that.

If the government started the war, why would they have to tell lies to
convince the people?

------
uvdiv
It's like a criminal racket, except it's the city doing it.

~~~
uvdiv
Some scenes from the inside:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-
official-t...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-official-
turned-fbi-informant-recalls-role-in-corruption-
probe/2012/04/02/gIQAErYhrS_story.html)

I like the imagery of the murderous taxi kingpin driving a gold-painted
Mercedes. (page 3)

------
sudonim
As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well
at night.

Basically Uber goes into a city, hires drivers, outfits them with equipment
and starts operations. And for what it's worth, the service is awesome.

By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do
something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and
they've turned the public against them.

It's clever, but I can't help but think they'll end up with a situation soon
that doesn't end up working out in their favor.

~~~
alecdibble
So Uber should pass out flyers to all competitors before it moves into a town?

As long as good ethics are used, it is called business competition and is
generally a good thing. Do you think Uber is doing anything unethical? From
the parent link, it appears not, and some of the rules Uber pointed out seem
arbitrary and downright anti-competitive.

What really pisses me off is when people try and use legislation as a
competitive advantage. That is unethical and it does make them look like your
description: "By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice
and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-
competetive and they've turned the public against them."

~~~
sudonim
No, I think you're missing my point.

Uber is doing this expecting the cities and existing players to get pissed off
and try to stop them. And then they publicize the anti-competetive nature of
it.

That's their strategy. Get local news to write about how the city & cabbies
are trying to shut them down. It's great marketing.

And it benefits Uber not to talk to local government prior to launching as
long as they follow the letter of the law.

This is a genius strategy. But if I were the CEO, it would cause me stress
that all of my drivers in a given city might be forced to not work
indefinitely because I'm not getting the OK first. Maybe that won't happen.

~~~
eridius
No other business has to ask the city if the city is planning on changing the
laws to shut them down. Why do you expect Uber needs to do that? The fact that
changes to laws are being proposed in order to shut Uber down proves that Uber
is perfectly legal under the current laws, which means Uber is well within its
rights to open up shop without asking permission. In fact, if Uber were public
and I was a shareholder, I'd be pretty pissed-off if Uber actually asked for
permission first, because that's just asking to be shut down.

Any sort of disruptive business will get lots of pushback and anticompetitive
pressures from the existing incumbents. There's no reason why Uber needs to
make it easier for someone else to block them from operating.

~~~
jpk
I think just like alecdibble, you're missing the point. sudonim isn't
commenting on the ethics or legality of Uber's strategy, but putting
him/herself in the Uber CEO's shoes and imagining the stress associated with
executing on a strategy that depends on pissing powerful people off.

Again, it's a brilliant strategy, but might be a stressful experience if
you're on Uber's side of the table.

------
ghshephard
Non-driver here, so I use taxis and private car services almost exclusively in
northern California (My many thousands of trips over 10 years have probably
moved from the class of "anecdote" into "data").

I've used Uber a couple times. It's pricey ($49 for a $33 taxi trip) but
fantastic for those who can afford it.

Uber is better than taxi's in many ways:

o Taxi will frequently not take a trip if it doesn't like where it's coming
from ("Bad neighborhood") - Uber doesn't tell the driver where you are until
they accept the trip.

o Taxi will ask where you are going, and decline the trip if they don't like
how much they'll make. Uber driver asks you where you are going, after you are
in the vehicle.

o Taxi will sometimes take a trip, while they already have one - resulting in
30-45 minutes extra delay - hard to do with Uber when you can see where they
are traveling.

o Taxi on the peninsula is usually 30-45 minute wait. Uber is < 15 minutes on
average

o Drivers in Taxi's can be somewhat "eccentric" on the peninsula (As in, some
of them scare me, they are so crazy). Uber Drivers are professional, rated.

o Vehicles in Taxi's are pretty craptastic sometimes. I've had to have the
driver open my door (god forbid we get in an accident) - ubers vehicles
professional Sedans.

o Airport Drivers will sometimes try and scam you for a 50% surcharge when
they are still "in zone". They even try and pull that on someone like me who
flys in and out of SFO on a monthly basis - I can imagine how many just accept
it. Uber charges are identified _before_ you book your trip.

o Lots of taxis will not take credit cards, or (try to) charge you a 10%
surcharge - some of them would even RETURN to SFO when they discover you don't
have cash. Uber is 100% electronic. No cash/credit card required, just your
Smart Phone.

I love the electronic receipts, rating on the driver, certainty about when the
vehicle is arriving.

On the peninsula, you pay about a 50% premium (or more, depending on demand),
which is represented in the much higher quality trip you get.

I think if Uber was prepared to stick with that "premium" market, then the
commissions wouldn't have a problem with them. Their concern is that, much
like AirBNB was a trojan horse to get into the Renting Apartments/compete with
hotels market, Uber is going to start competing with regular taxis - and for
someone who has paid > $1mm for a medallion ([http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million/)) they are going to
demand some sort of recompense and/or action be taken.

My guess is that there will be a strong correlation between cost of medallions
and the resistance to Uber in any particular market.

What I would love to see, is that TAXI services adopt the uber model of source
blind/closest taxi gets the trip/rate your driver/GPS location of
Taxi/electronic receipts. It would be good for the industry, good for the
customers, and good for the reputable drivers/services.

The only ones who would lose out would be the crappy services, with poorly
maintained vehicles, and lousy drivers .

~~~
zobzu
Already had a taxi assuring me the trip from the airport to my place was well
under $20, as I had only a $20 bill and no active credit card. I asked him
before hand if he was absolutely sure and that I wouldn't be able to pay more.
I had 30Kg of luggage so I figured it was a good idea.

When we reached $20 at 70% of the way, he said "so ill bring you to the
nearest ATM and you'll pay the diff ok?". I said no. He opened the door. I
walked home. With my 30Kg. Yay.

I'd certainly take a non-taxi company whenever I wanna be _sure_. Sorry for
honest taxi drivers.

~~~
ghshephard
That's one I've never heard of before. Taxi drivers have a lot of flaws, but
they are pre-programmed to take you to a safe-destination. Also - I do a _lot_
of fare negotiation on longer trips (I rarely, if ever, pay meter from
anywhere but the airport), and, in 10 years, I've never had a driver back out
on a deal.

In particular, on a long fare, say, San Francisco to Mountain View, if it's a
slow time with light traffic (weekend afternoons) - I can usually get a $150
trip for $75, and never more than $100.

~~~
zobzu
Yeah I wasnt very happy that day. ;-)

------
AustinLin
As long as Uber is proving a useful service in a lawful manner, not ripping
people off, the the city should let the consumers decide whether they should
stay in business.

If they are such a threat to the DC cab industry the cab companies would do
well to adopt some of the techniques that are making Uber so successful.

~~~
adestefan
The problem is that the DC cab industry was so corrupt that they ended up
heavily regulated. Now those regulations do not allow them to do things that
Uber does. The fix isn't to outlaw Uber, but to allow the taxis to compete in
the same way.

------
kmfrk
It's sad that in order to stay in business, start-ups might have to instate a
position as CPO: Chief Political Officer.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Well if you are disrupting old established markets then they will have already
coated themselves with political armor, that the livery business goes back
several centuries its not surprising that this is so. That said, it would
behoove more companies that are attacking such markets (music distribution,
and publishing come to mind) have a person who does exactly this, they look at
public policy and the way it is being manipulated by the 'competition' and
work to counteract that manipulation. John Gage at Sun had the title Chief
Science Officer but his day to day duties involved understanding government
processes, political movers and shakers, and how those processes worked for,
against, or neutral with respect to Sun's goals. He was instrumental in
getting me access to the NSA when we wanted to ship strong encryption in an
interpreted language.

~~~
kmfrk
I wonder if the necessary consequence of this is to get involved with
lobbyists. Not necessarily to lobby, just to pay them for an understanding of
how the local politics work.

This would also be a big bonus to YC, if they managed to provide domain
knowledge in this respect. Because what the hell are you supposed to do in a
situation like that as a fledgling start-up?

------
tylermenezes
pg on Twitter several months ago: "Uber is so obviously a good thing that you
can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it."

------
redm
Taxi drivers are heavily regulated already, including rates, posted
information, what they can and can’t do and in at least one case how they can
bill/accept money. In Boston a taxi driver told me the city mandates they use
a city provided credit card method that charges them 8% and holds the money
for week.

I'm not for regulation but anyone who's ever been scammed by a driver will
appreciate it.

If all the taxi drivers have to live under these regulations, why would a
'private' taxi service be able to skirt them all? Uber should be held to the
same standard and we should work on reforming the overall regulations to allow
for more innovation for all.

------
azarias
I know about the DC taxi commission a little bit...they will go anywhere, and
do anything to protect their bottom line.

~~~
eli
The bottom line of the commission? Aren't they a government agency?

~~~
dmix
Taxi commissions make a significant amount of money from Taxi medallions. They
can cost anywhere from $200k-$1 million dollars each in some cities.

~~~
eli
No, they don't. There are no medallions in DC. And any money they "make" goes
to the city's general fund anyway.

~~~
dmix
Ah you're right.

Only source I could find about revenue is how they added $9.9 million in
revenue by increasing the surcharge by 50 cents and recently awarded a $35
million dollar contract to Verifone.

So they must be generating some significant amount of money still.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-
debonis/post/final-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-
debonis/post/final-vote-on-dc-taxi-overhaul-set-for-
today/2012/07/10/gJQAjQQUaW_blog.html)

------
EricDeb
I'm all for more efficiency, but can these companies who add more efficiency
to the economy really suggest they are "creating 1000s of jobs." By
definition, if you are making an industry more efficient aren't you taking
away people's jobs?

