Uber Boston Has Been Served • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#21

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:30 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #16

tptacek wrote: post #4

Two tickets were apparently issued: (i) For operating an unlicensed livery service (ii) For using a non-approved mechanism for metering the ride The C&D at issue here covers (ii). At its heart, the complaint is that Boston has standardized on a way of metering passengers, and Uber has replaced that standard with GPS. Presumably, cab drivers in Boston could not simply choose to replace their meters with GPS monitors,…

I'm torn too, but the meter thing is a very sensible point. Taxi meters in NYC (the only market I have experience with) are basically entirely locked boxes- the drivers can't do anything beyond poke the buttons on the front. This is, of course, very sensible- otherwise there's a danger of unscrupulous drivers modifying their meters to charge passengers more. This is only the case for yellow cabs in NYC, though- I'm s…

It's not that surprising to regulate a private company like that. When you go to the grocery store or the gas station, the scale or pump has a green sticker on it saying that it was verified by the Department of Weights and Measures, along with a number to call if the device didn't start at zero.

That said, regulating a company is very different from issuing a cease-and-desist (which in fact does nothing but ensure that you cannot regulate them!)

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#22

Post by mindcrime » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:33 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #10

andygcook wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that pretty much sums it up correctly. The City of Boston placed a sting operation on one of the Uber drivers in the issuance of ticket (i), where once they saw the driver had used an unauthorized meter, they made him pull over where a police officer was already waiting. It's unfortunate that Boston has issued a cease and desist on the service though. I live in Boston, and Uber is great as it's almost impossi…

As always in situations like this, my thoughts are simultaneously on how awesome Uber is, and how not awesome every other service/scam that takes advantage of this flexibility might be. It is very important that cities be able to provide visitors with a reliable way to get a ride from point A (usually: the airport) to point B (usually: the convention center hotel) at a predictable price. Obviously, Uber doesn't preve…

But if the "Uber way of doing business" effectively drives regulated cabs out of business, that's a problem.

It's not a "problem," it's "a sign that the State should get out of the business of regulating cabs."

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#23

Post by jhcoaps2 » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:39 PM UTC

chimi wrote: post #6

I don't think being a startup should grant you immunity from the law or absolve the requirement to follow local regulations and licensing statutes. Lawyers, doctors, electricians they all have to follow the law too. Why is Uber a special case?

I have to agree with you.

The original Ubercab model (allow anybody to sign up as a driver without any vetting of anything) was absolutely atrocious. The new one is better, but uber drivers benefit from customers who feel like the product is as safe as the regulated product without actually doing things like ensuring that the cars are inspected.

That said, I pretty much lost respect for Uber when they pretended that expressing high-demand rates as a multiple was clear. Nobody with any UX experience would've agreed with them that it was clear... but they all would've agreed that it's a great way to camoflague massively inflated rates.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#24

Post by jhcoaps2 » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:40 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

chimi wrote: post #6

I don't think being a startup should grant you immunity from the law or absolve the requirement to follow local regulations and licensing statutes. Lawyers, doctors, electricians they all have to follow the law too. Why is Uber a special case?

Two reasons (neither dispositive): (i) The cities in which Uber operates usually have dysfunctional cab systems. San Francisco, for instance, is notoriously underserved. (ii) Much of the regulatory overhead in running a cab/livery service really is an artifact of top-down market controls from the turn of the last century that have been exploited to lock the market to a privileged few operators.

Marijuana shouldn't be regulated as it is.

Should startups be allowed to sell Marijuana? Of course not, either everyone should, or nobody should. Level playing fields and all that.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#25

Post by tptacek » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:42 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #22

tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always in situations like this, my thoughts are simultaneously on how awesome Uber is, and how not awesome every other service/scam that takes advantage of this flexibility might be. It is very important that cities be able to provide visitors with a reliable way to get a ride from point A (usually: the airport) to point B (usually: the convention center hotel) at a predictable price. Obviously, Uber doesn't preve…

But if the "Uber way of doing business" effectively drives regulated cabs out of business, that's a problem. It's not a "problem," it's "a sign that the State should get out of the business of regulating cabs."

I'm not sure this statement says anything; it's a rhetorical NOP. You'd want to accompany it with the reason why municipalities could be assured that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B in the absence of regulation.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#26

Post by tarr11 » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #4

Two tickets were apparently issued: (i) For operating an unlicensed livery service (ii) For using a non-approved mechanism for metering the ride The C&D at issue here covers (ii). At its heart, the complaint is that Boston has standardized on a way of metering passengers, and Uber has replaced that standard with GPS. Presumably, cab drivers in Boston could not simply choose to replace their meters with GPS monitors,…

Had to look up "rent seeking", I'm sure I'm not the only one

In economics, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth, for example, spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created. A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. People accused of rent seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#27

Post by ryanglasgow » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

chimi wrote: post #6

I don't think being a startup should grant you immunity from the law or absolve the requirement to follow local regulations and licensing statutes. Lawyers, doctors, electricians they all have to follow the law too. Why is Uber a special case?

Two reasons (neither dispositive): (i) The cities in which Uber operates usually have dysfunctional cab systems. San Francisco, for instance, is notoriously underserved. (ii) Much of the regulatory overhead in running a cab/livery service really is an artifact of top-down market controls from the turn of the last century that have been exploited to lock the market to a privileged few operators.

These are two good reasons for the law to be reformed, but not for why Uber is above the law.

I see no reason for Uber to be exempt from the same regulations other services must abide by.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#28

Post by Vivtek » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:48 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #21

untog wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm torn too, but the meter thing is a very sensible point. Taxi meters in NYC (the only market I have experience with) are basically entirely locked boxes- the drivers can't do anything beyond poke the buttons on the front. This is, of course, very sensible- otherwise there's a danger of unscrupulous drivers modifying their meters to charge passengers more. This is only the case for yellow cabs in NYC, though- I'm s…

It's not that surprising to regulate a private company like that. When you go to the grocery store or the gas station, the scale or pump has a green sticker on it saying that it was verified by the Department of Weights and Measures, along with a number to call if the device didn't start at zero. That said, regulating a company is very different from issuing a cease-and-desist (which in fact does nothing but ensure t…

No. If you were operating a gas station with pumps lacking those calibration stickers, you'd get a cease-and-desist. That's the very mechanism implementing regulation of companies.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#29

Post by URSpider94 » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:56 PM UTC

neilk wrote: post #11

tptacek wrote: post #4

Two tickets were apparently issued: (i) For operating an unlicensed livery service (ii) For using a non-approved mechanism for metering the ride The C&D at issue here covers (ii). At its heart, the complaint is that Boston has standardized on a way of metering passengers, and Uber has replaced that standard with GPS. Presumably, cab drivers in Boston could not simply choose to replace their meters with GPS monitors,…

I was amazed by this sentence in the C&D: "Massachusetts law does not sanction unapproved devices for use in commercial transactions." Does that mean what I think it means? If I use an iPhone app to calculate the tax, and it's not approved, then I broke the law? Does this apply to Square, too? I thought that there was an English common law principle that "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed".

Most states have weights and measures departments that certify all of the tools used in commerce (scales, gas pumps, taxi meters, etc). These tools are very highly regulated -- often the internals are inspected by state officials, the devices are sealed, and operators are required to bring them back in for periodic re-testing. This may seem obstructionist, but it's based on a long history of dishonest merchants tampering with this type of equipment to defraud customers.

Re: Uber Boston Has Been Served

#30

Post by mindcrime » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 9:57 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #25

mindcrime wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the "Uber way of doing business" effectively drives regulated cabs out of business, that's a problem. It's not a "problem," it's "a sign that the State should get out of the business of regulating cabs."

I'm not sure this statement says anything; it's a rhetorical NOP. You'd want to accompany it with the reason why municipalities could be assured that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B in the absence of regulation.

You'd want to accompany it with the reason why municipalities could be assured that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B in the absence of regulation.

How is it a proper role of municipal government to "(assure) that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B"??? I reject the fundamental premise this is based on.

I mean, you have to consider the unintended consequences of (nominally well meaning) government regulation, like artificially limiting the supply of cabs, while simultaneously interfering with the ability of cab drivers to earn a decent wage. And one should ponder the possibility that there are other ways to protect consumers, outside of government regulation. Why can't there be a voluntary certification system for cabs, which a given cab company could choose to accept or reject... and, correspondingly, consumers could choose to either only take rides with "certified" cabs, or they could go all "caveat emptor" and take rides with non-sanctioned cabs.

The fact that people are already going outside "the system" is evidence that "the system" is not fulfilling the needs of the consumers.