Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#11

Post by eridius »

eli wrote: post #6
eridius wrote: post #4

The lawsuit against Uber seems to me like nothing more than taxi drivers upset that their monopoly is being threatened. As the article said, all the Uber drivers are already licensed, and there's no explanation as to why Uber is "unfair".

Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?

I don't know anything about CPUC so I can't really answer that question, but the lawsuit isn't about the licensing. The lawsuit is about Uber being "unfair", with no explanation for what that means. The only hint is that taxi drivers are seeing lower incomes, and the implication is that the lower incomes must somehow mean that Uber is being "unfair" rather than simply being a consequence of competition.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#12

Post by brianr »

cj wrote: post #10
usaar333 wrote: post #2

Interesting how Uber is lumped in with Lyft and SideCar. Uber drivers at least have (towncar) licenses. I haven't figured out yet how Lyft/SideCar are anything more than illegal taxi services that rename "fare" "donation".

Uber also runs Uberx, a cheaper non-towncar version of Uber similar to Lyft. Does anyone know if uberx drivers also have towncar licenses?

UberX cars still have towncar licenses though, judging by the TCP stickers on their bumpers.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#13

Post by smsm42 »

It just reeks of special interests protecting their turf. Of course when you are operating in highly regulated environment and have a well-oiled connections with local politicians it is annoying when somebody new comes around and tries to take part of your customer share. However for me as a consumer it is annoying that government yet again tries to take away my choice under the guise of protecting me from imaginary threats - and instead ends up protecting me from better service and lower prices. I don't need this kind of protection.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#14

Post by j-v »

cj wrote: post #10
usaar333 wrote: post #2

Interesting how Uber is lumped in with Lyft and SideCar. Uber drivers at least have (towncar) licenses. I haven't figured out yet how Lyft/SideCar are anything more than illegal taxi services that rename "fare" "donation".

Uber also runs Uberx, a cheaper non-towncar version of Uber similar to Lyft. Does anyone know if uberx drivers also have towncar licenses?

In Chicago I've seen taxi drivers using Uber X, but that may be a city-specific pilot. This TC interview with Uber indicates that Uber X drivers have TCP licenses, but may not necessarily drive limos or town cars:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform-to-n...

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#15

Post by eli »

eridius wrote: post #11
eli wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?

I don't know anything about CPUC so I can't really answer that question, but the lawsuit isn't about the licensing. The lawsuit is about Uber being "unfair", with no explanation for what that means. The only hint is that taxi drivers are seeing lower incomes, and the implication is that the lower incomes must somehow mean that Uber is being "unfair" rather than simply being a consequence of competition.

Well, you should probably read the actual complaint before deciding anything. You can see the whole thing at the bottom of this article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/14/class-action-lawsui...

IANAL and I don't know if the lawsuit has merit, but there is slightly more to it then just someone stamping their foot and yelling, "Unfair!"

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#16

Post by smsm42 »

tvladeck wrote: post #8

I really like Lyft. I use it when I need a taxi and it works very well. Although I do agree that a world where these types of "collaborative consumption" services (like AirBNB) are essentially unregulated (or at least more open to competition) is much better, it is true that a number of industries are regulated, and incumbents that have been "playing by the rules" were promised a protected business environment. And i…

We managed to transition from horsepower to cars without economy breaking down and I'm sure some people investing in horses lost some money on that. If some people investing in taxi business being shielded from competition will lose some money - sucks for them, but definite benefit for everybody else. And also would teach people not to invest in schemes that rely on government coercion and anti-competitiveness. It'd be no more "unfair" to them than their rent-extraction based on excluding competition is unfair to consumers.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#17

Post by bcoates »

tvladeck wrote: post #8

I really like Lyft. I use it when I need a taxi and it works very well. Although I do agree that a world where these types of "collaborative consumption" services (like AirBNB) are essentially unregulated (or at least more open to competition) is much better, it is true that a number of industries are regulated, and incumbents that have been "playing by the rules" were promised a protected business environment. And i…

Give up on the idea of an apolitical, independent bureaucracy and move to the patronage ("spoils") system. The government becomes incapable of credibly promising rents beyond the horizon of the next election and the value of monopoly rights gets priced more appropriately as a wasting asset.

You could give existing civil servants tenure both to be fair to them and ensure a gradual transition.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#18

Post by sbacheld »

cj wrote: post #10
usaar333 wrote: post #2

Interesting how Uber is lumped in with Lyft and SideCar. Uber drivers at least have (towncar) licenses. I haven't figured out yet how Lyft/SideCar are anything more than illegal taxi services that rename "fare" "donation".

Uber also runs Uberx, a cheaper non-towncar version of Uber similar to Lyft. Does anyone know if uberx drivers also have towncar licenses?

Uber also has extended their service to include some real taxi drivers in San Francisco (which would have a normal taxi license)

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#19

Post by tvladeck »

smsm42 wrote: post #16
tvladeck wrote: post #8

I really like Lyft. I use it when I need a taxi and it works very well. Although I do agree that a world where these types of "collaborative consumption" services (like AirBNB) are essentially unregulated (or at least more open to competition) is much better, it is true that a number of industries are regulated, and incumbents that have been "playing by the rules" were promised a protected business environment. And i…

We managed to transition from horsepower to cars without economy breaking down and I'm sure some people investing in horses lost some money on that. If some people investing in taxi business being shielded from competition will lose some money - sucks for them, but definite benefit for everybody else. And also would teach people not to invest in schemes that rely on government coercion and anti-competitiveness. It'd…

I'm not sure I was clear. In the cases I'm discussing, society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. Essentially that deal is: purchase a license, run your business this way, charge these prices, etc., and we'll protect your market.

NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify.

In addition, note that I was agreeing with you that the transition, on the whole, is definitely desirable. I'm only arguing that there may be moral consequences in not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#20

Post by sk5t »

eridius wrote: post #11
eli wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?

I don't know anything about CPUC so I can't really answer that question, but the lawsuit isn't about the licensing. The lawsuit is about Uber being "unfair", with no explanation for what that means. The only hint is that taxi drivers are seeing lower incomes, and the implication is that the lower incomes must somehow mean that Uber is being "unfair" rather than simply being a consequence of competition.

Unqualified statements of "X is unfair" are quite popular with unions in the northeast, to protest the hiring of any non-union labor. I guess one can't accuse them of libel or slander for accusations of "unfairness."
Post reply on HN