In practice these behave exactly like a taxi service. I don't think it matters much who owns the cars. No one would argue that a cab company from, say, LA, should be able to just bring a portion of its fleet to SF and start picking up passengers without complying with the laws that govern taxis here. If these start-ups affect the market in essentially the same way, we and they all know they are trying to enter a market with rules in a way that does not abide by them
Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#22I 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…
>were promised a protected business environment
Protecting a business environment always comes at a cost to the consumers, whether it is through tariffs, regulations, licences, restrictions or whatever.
I don't feel sorry for the existing businesses, because they constructed a legal framework to protect themselves instead of trying to keep up with the competition. At any point the natural will of people to come up with something better will route around the regulatory framework they hid themselves behind.
Incumbents have been playing by the rules all right - rules that they have successfully lobbied for, that protect them at a cost to everyone else.
The stranded capital has to remain stranded, and sucks to be them. Otherwise you open a can of worms, and extreme economic stagnation will follow, because doing business becomes a case of who can construct the best regulatory fences, not who can deliver the best products and services.
It's not called risk capital for nothing. You risk losing it.
TLDR; cry me a river, taxi companies, and next time innovate instead of regulate.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the cars Uber has are already insured as limos. Just by the parent company that they are getting them from, not by Uber itself.
If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?
Because cities limit the number of taxi drivers through the use of medallions or similar.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#24The 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".
Technically it'd be an oligopoly.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wit…
>society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry.
>not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above.
The deal - as it was, has been, or whatever, was simply some type of legislative barrier passed using the threat of imprisonment and/or fines as the stick. While you could argue that 'society' passed and agreed to these rules through the democratic legislative process, in reality it's far more arcane than that (don't watch sausages or laws getting made).
In reality, no law in a democracy can be promised to exist past the next election period. Sure, mostly it doesn't happen that way, but laws passed some time ago in a different technological state of progress are not inviolate, never-to-be-repealed things cast in stone.
There are no moral consequences at all. People win and lose every day, in every industry, for millions of reasons. It would be immoral to try and stop this creative destruction process and try to freeze life at a certain point. Because that would deny the future winners from winning, and permanently cast the losers in the 'loser' role.
The underlying beauty and strength of democracy is that it can change and destroy old concepts, old rules and old leaders peacefully. This is the killer feature that makes up for it's otherwise many flaws.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the cars Uber has are already insured as limos. Just by the parent company that they are getting them from, not by Uber itself.
If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?
I'm guessing that taxis are a protected industry, as a result from lobbying, and that you can't just register as a taxi provider. I'm guessing that, like most cities, they have found taxi licensing to be a nice little earner for the city, and intentionally limit supply in order to keep the prices high.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Oversimplified summaries of 'Y said "X is unfair"' are quite popular on the Internet. :)
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#28The 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?
If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#29It 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…
Oh please. Regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and acting as if you're exempt from the law in the noble pursuit of lower prices is bollocks.
Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wit…
society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry
Government is often a poor proxy for society. I suspect most people in any given US city would not like to artificially limit the supply of taxi drivers and were not consulted about the decision to do so.