Massachusetts Realizes That Maybe GPS Isn't Too Newfangled After All; Reverses Order & Allows Uber
from the uber-onward dept
Well, that was fast. It seems that Uber, the innovative new transportation offering, keeps running into local regulatory problems... but as soon as the public gets wind of these, the local governments back down. Last month, it was DC backing down on a bill that would artificially inflate Uber's prices. And now, it's Massachusetts. Yesterday, we noted that theAnd... just like that, the "Division of Standards" has issued a "modified hearing decision" on the matter, in which it realizes that perhaps GPS isn't such a crazy, awful, dangerous technology after all. Apparently after re-examining "relevant amendments to Handbook 44 by NIST and NCWM" (National Institute of Standards & Technology and the National Conference on Weights and Measures), they've decided that Uber can continue to operate, granted "provisional" approval, which is "pending the outcome of the NIST study and/or the establishment of any standards for the use of such systems."
In other words, crisis averted for now, but wouldn't it be better for local regulatory agencies to think these things through a bit more in the future rather than defaulting to banning any new and innovative offerings?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: boston, gps, livery, massachusetts, taxi, weights and measures
Companies: uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We can has gay uber :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why shouldn't they default to "Ban it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the **AA people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't this sound a lot like our good friends in Hollyweird?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
back before the Internet, after the govt. started regulating broadcasting spectra, the public never learned about these things and they would be completely buried. If it weren't for govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies the public would have been made aware of anti-competitive taxi cab laws a long time ago and they would have not have gotten so bad. To the extent that the big media cartels cover these issues now it's only because of the Internets influence on the media.
The plutocracy knows that, in order to control the government, they must control the media and keep the public ignorant. They will do everything in their power to regulate the Internet in their self interest just like they did to everything outside the Internet. Not only must we resist such regulation, we must assume that if we are not pro-active in removing existing plutocratic laws (ie: govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies, 95+ year copy protection lengths, etc...), the laws regulating the Internet will inevitably get more and more plutocratic as time goes on and so our overall ability to openly communicate will only become more restricted. This is exactly what happened to broadcasting, the right for the public to broadcast wasn't all stolen from the public all at once but, instead, the government gradually passed more and more laws restricting our rights to broadcast and wrongfully granting a hand full of corporate interests exclusive privileges to broadcast at public expense in return for campaign contributions, revolving door favors, and modifications in what gets broadcasted about candidates (ie: a free for all broadcasting and cableco system with no regulations will likely discuss the positions of political candidates much more thoroughly, which is what politicians don't want, instead of the very broad discussions we currently have). If we aren't moving forward, and being pro-active, to remove existing bad laws and to set laws that prohibit the passage of laws that restrict our rights, then we are necessarily moving backwards and becoming more and more restricted by the passage of bad laws as the government is always passing many laws and hiding small clauses that gradually and subtly evade our rights. We must be proactive, it's our only choice, we must not only resist the passage of new bad laws, but we must aggressively demand the removal of currently existing bad laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulatory Capture
Delights yet to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't they know the meaning of GPS earlier?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course it would but that would mean these various bodies, in particular the 'jobs worth' idiots within those bodies, not being able to exercise their authority!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Division of Standards looked into the practice of using GPS for the purposes that Uber was using it and found it acceptable and will continue to monitor the situation.
I'm not sure what the problem is.
If you expect the world to be your private experimentation laboratory, think again. Or would you like to step into my new imaging machine...no, no, there's no worry of side effects...trust me...gamma rays...schmamma rays...pure science fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sentence first, Trial after!
The problem is the typically, the "looking into" part would come before the decision, not after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about the accuracy of your bill...
I have a problem with anyone trying to bill me using technology that is known to be inaccurate. I want the Division of Standards to continue to ensure that all the systems used to generate bills are as accurate as possible. Consider this - would you be happy if the gas pump or the scale at the supermarket had the same margin of error as civilian GPS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about the accuracy of your bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about the accuracy of your bill...
Then don't use Uber. I, personally, would have zero reservations about using such a service based on civilian GPS. To each his own.
The key is disclosure: as long as you are fully informed that the distance measurement is a good approximation rather than exact, before you use the service, then there is no problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ishq
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ishq
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ishq
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ishq
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a Massachusetts resident...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]