California PUC Cracks Down On Innovative Ride Sharing Operations As Another Batch Of Taxi Drivers Sue Uber
from the innovation-not-allowed dept
We've covered the various regulatory and legal fights that Uber has been dealing with lately. The company, which basically has set up a super convenient way for people to book a ride (and, in some cases, taxis), keeps running up against a combination of local regulatory agencies who tend to feel that they get to lord over anyone who attempts to do anything involving driving people around for money, as well as existing limo and taxi providers who fear a more efficient system (especially when they profit off of inefficiencies). Of course, some politicians and taxi/limo drivers recognize that greater efficiency is actually good for everyone, allowing a more convenient and useful system, and filling in gaps when regulated supply strains the system.However, too many are just focused on the status quo. And this isn't to say that there isn't a place for regulatory bodies to ensure that cabs and limos are safe and that they don't take advantage of passengers. But the line between protecting passengers and protecting legacy players from competition sure does become a blurry line very, very quickly. And this week a bunch of these companies have run into legal problems on their home turf. Uber, specifically, has has been sued in San Francisco by some cabbies demanding that the company be shut down. They claim that Uber's car hailing service is really an unregulated taxi service, and thus, unfairly competing with them.
Perhaps the bigger issue, however, is that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has fined Uber and two other companies, Lyft and SideCar (who offer ridesharing). As that Wired link notes, this seems to be a clash between two core concepts that seem to thrive in San Francisco: on the one hand, freedom to innovate and disrupt and, on the other hand, support in government intervention for the public good. I'd argue that the two concepts aren't in quite as much conflict as the article suggests, if the intervention actually is for the public good. The problem is that's not really clear here, and it's not hard to see how it's really for the sake of limiting competition.
SideCar points out that this is a case of regulators not knowing how to classify an innovation:
asserting that we are operating a transportation carrier... is like saying Airbnb is a hotel chain, that Travelocity is an airline, or that eBay is a storeLyft, similarly, suggests that there's a problem in regulators taking a square peg and trying to shove it into a round hole, because they've never seen a square before:
Transportation has historically been a highly regulated industry, and the existing regulations weren’t designed to imagine a world where two neighbors who have never met are able to connect within a matter of minutes to share a ride across town.Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, told Wired that the PUC fine is particularly ridiculous in its case, since it only works with drivers who are already regulated by the PUC. It's just offering them another channel for finding customers. But under the PUC's ruling, it appears that they want those people to be doubly regulated, which seems completely wasteful:
Our contention is that if you read the regulations, such a notion doesn’t make sense. Are we supposed to give drivers a second drug and alcohol test? Are we supposed to have cars inspected by the DMV a second time after they’ve already inspected (our) partners’ vehicles?In the end, you have to wonder if the role that regulators have still makes sense for these kinds of innovators. Yes, there are issues about safety and avoiding scams, but the various companies have built in systems to deal with that -- such as driver ratings and public reviews. Those types of things weren't really possible in the past, which is why you needed a PUC to make sure taxidrivers weren't ripping people off. But now the "PUC" can be the public itself. But... that only works if you believe the regulations are supposed to help the public, rather than the legacy players.
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: innovation, puc, regulation, ride sharing
Companies: lyft, sidecar, uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulatory Agencies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'But now the "PUC" can be the public itself.'
By the way: the name "Uber" is probably part of the problem. Bad association with "ubermensch", and seems a particularly bad choice for densely populated areas having a lot of Jewish folk, don't it?
Help Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick! Click at least once daily to make it the most viewed page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'But now the "PUC" can be the public itself.'
Seriously? The EXACT same enforcement is available. The PUC can take away a license to operate as a taxi. The public can STOP USING THE TAXI SERVICE. This is the same result - the driver is out of business for acting badly - and the taxpayers don't have to find an agency to make it happen.
"Bad association with "ubermensch", and seems a particularly bad choice for densely populated areas having a lot of Jewish folk, don't it?"
Did you eat paint chips as a child?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'But now the "PUC" can be the public itself.'
"What enforcement ability does "the public" have?"
While the public doesn't have any enforcement ability, they do have something much more important. The ability to directly be critical of Uber in a manner that allows other members of the public to be aware of any shortcomings. As well as allow Uber to know of any problematic drivers and/or incidents.
Both of which are very important. A vocal public and informed customers can quickly regulate a company providing such a public service. More quickly and more efficiently than any state or federal regulatory body.
As for the "ubermensch" bit, did you really just go there? Wow. Just when I think you can't sink any lower/get any crazier.
And quit posting the wiki link for "Streisand effect", it got old real quick and it's annoying. We get it. You don't like Mike. You even more hate that he started something that has become a common phrase. Jealousy over your own shortcomings is no reason to be even more annoying/stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'But now the "PUC" can be the public itself.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'But now the "PUC" can be the public itself.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'But now the "PUC" can be the public itself.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure there will be a law passed by the auto-maker lobby that forces you to walk in front of self-driving cars waiving flags as a safety measure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to regulate the regulatory agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Allow me to diverge.
Before the internet, independent musicians, artists, filmmakers, writers, etc. had to put up with a similar situation. Since the conglomerates controlled all forms of major media, from TV and theater to radio and print, they were in a position to call the shots and dictate who was seen and heard. If they didn't give you a break, you didn't get heard -- it was that simple.
Now put two and two together and it's easy to figure out why groups like they're so hellbent on lobbying Washington to regulate the internet. Because they want to control it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't you completely ignoring the chilling effects here? It doesn't matter a hoot if the intervention is always for the public good unless you actually thing people set out do make the public worse off. What will happen is innovators will pull punches for the same reasons they always do when there's a risk of ex post facto intervention. It works exactly the same way here as it does for, say, fair use and copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the tax money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"protect the public"
our juggernaut government's main purpose is to control public interest and focus so that the government may continue to grow and thrive. the people are the fuel source, the government is the feeding organism. -_-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "Regulation" Euphemism...
"Regulation" is just a euphemism for government force/coercion. It is used to create artificially high walls to entry into various markets using State force/coercion in order to keep out competition.
Also, the power to regulate is the power to grant favors. So it also increases the power of State bureaucrats.
What truly helps the "public good" is the ability for individuals to exchange on a voluntary basis (no force/coercion involved).
Less government force/coercion aka "regulation" (i.e. the tech industry) = more competition, more innovation, more choice & affordability for all consumers.
More government force/coercion/"regulation" (i.e. government "schooling"): 100 years ago - classroom, desks, teacher in front of class, writing on a blackboard.
Government "schooling" today? - classroom, desks, teacher in front of class, writing on a whiteboard.
Behold, the magnificent innovation resulting from government "regulation"...from a blackboard to a whiteboard in 100 years.
I prefer consensual relationships.
Try Voluntaryism instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "Regulation" Euphemism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "Regulation" Euphemism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PUC and Uber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUC and Uber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulations on Uber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]