This story shows some of the subtly of lobbying that I think people fail to appreciate. Lobbying isn't about spending money for votes. It's about making sure lawmakers understand your narrative. Ultimately, lawmakers have to defend their positions against their opponents. How do they do that unless someone explains why a particular position is a good one? Take surge pricing for example. People react negatively to it, but it has support from economists. Lawmakers don't know this innately. Lobbyists tell them, give them the ammo they need to come out in support of a position consistent with their ideology.
Uber has powerful narrative that resonates with politicians: new technology obsoleting outdated regulations. In the past 25 years, that's been a powerful narrative both for republicans and moderate/conservative democrats (like those in Virginia). The counter narrative: consumer protections, equal access, are weaker in the current political climate, especially somewhere like Virginia.
I think Uber is a great contrast to the relative lack of traction net neutrality has had among lawmakers. It's an esoteric point, not easily understandable like better taxi service. And it cuts against the trend of deregulation. So despite there being a lot more money behind net neutrality, it's been a harder sell.
"It's about making sure lawmakers understand your narrative."
Agree. And what most people don't realize, that I have found out personally, [1] is that lawmakers (and/or their staff) are more than willing to listen to informed opinions and thoughts by individuals who are not "lobbyists" and don't represent "money". That the impediment to lobbying is really not always money but the ability to form and back up your argument or point of view and to sell your idea. There is no doubt in my mind that you and many other commenters on HN would make good "lobbyists" if they decided to take the time to make sure lawmakers understood their point of view.
[1] I've personally been down to Washington and have discussed issues in person with not only congressional staff but with members of various agencies. All it took was a letter asking to have meetings. Plenty of time allotted, they listened I have received letters back with further thoughts and questions from congressional legal staff. And a congressman that I met (that I didn't even have a meeting with) asked me why I was in DC. When he heard the reason his staff followed up literally 5 times after that to see if they could help further.
The main difference between Uber's narrative and Net Neutrality is that Uber is solving existing problems here and now whereas Net Neutrality is largely meant to protect the status quo from potential assault in the future.
This makes Uber's narrative more compelling: it's urgent. And, at least in some ways, their solution is superior to those "outdated regulations."
The concern with lobbying is not so much "money for votes," but that most people are powerless, so they have no one lobbying for them. The concern, in other words, is that lawmakers don't get to consider or even understand the narrative of the people they're supposedly representing.
Lobbying is okay, as long as it doesn't also turn into "campaign donations" or "paying for parties" (like MPAA did for state AG's, in the fight against Google).
Lobbying + campaign donations should be automatically considered bribing. But this is America, the land of the free...to pay bribes legally, I guess.
Uber does make campaign donations [1]. To suggest it's all about 'spreading information' seems naive at best, if not dishonest.
Garcetti had a $250,000 campaign contribution from Uber
(or the CEO) in his run for the LA Mayor
Drischler had ordered the apps to shut down service in L.A.
soon before Garcetti took office. But the day Garcetti took
over, his office ordered Drischler to stop talking to the media.
That's a bit like arguing marketing is a force of good because it helps get information to all market participants and thereby increase market efficiency.
> So despite there being a lot more money behind net neutrality
Well,net neutrality is a federal,FCC related issue afaik,while most taxi laws depend on states. So you dont have to lobby the whole legislative body to influence it. It's always easier to lobby local legislators.
I dont think one can compare the two. Now does it show that Uber has some power,sure they have,especially when they are able to mobilize their drivers to lobby politicians. Politicians want to more jobs not less.
I'm not taking sides in all this.What matters is,if the laws change,the legislator makes sure there is a fair competition this time and not that Uber becomes the "new boss".
Yesterday, I hailed a cab in the street. The driver professionally made his way cross town avoiding the hotspots. The meter showed the fair price, and not one being adjusted on supply and demand, I paid in cash, and the anonymous journey was not logged. It was fucking awesome. And it was everything Uber is not. So yeah, fuck Uber.
People who care about the points you have raised should continue to be able to hail yellow cabs. People who don't should be able to call Uber. I don't see why the two options must be mutually exclusive, which is what regulators and owners of taxi medallions seem to be saying.
Its not entirely that simple. If most people switch to Uber then a given city won't be able to support it's previous population of cabs and it will be harder to call one in less heavily trafficked areas. Now, if that ends up happening I feel like the consumers have spoken and too bad for cab users but it's not irrational for a Taxi fan to try to discourage others from using Uber.
You were able to hail a cab in the street? Lucky you. I've had cabbies refuse to take me to where I want to go. I've called cab companies, told them where I am, and they refuse to come pick me up. I've seen a cab turn down an elderly couple want to go across town because his "meter was broken", but 2 minutes later take a fare that just went a couple blocks. And I'm a white male. Minorities have an even harder problem getting cabs.
Depending on where you live, cabs are not always something that is just as easy or reliable as Uber/Lyft/Sidecar/etc. When I'm unable to get home for whatever reason, I need a service I can rely on.
Personal anecdote here, but I don't look like I belong in the loop for anything other than begging. I'm an overweight white male with long, typically unkempt hair, an untrimmed beard, and a pair of shoes that are dirty and have an obvious rip in the front. My jacket is dirty and often covered in mud / dust / etc. Most of the beggars I pass on my walk into work look far better off than I do.
I have never felt as though I couldn't get a cab in Chicago. Not during rush hour in the loop (when I could easily be passed for a well-off guy in a suit thirty paces down the line). Not at 3am when the bar is closing and there exists a line of upper middle class to upper class drunks failing over themselves for a cab. Not on Michigan at lunch. Endless opportunities to not pick up a ragged homeless guy, and money always plays.
Supply and demand was implicit in that you were able to hail a cab.
If it's a rainy night and no cabs are available, the effective price of a cab is infinity dollars. Uber's surge pricing reduces infinity to a mere 1.5-5x.
I can appreciate your interest in the anonymity provided by cash, but study some economics :P.
5x the normal price is not what I call fair. It gives a huge advantage to folks who can afford that surge price. The regular client wo needs a ride and can't afford that, is missing out.
If that system would be used in regular cabs, all sorts of folks would have issues. Like the elderly, disabled or injured people who need a ride and don't have other means of transportation.
What it does is give a huge incentive to wait if it's possible to wait. On the busiest days of the year, Uber sends out a message to let people know when those busiest times will be, so people who care about the price can plan accordingly.
And is it fair that someone who has other means of transportation gets a cheap ride, while the elderly person who needs a cab urgently is forced to wait for his chance because there aren't enough cars on the street?
That would present you with a great business opportunity: transporting people at specific prescheduled times, since current options are failing. Hopefully you won't have regulations preventing you from doing so.
Fuck Uber indeed. Stop supporting this company. There are too many questionable things this company has done to get a leg up against its competitors. I'm not against this nascent industry or its lobbying. I simply dislike its tactics and I can't see anyone in their right mind supporting this company, unless you are an investor yourself and plan to cash out when this company goes public.
It sounds like you might have read a few too many narratives from Uber competitors. They're in an industry where entrenched interests (and new competitors) want to spread as many questionable stories as possible. They're reducing DUIs (and saving lives because of it), creating tens of thousands of new jobs every month (people feeding their families who would have struggled otherwise) and do as much for charities (on demand charity events throughout the year) as anyone.
They're the new "IT" tech startup, and they're getting similar negative press that other companies in their shoes got (FB and Google employees are excited that someone new has taken the press pressure of them).
Uber is a company who is changing the way people get around as well as the way that people get jobs (they'll likely create more jobs next year than the sum of all other startups combined). It sounds like you've already made up your mind, and that's fine, but you might have trouble convincing other people of your point of view if you continue to use strong language and a lack of facts.
I love how literally 20+ stories in the mainstream media about terrible shit Uber has definitely done basically becomes "Yeah I can't believe you lemmings would care about that PR spin, here are a couple good things Uber has done according to their PR department". Why thank you great oracle, for bringing us the real truth...
Which 20+ stories? The one where a journalist with financial ties to a competitor tried to bait an Uber exec into a hypothetical conversation and then took lines out of context (others at that dinner party said effectively the same thing). Or do you mean the one where they're giving private contractors new opportunities?
None of the good things that Uber are doing came from uber. Those were all things that non-biased third parties said. Are any of them not true? Is Uber not actually creating more jobs next year than the sum of all startups combined? Are they not saving lives from DUIs? Are they not (and have they not) done a significant amount for charity from their on-demand charity events?
Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm open to a different take on those points. Those appear to be significant points in favor of Uber. I'm open to a conversation on the pros/cons though. Maybe you can change my mind.
Uber isn't a startup, not any more. They're a huge company with billions of dollars behind them and world-class political operatives trying to shape their public narrative.
> The meter showed the fair price, and not one being adjusted on supply and demand.
I wonder how you define 'fair.' Prices should rise in response to demand, in order to ration scarce resources—resources like cars and roads.
I'm not hugely fond of Uber rides being logged, OTOH I can see that rider rating are a huge win for drivers, who perceive themselves to be much safer than they would be as taxi drivers.
Because once you've ridden one taxi in NYC you know what the fare per mile will be every other time you ride, no matter the time of day or location of pickup, and you get a receipt showing you the price you actually paid.
"Is my electricity company being unfair because they offer discounts during low usage hours?"
I agree with your point. Here though is how a typical person thinks from what I have found and observed.
1) It's ok to offer a discount off the "regular" price for any reason. That's always a positive.
2) It's almost never accepted to charge more than "normal" or you appear to be "ripping off" or taking advantage" or possibly "gouging".
This has to do a great deal with people's expectations as far as "what is typical and normal" not so much with economic rationality.
For example if you went to a restaurant that had very fairly priced food but they charged you for the napkins you'd probably think that was "messed up". You wouldn't even really care if the price of hamburgers was 20% less than a competitor. All you would think is "wow that's screwed up look they are charging me for napkins!".
Now part of this also comes from many people who comment who possibly never have run a business ever and are consumers. Not that people who run businesses don't have their own thoughts. To that point I think someone who is narcissistic would tend to have a harder time with this than someone who is not. (Speculation on my part). Because they only believe that they have a right to make money not someone else.
I personally think it makes sense to charge more during peak times and when they can. That ends up subsidizing times (in theory) when they can't make money. And keeps them in business.
I do some consulting on the side. For arguments sake I should be charging, (let's say) $3000 for "$x" amount of work. However I get clients that can't afford that so I charge them (let's say) $1000. To make up for it I now have to charge some clients $5000 (because they can afford that and agree) and so the $5k clients end up subsidizing the $1k clients. If everyone had to be charged the same exact price I wouldn't be able to offer consulting at all because there wouldn't be enough customers at a fixed rate like that.
That makes the price knowable, I don't think that's the same as fair.
Lyft and Uber will both tell you if the price for the ride you're requesting will be higher than usual so in that sense their prices are just as knowable.
I think a fair price would be one that an informed and unencumbered buyer and seller reach. One reason why it can be hard to get a Taxi in New York if you're trying to leave Manhattan is because the prices aren't always fair and that drivers would rather seek a fairer transaction (in contravention of regulations).
Uber has powerful narrative that resonates with politicians: new technology obsoleting outdated regulations. In the past 25 years, that's been a powerful narrative both for republicans and moderate/conservative democrats (like those in Virginia). The counter narrative: consumer protections, equal access, are weaker in the current political climate, especially somewhere like Virginia.
I think Uber is a great contrast to the relative lack of traction net neutrality has had among lawmakers. It's an esoteric point, not easily understandable like better taxi service. And it cuts against the trend of deregulation. So despite there being a lot more money behind net neutrality, it's been a harder sell.