Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Their 'investment' in political influence is amazing:

It has 250 lobbyists and 29 lobbying firms registered in capitols around the nation, at least a third more than Wal-Mart Stores. That doesn’t count municipal lobbyists. In Portland, the 28th-largest city in the U.S., 10 people would ultimately register to lobby on Uber’s behalf. They’d become a constant force in City Hall. City officials say they’d never seen anything on this scale.

I suspected politicians were responding to something besides the appeal of easy-to-get rides. What I've seen from local politicians was hard to explain otherwise.

View on HN

It's also amazing how many (presumably unpaid) cheerleaders they have to flood the comments of every discussion about them.

It is easy to cheer for Uber because they are not running over puppies or snow bunnies, they are dismantling the medallion mafia, unworthy of legal protections. So Yes, I cheer for Uber and its Ayn Randian CEO.

>dismantling the medallion mafia

Is that really a thing outside of NYC? Pretty sure it isn't.

It was a thing in almost every developed city around the world.

Literally medallions and literally the mafia? Not as far as I know. But most cities restrict supply of taxis to keep prices high and fix prices as the behest of the taxi industry -- in addition to all of the other fun things the taxi lobby does.

When Seattle built the Link light rail system, it stopped 1 mile shy of the airport because the taxi drivers didn't want the competition. Fortunately public outcry shut that down, but it's pretty rare that the general public gets upset enough about an issue to overcome the power of a specific interest group (yes, this includes Uber as well!)

There's plenty of literature to explain why price fixing and limiting supply/licensure is bad. There's no competition, no incentive to improve or provide a premium service. There's no reason to provide service in far-out areas where it might be hard to find a return fare. There's no reason to provide service in less "desirable" (read: minority) areas.

Of course, there are problems with the Uber model, too: Surge pricing being one of them. Some people think it's gouging, some think it's the right solution to provide supply for excess demand.

> most cities restrict supply of taxis to keep prices high and fix prices as the behest of the taxi industry

Why is it always left out that a limited number of taxis is good for society as well? Taxis operate on public roads, pollute public air, cause traffic congestion the public must deal with, cause car accidents and hit pedestrians. When you're not catching a ride taxis (and Ubers) are a nuisance and society has decided to limit their negative side effects.

This is definitely a thing elsewhere. The amount of rudeness that I received from cab company dispatchers in Seattle is astounding. I would much prefer to deal with nearly anyone - Comcast, traffic cops, DOL - than a cab company even today, and there has been a marked improvement in customer support since Uber, Lyft, etc have become a real thing.

They where a monopoly, and they acted like it, and now they aren't.

I assumed it was a thing all over. Is here in Ottawa as well, at least.

> presumably unpaid

What would give you the idea that they are not paid?

This is a good point. Astroturfing is an old technique by now, and judging by Uber's other behavior, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they used it.

It's also amazing how many (presumably unpaid) cheerleaders the entrenched, corrupt, consumer-harming incumbents have to flood the comments of every discussion about Uber.

Maybe some Uber supporters take "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" to heart. Uber does a lot wrong, and there are a lot of reasons to dislike them, but there are also reasons to cheer their success -- if not some of their methods.

Why are you using the word "corrupt" to describe the other side, but not Uber? Everything I've seen about them is just as corrupt, or even more so.

I'm fine with describing Uber that way too. I didn't go out of my way to do so, because I was replying in-kind to someone who was asking why people defend Uber; I was merely pointing out the same could be said of the Taxi industry.

They offer a service that young people use a lot, and they offer it in a way that makes the service they were using previously look like an embarrassment.

I had to take a cab home from the airport a few weeks ago because my phone was dead. Not only did it cost almost twice as much as an uber would have, but the cab smelled terrible, the driver didn't know where we were going, and when we got to my house, I had to wait for five minutes while he literally made a carbon imprint of my credit card.

Uber has a bunch of, yes, unpaid (in fact negatively paid!) cheerleaders because it's offering a service that people really like.

I've ridden in lots of cabs for many years in many cities, and hardly ever have had an experience like that (not that you didn't this time). I think the Uber-fans are exaggerating the situation a bit (in fact, many Uber drivers are, or were, cab drivers).

Using modern tech for summoning, paying, and rating cabs is a great idea though.

OTOH, here in Connecticut they didn't have a lobbyist firm, and they almost got banned in the state (after already running for a few months), because the taxi companies were lobbying the politicians. So they hired a lobbyist, and got actual hearings on the subject. Which seems a bit more fair.

Uber has been treated roughly by local politicians pretty much everywhere in the world it has set up. It's only by fighting the taxi lobbies with fire that they have been able to make any inroads at all.

Uber accounts for nearly half of the entire U.S. market of low-cost personal rides. They are not the little guy fighting the power, they are the power.

And their success is, by and large, a testament to how poorly the previous power (the taxi guilds) served the people.

It's easy to cut prices if you just exempt yourself from the labor laws everyone else has to follow.

Not only themselves but drivers and customers too. Uber, their drivers and their customers benefit from not being covered by those labor laws you're talking about.

It's bad for politics and the traditional taxi industry because they get less from the cake.

Taxi drivers were already exempt from most of those labour laws - they were already considered contractors and didn't have overtime nor benefits.

But they were actually contractors.

That didn't just happen overnight. Do a google search for "uber banned". They fought for it and still are.

They weren't always a $50bn company. They got a cease and desist from SF in 2010. When it was just a black car service.

I seriously don't know: Is that somewhat out of proportion? I could imagine the aggregated Taxi lobby being represented somewhere close to that. It's after all a highly regulated market.

Uber built this large lobbying effort because they were getting killed by the taxi lobbies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/31/t...

I can't imagine the taxi lobby has $40 billion and former White House advisors. The article says that Portland city hall was blown away by scale of Uber's response.

Correct. This also goes for everyone asking "Why does AirBNB require such a large investment at this point?!" on a recent post...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com