NYC Taxi Commission Nixes Cab-Hailing Apps

An anonymous reader writes "Uber is a company that creates apps to connect taxi and limo drivers with potential passengers. They've been rapidly expanding their service to cities across the country, but they're now getting pushback from New York City. This week the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission issued a public notice saying, 'A driver must not use any electronic communication device (PDF), including a cell phone or smartphone running a hail or payment app, while operating a taxicab.' The commission says its current contractual obligations forbid the use of such technology."

Comments

Uber is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I use it all the time in DC. I probably use it more because of the fact the DC government doesn't like it.

Re:Uber is awesome

[ShanghaiBill]

I probably use it more because of the fact the DC government doesn't like it.

Why don't they like it? Maybe I am dense, but I don't see why they should care one way or the other.

Re:Uber is awesome

[TheRealMindChild]

Because the asshole that cuts you off within millimeters to make their fare happy is now worrying about how many fares they will miss if they aren't driving and fucking around on their cell phone

Re:Uber is awesome

[milkmage]

city government. not the Feds.
City gets money. Thus the situation in NYC.

some perspective (taxi medallions. one meeeeelion dollars)
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142301617/nyc-taxi-medallions-fetch-unbelievable-returns

Re:Uber is awesome

[arth1]

Well, if tourists are discriminated against, I can see it being bad for both the city and long term business even if it's good for short term business.

Re:Uber is awesome

[jcr]

DC cabs pay a shitload of money to local DC politicians to limit their competition. Uber is competition.

-jcr

Re:Uber is awesome

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I hope I'm not breaching protocol by asking, but would you be willing to share any numbers on how much you're spending on the cabs? Just curious how it compares to owning a car.

Re:Uber is awesome

[hawguy]

I hope I'm not breaching protocol by asking, but would you be willing to share any numbers on how much you're spending on the cabs? Just curious how it compares to owning a car.

I'm not the original poster, but SF has a usable transit system (not perfect, not even great, but usable), so for a $70/month transit pass you can use transit to get to work and many other places. If you spend $40/weekend on Uber rides, then you're still way ahead of owning a car, since you can easily spend $150 - $300/month for a parking space depending on where you live (and thanks to increasingly more aggressive parking enforcement by the City, you'll probably end up spending more than that on tickets if you park on the street)

Of course, your Uber expenses are largely dictated by where you live and where you're going -- if you live in the Outer Sunset and are regularly going to North Beach, it's going to cost around $30 per trip on Uber. Make 8 round trips on Uber and you're up to around $500.
 

Re:Uber is awesome

[KDR_11k]

I recall us shouting at Greece for limiting the taxi market like that and not opening it up and here's a US city pulling the same shit?

Re:Uber is awesome

[Joce640k]

Why don't they like it? Maybe I am dense, but I don't see why they should care one way or the other.

The taxi business is a mafia, they want all calls to go through their call centers to keep control over the drivers and so the drivers have to pay their dues.

If you let calls go through the Internet the call centers aren't needed. Before you know it the drivers will become independent and the call centers won't get their cut - bad!!

Re:Uber is awesome

[demonlapin]

Libertarians have detested taxi medallion systems for years, but it's so entrenched that there is almost no chance of reversal in NYC.

Re:Uber is awesome

[emj]

I did some calculations on this a while back, and buying a moderatly cheap used car (~15000 USD) would cost me about 750 USD per month calculated over 10 years (if sold at an ok price).

So instead I bought a Cargo bike [wikipedia.org], it's fun fun fun. But I guess SF is abit more hilly..

Re:Uber is awesome

[hawguy]

So instead I bought a Cargo bike [wikipedia.org], it's fun fun fun. But I guess SF is abit more hilly..

SF is still quite bikeable despite the hills. Even when I lived on top of Nob Hill I rode my bike frequently... I still had to climb a hill to get home, but the east-west roads (California St, Pine St, etc) had more reasonable inclines than the north-south roads (Taylor St, Mason St, etc). It's possible to get to/from most areas of town without surmounting any large hills. There's a popular cross-town route that avoids hills when biking across town.

Now I live outside of the city and have a 12 mile bike commute to work (which is still faster than taking transit).

Re:Uber is awesome

[shugah]

You must live east of Van Ness and North of Market. Waiting for a cab in the Sunset, Richmond or Mission could take a while.

Re:Uber is awesome

[hjf]

Over here the drivers actively try to avoid reporting to their call centers as much as possible. So it's pretty shitty from their part too. Since they don't own the car and they already get a salary. Not reporting trips is literally stealing.

(Cars here aren't rigged with GPS and pressure sensors on the seats).

Re:Uber is awesome

[CodeBuster]

I use it all the time in DC. I probably use it more because of the fact the DC government doesn't like it.

Although it's not widely known among the general public, Washington DC is one of the last remaining large municipal markets here in the United States without a medallion system. In more heavily regulated cities, like New York, a medallion issued by the taxi commission and limited to a set number of cabs is required to pick up fares hailed from the street. Of course, certain special interests and their hired lobbyists are working to change that, to the detriment of consumers and independent operators, but until they do very little besides a valid drivers license is required to operate a cab in DC.

Re:Uber is awesome

[ediron2]

Yaaay, Libertarians: can't sway enough percentage points to be mentioned let alone win most elections, but think everyone else (including all those people whose safety they'd infringe upon or whose livelihoods they'd crush in their oversimplified socioeconomic experiments) should just concede anyway. The hubris is astounding.

"while operating a taxicab"

[Culture20]

They can use it while they're parked waiting for a fare, but not while driving. Makes sense for safety.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[MichaelSmith]

No I think this is about who controls the allocation of taxis. Somebody has to pay for their call center. Can't have it replaced but a couple of thousand lines of code.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[stephanruby]

The article says it's because their current contract with their payment processor gives them exclusivity until February. In February, the ban will no longer be in effect, and they'll be free to experiment with new payment systems and taxi-related phone applications that accept payments.

And yes, I know I cheated. I knew I wasn't supposed to read the article, but I just couldn't help myself.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[ShanghaiBill]

Somebody has to pay for their call center.

This makes no sense. The call center is a cost sink for the taxi company. They should be glad to be rid of it.

I think the real reason may have something to do with independent taxis competing on an equal footing with bigger fleets.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Nemyst]

I believe that's the point the GP was trying to make. The call center is what gives taxi companies an edge, but somebody has to pay for it. If the call center is made redundant by a simple mobile app, then taxi companies lose much of their advantage.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[gr8_phk]

This makes no sense. The call center is a cost sink for the taxi company. They should be glad to be rid of it.

Dude, the call center IS the taxi company. When it's replaced by an app, licensed cab drivers could use their own taxi and keep the full fare. Someone will have to figure out how to handle taxes though.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Cylix]

....

And yes, I know I cheated. I knew I wasn't supposed to read the article, but I just couldn't help myself.

We tend to be fairly forgiving here so I'll let you off with a warning this time. Just be more cautious in the future and mistakes like this won't happen again.

*Hops back into the RTFM Patrol Car and speeds off down the information super highway.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[jamesh]

No I think this is about who controls the allocation of taxis. Somebody has to pay for their call center. Can't have it replaced but a couple of thousand lines of code.

I wonder how 'self drive' cars will change the taxi industry, once such cars are truly allowed full autonomy on the road... then drivers will be replaced by a couple of million lines of code. Until someone needs a hand with their luggage or needs help out of their wheelchair etc.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[fistfullast33l]

You cant call for a yellow cab in NYC, unless they come from a large private garage. But no one I know has ever done it.

This app wont work well in Manhattan anyways, since there are so many cabs. And in the outer boroughs, most people know which street to go to to hail a cab trying to go back to Manhattan.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[MichaelSmith]

needs help out of their wheelchair

Thats where the automonous electric wheelchairs come in.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Shadow99_1]

Should I insert the first 'Johnny Cab' comment now? I know that's from the old version of Total Recall and all, but it's very apt.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[rtb61]

With computers bigger fleets will not definitely out compete small players. Using computer street maps and GPS, they will be able to accurately and efficiently distribute fares, based upon current locations and destined location of cabs including future bookings. The computer can efficiently allocate all fares to keep the taxi as busy as possible and to build up business based upon reliability of pick up.

Using computers with location and destination incorporated into programming, shared fares will be possible and more readily calculable. Likely shared fares will be strictly account customers, so cheaper cab fares. There is not need for the cab driver to communicate with the call centre unless there is a problem. There current fare should be up on there sat nav screen, showing destination and route and their next fare should simply be added to the output, showing route to pick up and route to destination and even future booked pick up near that destination with a time for pick up. All fully automated, leaving the cab driver to listen to music and just regularly note changes in sat nav screen output.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[jmauro]

Yes and no. In NYC to operate a taxi legally you need a medallion on the cab. The current prices for the medallions run about $1 million and as such the industry is heavily concentrated among just a few operators who then lease the medallion to the driver (at a price of roughly $130 per 12 hour shift). Getting rid of the call center would not change the dynamics of the industry at all since the medallion regulation defines the industry more than the call center.

At least in NYC. Cities without medallions like DC it would definately effect them, but the cities without medallions already have large numbers of owner operates (and have a completely different set of problems).

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an FYI. It costs $1 Million to get a "medalion" to put on a cab to legally operate it in NYC. Yes, I am not making this up, each and EVERY cab on the street has paid fees of $1 Million to operate in the ciy.

Once you realize this, you can now understand how running taxis in NYC is not a normal business model and logic does not prevail. DC is the ONLY major US city that does not have this medalion cost, but all other major cities do at different costs. This is to prevent competition and the little guys from getting in the business of operating cabs. Just another service the government provides for someone else's benefit.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[mumblestheclown]

Actually, it has more to do with not advantaging smartphone-owning rich people over common people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that we've gotten this far in the slashdot comments and as far as I can tell nobody has picked up on this, THE critical public policy fact surrounding this issue, says a lot about slashdot. the NYTimes comment section on this issue, OTOH, picked up on this right away.

While on slashdot we get "I use it all the time in DC. I probably use it more because of the fact the DC government doesn't like it."

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Loosifur]

Did they overlook the $1 mil for a cab medallion? Because, speaking from the DMV (DC, Maryland, Virginia, for non-natives), that was the first thing we picked up on. Apparently, NYC has so much money that only rich people can own cabs. Because you can get a smartphone for way less than an NYC cab medallion. I don't know what it's like up there, but, everywhere else, smartphones aren't limited to "rich people".

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Firethorn]

I'm sorry, but you're spreading some misinformation.

In NYC, in order to 'reduce' traffic* and protect the interests of the taxi drivers, they have their medallion system. Each taxi has to have a medallion to be legal. Medallions are handled like 'real property', in the sense that they can be sold, don't need renewing, etc...

Latest auction prices for the least restrictive medallions is around $1M. Ones marked only for 'independent operators' where the taxi driver is the owner are a bit cheaper, but still more expensive than the car they drive. Cheaper yet(at the moment) are the 'green' medallions that require you to drive a hybrid (Ford Escape, last time I read about it). As such, it's not a $1M 'fee' where you'll never get the money back. It's a $1M investment that you can get back next week by putting it up for auction again.

*Not that it's really worked; the market will find a way. In this case with non-livery cars that you call and they pick you up. Legally only actual taxis can respond to street hails.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Entropius]

How the hell is this consistent at all with, to use a buzzword, American values?

Why shouldn't I be able to cruise around in my car and offer people rides for money without City Hall's permission?

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Firethorn]

How the hell is this consistent at all with, to use a buzzword, American values?

Because cities are where socialist policies hold the most sway in the USA, where 'American Values' are most infringed in the name of safety and security? The taxi commission provides some safety, and a lot of security to taxi companies. It's entrenched.

I'll note that given what I understand of NYC, I'd be looking for a personal point to point transportation system that doesn't need roads. The subways work well for large numbers of people going more or less the same way, we need a more individual solution though.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Monkey-Man2000]

How the hell is this consistent at all with, to use a buzzword, American values?

Why shouldn't I be able to cruise around in my car and offer people rides for money without City Hall's permission?

One important reason I can think of is for the rider's safety. I wouldn't knowingly get in an unlicensed tax because they could just kidnap or rob you of all your money with no ramifications. Oftentimes, people riding from airports have a lot of cash on them or other valuables and are good targets. At least with the medallions, there is some track record of the taxis and some legitimacy to them. If you were robbed you could report the taxi and potentially track it down. While just some dude in his own car could easily get away.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Entropius]

Fraud is very specifically illegal in all philosophical formulations of the free market. The reason that people mix drywall dust into cocaine is because the customers of the cocaine distribution industry, operating underground as they do, are not going to go to the police with a fraud claim.

In a free market for taxicabs, the police would and should investigate fraud claims. "Officer, I asked this guy for a ride home, and he took me the long way to run up the fare. I have this GPS log right here if you'd like to see it." -> fraud conviction -> jail.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Entropius]

Of course, and this is an important point: the free market isn't inconsistent with licensure/vetting. Let a third party (or even the government) license taxis and offer medallions, and post notices in the airports saying "Here are the agencies that vet taxicabs here, here are our impressions of whether or not they do a god job, and here are what their marks look like. If you ride with them you might pay a little more but you know what you'll be getting. If you ride with someone else, they're still not legally allowed to rip you off, but they might try."

Saying that you're certified by the AAA Taxicab Inspection Board when you're not is fraud under any system.

This is very different from "nobody who doesn't pay for a medallion is allowed to operate a taxicab".

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Chris Mattern]

They can use it while they're parked waiting for a fare

Sorry, but that counts as "operating a taxicab". If your "On Duty" flag is up, you're operating.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Zcar]

If the apps work correctly to support it (e.g. letting you specify pickup and destination points and desired fare), I could see them helping an uptick in the car services' business over medallion cabs.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is corporate America twisting the government to assign economic winners (them) and losers (you, and independent cabs) by promoting memes that sound good but really have nothing to do with why they are doing it.

There are cities without all this, and they do just fine.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Entropius]

I'm not trolling at all.

I didn't say that taxicabs should be able to do whatever they want. Fraud and theft are still fraud and theft.

But part of what this country at least nominally supports is the idea that businesses should compete on who can provide better services for less money, and that with very few limits anyone who wants to provide a service that people want can sell it. Instead we have an artificial oligopoly on cab services with artificially-high barriers to entry.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[speedlaw]

Oh yes. If you wear a suit and look respectable, black cars will stop for you all the time. Negotiate fare before entering. Also, all the "medallion" cabs, with million dollar medallions, you'll never see the million if you sue them. There is always a mortgage on the medallion, and only the taxi's minimum insurance policy will be available. Taxi companies also have their own insurers, who "don't pay". Period.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[shilly]

Riiiight...... Because cabs are regularly used by impoverished people who can't afford smartphones.

In London, black cabs are licensed by city hall (transport for london) as individuals. They ply for hire. And they increasingly use Hailo, which tfl is very happy for them to do. And it's an outstanding app and will hopefully put Addison Lee back in their box

No need for licensing to operate in this stupid way in NYC

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[fm6]

You missed an important detail. (I missed it too, until somebody pointed it out to me.) The memo also reminds cabbies that payments have to go through the official system. This makes Uber useless, since they can't collect their cut unless they handle payment.

I think the big issue here is that cabs are supposed to charge based on time and mileage. The kind of service Uber provides is "black car" service (they actually use that term on their web site), which is quite a bit different. Cabbies that use Uber are basically freelancing as black cars, which is illegal.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Firethorn]

This is NYC - They license the company, the car, AND the driver. You need a medallion to operate the car as a taxi. You need a permit to be a driver. You need to meet hundreds of regulations that, among other things, specify the exact models of cars you're allowed to use as a Taxi.

Some of this is safety - the cars are supposed to be relatively new and thus in good shape.
Some is being 'fair' - have to pick up anyone, take them to anywhere(in the service area)
Some is for consistent service - cleanliness, drivers have to pass a navigation test, etc...

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[technik]

*Not that it's really worked; the market will find a way. In this case with non-livery cars that you call and they pick you up. Legally only actual taxis can respond to street hails.

Some related info... as of April 2012 the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission decided to open up street hails and beginning in July issuing 6000 permits to existing vehicles. Eventually, 18000 such TLC permits will be extended to for hire vehicles.

It's currently tied up in a lawsuit, and permits are not being issued, but expect it to go into effect and some of the 40k+ for-hire vehicles will be able to legally take street hails.

Re:"while operating a taxicab"

[Anonymous Coward]

The city doesn't set the market price of a medallion, just the number that are issued (if memory serves, there are about 14,000 of them). Medallion owners are free to sell them on the secondary market for whatever they can get (subject to certain rules). The $1M figure is just the current going rate for medallions.

Yes, you need a lot of money to actually own a medallion. What has developed are limited partnerships and investment groups that buy medallions and then lease their use to cab operators. The majority of these are corporations who essentially rent the cabs to individual drivers per shift. There are some independent owner-operators, but they are rare (and easy to spot: just look for cabs with fancy wheels or the like that are in very good condition, fleet cabs tend to get less TLC from owners).

The bottom line is this: if the cab market in NYC were deregulated, the streets of Manhattan would be clogged within days. That's where all the money from fares is found and you would have a classic tragedy of the commons. No one loves the T&LC. But it's a necessary evil for any traffic to flow in the center of the city.

can't use while operating...

[doug141]

might not mean can't use while pulled over. Ambiguous.

Re:can't use while operating...

[Georules]

Except it's not ambiguous. Most definitions of operating a motor vehicle include doing anything that is any part of a sequence of using the motive power of the vehicle, or being in a position to operate the controls. Simply sitting behind the wheel, even with the engine off, usually qualifies for operating a motor vehicle.

Re:can't use while operating...

[Merls the Sneaky]

1. Stop the cab.
2. Get out.
3. Operate the phone application.
4. ?????????
5. Profit.

Re:can't use while operating...

[Sabriel]

Oh, joy. So if you've got one of those remotes that can start the car, don't get drunk while the remote's in your pocket. After all you're "in a position to operate the controls".

And the stupidest part is that if we applied the same reasoning to rape laws then every single non-castrated human being would be auto-magically guilty of rape. We have the equipment and the controls are built-in, after all. Yet despite it being obvious this is faulty logic, it's still considered (motor vehicle) law.

Re:can't use while operating...

[Georules]

I never said it was a good definition. I only meant to explain that it is defined in a way where you are clearly in operation of the vehicle when pulled over. I completely agree this definition has many downfalls, like the one you suggest.

radio

[bob zee]

is the radio considered an electronic communication device? it is one-way communication for sure, but "communication" nonetheless.

Re:radio

[drkich]

incorrect, read the article. It is a contractual agreement with the payment processor that gives them exclusivity until February. Nothing to do with unions.

Re:radio

[artor3]

If you want to get pedantic, brake lights are an electronic communication device. But it's pretty clearly not what they mean.

Re:radio

[CohibaVancouver]

read the article

You must be new here.

Re:radio

[fm6]

As indicated by the fact that he's arguing with an AC, who probably will never see his response.

I wish we could just get rid of ACs. If you need to post anonymously, use a sockpuppet. I'm so tired of all those stupid posts by people who clearly have no interest in an actual conversation.

Re:radio

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been posting AC here for years. I'm interested in actual conversations. I check back for responses to my comments. I'm just not interested in registering yet another account for yet another website.

TLC

[clarkkent09]

Why is there a commission to decide whether I can drive you from A to B for a fee and whether you can call or text me on the phone to arrange it and to whom I have to pay a very substantial annual fee for the privilege of doing so? The answer: its a legalized racket, just like all business licensing.

Re:TLC

[clarkkent09]

Why not consider a possibility that licensing and regulation are two different words because they mean two different things before you start writing knee jerk posts you anonymous coward.

Re:TLC

[trout007]

I'd say it's more of a cartel. If it was just licensing than anyone could go to city hall fill out a form and become a taxi driver. But they keep a cap on how many taxis there are. Then they have price controls on the fares to prevent competition.

Re:TLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the people of New York City find it in their interests to regulate and license the people using their roads.

Re:TLC

[guises]

I'd say it's more of a cartel. If it was just licensing than anyone could go to city hall fill out a form and become a taxi driver. But they keep a cap on how many taxis there are. Then they have price controls on the fares to prevent competition.

You've got it backwards - the price controls are there to keep fares from rising too high, they prevent gouging. That's a danger whenever you limit competition by restricting who can perform a service. It's like how every country in the world (except the US) which allows drug companies to patent drugs also sets limits on how much the companies can charge for those drugs. It's there to prevent abuse of their monopoly.

If they removed the state granted monopoly on taxis, then they could also remove the price controls and the fare price would likely fall. The reason they don't do this is probably mostly because of the company lobbyists, but there's some good reason to believe that this scenario wouldn't work out as well as you'd hope. Just a few years ago pedicabs (bicycle taxis) were completely unregulated in New York. There were tons of them and it was rather difficult to make a living that way, particularly if you weren't a very good salesman: the largest pedicab company in the city was (still is) run by a turkish man who would bring in people from turkey on a three month visa with the promise that they would be able to pay their way, and pay their way back home, as pedicab drivers. Since their English wasn't very good in general they had a lot of trouble getting rides, they would fall deeper and deeper into debt since there was no other way (legal way) for them to make money here and no way to get back home, etc. Just a bad scenario.

Anyway, the point is that they limit the number of cabs in order to keep rates high enough that drivers can make a living wage, and they restrict what the cabs can charge in order to keep the drivers from gouging people. It's not ideal, but a simple solution based on ideals rather than facts is not going to improve the situation.

Re:TLC

[khallow]

And then when New York's streets are chocked cabs and congestion sucks

You probably just described New York City for the past two hundred years. While I admire someone who can actually find a problem and recognize it is a problem, who seriously believes that rigging the cab market so that it is deliberately overpriced and uncompetitive is in any way solving congestion?

Re:TLC

[artor3]

Well for starters, I much prefer that we have some sort of body regulating taxis, if only to ensure the driver of the car I step into isn't going to rape me, murder me, and dump my body in a ditch.

I know, I know, the free market could handle that! If my driver murders me, I should just not hire him in the future!

Re:TLC

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Please explain how any "sort of body regulating taxis" is going to prevent a taxi driver from raping you, murdering you, and dumping your body in a ditch if said taxi driver suddenly develops the desire to do so? You can't regulate free will. Screening potential psychopaths is not a perfect science. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own skin and quit delegating it to some bureaucratic entity that is more interested in getting forms stamped in triplicate than preserving your life.

Re:TLC

[guises]

It only raises the cost of living if you ride around in cabs all the time. You're talking about what's basically a luxury service, New York does have a rather extensive public transportation system. Even though they keep raising the rates, it's still less than $2.50 to get almost anywhere in the city on the subway.

The same argument has been made about minimum wage: unintended consequences, raises costs for everyone, etc. Most economists agree that we'd be wealthier, on average, if the minimum wage were eliminated. The question is, is an increase in average wealth really what we're looking for? Neither you nor I, with our fancy computers and internet connections, would likely suffer if the minimum wage were removed. We would probably be slightly wealthier as a result, as would the majority of people. There are a small number however, quite poor right now, who would be in a very bad situation indeed if they could no longer make even minimum wage. I think it's worthwhile for the majority to be slightly inconvenienced if it means that the small minority aren't rendered destitute.

Re:TLC

[DogDude]

There's a commission in order to be sure that people don't get screwed over by taxis. Safety. Public good. You know: Socialism.

Re:TLC

[eugene ts wong]

Sorry. I modded incorrectly.

Re:TLC

[arth1]

It only raises the cost of living if you ride around in cabs all the time. You're talking about what's basically a luxury service,

Sincerely, fuck you. When I hop around on crutches, public transportation isn't a real choice, and taking a taxi isn't luxury.

Taxis serve a useful public service.

Re:TLC

[fm6]

Because we evil socialists want to control everything! But then, you already knew that, so why did you bother asking the question?

Re:TLC

[guises]

I have certainly not said that society would be better off without minimum wages, that was the point. Your implication that removing the minimum wage would eliminate unemployment is baseless.

Re:TLC

[Anarchduke]

I think we could regulate free will. We just need to advance biotechnology and one day we can eliminate the SCOURGE of free will. End free will today!!!

Re:TLC

[yndrd1984]

Except it isn't a small minority. Its the majority. In 2010, it was estimated that 58 percent of all workers in the US were earning minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm [bls.gov]

From your own source:

In 2010, 72.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

3.6% isn't even close to 60%.

Re:TLC

[the grace of R'hllor]

Ah yes, the way taxes on cigarettes and gasoline work in the Netherlands. Make it more expensive, and people won't use it.

Except it doesn't work. Even at >$8.50 per gallon.

Re:TLC

[Hazel Bergeron]

Because the people own the street so choose how their property is used, i.e. property rights. If the people want to restrict taxis on the street so not any rapist or conman can respond to a hail, that's up to them.

It takes a particularly stupid sort of libertarian (but I repeat myself) to go around blaming The Government for absolutely everything wrong in the world. So, for your sake, imagine that The Government is actually a private business - let's call it The Corporation. Imagine that The Corporation owns everything "public" and has an contractual interest in everything else in the country, allowing it to collect fees for certain operations.

There. That's the whole country, unchanged, but now libertarian.

Happy?

Re:TLC

[Kijori]

It's surely pretty tough to regulate taxi drivers if they are unlicensed. An example would be the difference between taxis and minicabs/private hire cars in many countries; both are regulated but taxis are far safer and more trustworthy, I suspect at least partly because the taxi driver wants to ensure he retains his licence.

Re:TLC

[khallow]

Well, I suppose you haven't. I just point out that the people supposedly most adversely affected would be the ones to benefit the most.

Your implication that removing the minimum wage would eliminate unemployment is baseless.

No. Just because you don't choose to recognize the basis, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ultimately, employment is a trade: my labor for your money. Minimum wage prevents a certain range of trading. That means some people are less well off than they would be with the opportunity to sell their labor.

The US has a lot of ways to hide unemployment, via prisons, schools, retirement, and just ignoring people who aren't employed for long enough. For example, labor force participation is now somewhere around 63.5%. While that's not far off its high of around 68%, it hasn't been this low since the early 80s.

And the figures mask a huge decline in labor participation rate among men who have steadily declined in labor participation over the past 60 years.

There's also huge unemployment among youth and certain minorities which can easily be predicted due to the relatively low value of these groups' labor.

I don't think that minimum wage is solely to blame for these trends, but it is a big factor.

Re:TLC

[khallow]

Well, if you make the cabs more expensive, more people take public transport, so the roads are less congested.

Or they take their own cars.

And of course, we have this massive conflict of interest where it is in the interests of government to continue rigging the cab market (driving up costs for people who live in NYC) in order to generate revenue for public transport.

My view is that taxis are public transportation just as much as buses or subways. They just aren't publicly owned public transportation.

Re:TLC

[Compaqt]

I think they're saying that if the guy is registered, at least the police can get a lead to trace.

Re:TLC

[kwardroid]

You should read/watch more news: demand for fuel is dropping.

Re:TLC

[TheSync]

"Most economists agree that we'd be wealthier, on average, if the minimum wage were eliminated."

Most economists agree that the minimum wage prices the least skilled labor out of jobs.

Often the labor provided by these priced-out workers can be replaced with automation, so it is unclear what the short-term net effect on wealth is due to the minimum wage as production may remain the same, although in the long-term it is probably better for someone's parents to have a job to ensure they have a good role model of a working person.

Re:TLC

[CodeBuster]

You're talking about what's basically a luxury service

You could make that argument about some black limo services, but somehow I doubt that riding around in the average New York yellow cab is a "luxury service". Have you seen the inside of a typical New York cab? if that's luxury then I'm afraid to ask what qualifies as ordinary.

Taxi companies slide lots of payola to City Hall

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course City Hall isn't going to let just anybody muscle in on their graft.

Lame

[girlintraining]

So if you can't use electronics, how do you dispatch them? Do they return to the depot after every pickup to receive little strips of paper? (-_-)

Another case of capitalism gone full retard -- "We forbid you to use anything that could make your job more efficient and convenient for your customers!"

Re:Lame

[alen]

NYC has a different types of cabs and they all have different rules on picking up.

Yellow is street hails
Then there limo services where you call them to schedule a pickup. Not real limos but that's what they are called
I think there are one or two other kind of medallions as well

The medallions are owned by Regular people and very expensive so there are lots of interests in keeping the system as it is

Re:Lame

[BlueStrat]

Another case of government corruption & cronyism gone full retard

FTFY

These regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism, except that they contribute to distorting, corrupting, abusing, impeding, and destroying capitalism.

Strat

Re:Lame

[TubeSteak]

The medallions are owned by Regular people and very expensive so there are lots of interests in keeping the system as it is

The medallions are owned by Really Rich people and are extremely expensive so there are lots of interests in keeping the system as it is.
In 2012, the lowest winning bid for a medallion was $1.201 million
The Regular people who drive cabs have to lease from millionaires who can afford the medallion.

The NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission screwed things up in in the early 80s when it allowed cabbies to be treated as independent contractors, which broke the taxi union and changed the balance of power.
Combine that with the few (if any) new medallions issued and you essentially have a cartel of medallion owners that are screwing the drivers and the public.

Re:Lame

[Teppy]

I'm curious what the penalty is for operating totally unlicensed. If accused, can do demand a jury trial? Because if I was a juror on such a case I'd deadlock that trial for a month if it meant fucking up the current system.

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission screwed things up in in the early 80s when it allowed cabbies to be treated as independent contractors, which broke the taxi union and changed the balance of power.
Combine that with the few (if any) new medallions issued and you essentially have a cartel of medallion owners that are screwing the drivers and the public.

A similar problem exists in most cities where taxi services are available. In the metropolitan area where I reside the city council and a special board determine the number of taxi licenses to be issued for a particular time period. The situation is so perverse that smaller taxi businesses have been bought-out by their competitors because the smaller taxi companies cannot afford the licenses any more. It is organized crime approved by the government.

Re:Lame

[DogDude]

This isn't capitalism, doofus. This is the government regulating capitalism. RTFA.

Re:Lame

[BlueStrat]

These regulations are about preventing competition, lower fares, and about protecting the gravy train for, and lining the pockets of, the politically-connected cronies and the politicians while removing/limiting the choices people have, silly.

FTFY.

Strat

Re:Lame

[DogDude]

Ok, kiddo. Whatever you say. Regulation bad. Unfettered capitalism good. That's brilliant.

Re:Lame

[Jayfield]

Maybe the "Regular" people wouldn't be subject to the whims of the "Really Rich" people if the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission, a government agency, didn't charge so much for licensing of taxi services to begin with. The barrier of entry is huge, and only serves to enrich the NYC government and a few taxi monopolies. The end result is the same: it ultimately hurts all of us because the cost of a taxi ride is artificially high.

Re:Lame

[BlueStrat]

Ok, kiddo. Whatever you say. Regulation bad. Unfettered capitalism good. That's brilliant.

Of course, because the only two choices are tyranny and anarchy.

You should be careful erecting those strawman arguments too, btw. One of them might catch fire.

Strat

Re:Lame

[noobermin]

You wouldn't happen to believe that global warming isn't man made or that we never landed on the moon, would you?

Re:Lame

[krups gusto]

You are correct. But I have one defense of the medallion system. We really don't need more cabs in nyc. Except for those two hours of the day when the shifts are switching - we simply have too many cabs out.

Re:Lame

[BlueStrat]

You wouldn't happen to believe that global warming isn't man made or that we never landed on the moon, would you?

I believe the global climate is in a warming trend coming out of the last ice age, and that mankind may be responsible for some portion of the warming, but how much is up for debate, as is what can realistically be done about it that would actually have a enough effect to be worthwhile and not either destroy economies and/or cause widespread deaths, famines, etc, and/or be used as a means for governments to grab more power, wealth, and control. Not to mention some Terra-forming ideas put forth as "cures" could potentially result in ecological disaster.

Seeing as how I watched the moon landings live on TV and also worked for one of the contractors putting ceramic heat tiles on the shuttle at one point, yes, we landed on the moon.

Re:Lame

[argStyopa]

Exactly what I thought.
They don't use cell phones while driving?
GPS?
Radio?

Seems like a ridiculous ruling.

Re:Lame

[EmagGeek]

I drive a yellow SUV (Xterra). My wife and I were visiting NYC once. I had dropped her off to see a play with some of her old friends, and was supposed to pick her up after it was over. When I came by I circled the block a couple of times because I didn't see her. On the third go-around, I saw her waving at me from down the street, so I pulled over and she got in and I drove off.

Next think we know, NYPD pulls me over and accuses me of operating an illegal taxi, impounds our car, and hauls us both "downtown." They wouldn't listen. "Tell it to the judge" and "you'll have your opportunity to prove your innocence" were the motifs.

Prove my innocence? What the fuck?

Way to go treat tourists. We'll never go back there again. Cost us almost $5K in the end ($500 just to get our car back) for missed work, lawyers, and so on.

Fuck New York City.

Re:Lame

[couchslug]

The essence of capitalism is corruuption and cronyism.

Capitalism works, but these things go with the territory.

Re:Lame

[s0nicfreak]

Well just think how boring the show Taxi would have been if no one ever returned to the depot. Who will all those dispatchers abuse? They will have to try to get jobs as DMV workers or doctors office receptionists. Won't somebody think of the outdated humorous exaggerations?

Re:Lame

[TheSync]

Every single taxi ride I've taken in New York, the driver was talking on a cellphone in a foreign language the entire trip!

(I don't really care, but clearly cellular phones are in use)

Re:Lame

[BlueStrat]

The essence of capitalism is corruuption and cronyism.

Capitalism works, but these things go with the territory.

Except corruption & cronyism aren't symptoms of capitalism, they are human nature and that statement rings true for a number of other things in place of "capitalism" in that first sentence; "The essence of (mankind/big government/Progressivism) is corruption and cronyism".

Corruption and cronyism are the result of basic human nature, of which greed, avarice, and hunger for power come to mind as some of the major driving forces.

There's typically plenty of corruption and cronyism among hardcore communist and socialist countries as well. Usually much worse than anything the US has experienced so far.

Corruption and cronyism happen whenever a small group of people have power and there are not enough checks placed on their use of that power. Doesn't matter what type of government or economic/social systems are in place.

Strat

Re:Lame

[BlueStrat]

So one of those things about capitalism is that, if successful, you tend to acquire more capital. It is of course impossible to distinguish between money and power in any meaningful sense, so limitations on private power are limitations on how much money someone can be made.

The foolish will try to say that it is possible to restrict how money may be used. If you don't find this idea absurd, you may be a (particularly hypocritical brand of) libertarian.

If concentration of wealth is not an expected outcome of capitalism, you will have to redefine capitalism for us.
If wealth is not power, you'll frankly have to pull the other one, but we'll allow you to explain your delusions.
If the above two premises is true, then corruption is inevitable.

I'll take some form of progressive taxation and a 100% estate tax, thanks. The best way to eliminate abuse of power seems to be to ensure that people don't have lots of it for very long.

Yes, government corruption always happens when government has powers that can benefit some monied interest.

The answer is not to condemn everyone to poverty and/or limit individual/corporate wealth to control corruption, but to limit government power so that there are fewer and less-powerful reasons to bribe some politician while also making it more risky for both parties.

If a government/politician has no powers that could tilt the scales favorably for monied interests, they'll find something else more productive to spend their money on.

If NYC for example had chosen to license taxis like many other cities do without the medallion system, that whole corrupt partnership between city officials and the few big cab companies, built around the medallion system, wouldn't exist.

Strat

Re:Lame

[noobermin]

Alright, .5 out of 2, so the courts are out on that one.

Re:The 20% mandatory tip did it

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber isn't necessarily dumb, they just have an extremely aggressive strategy for dealing with the government. Rather than try to change regulations, they openly flaunt them, and then have their fans mount aggressive campaigns against any agency that tries to punish them.

It's risky, but it did work out in DC.

Re:The 20% mandatory tip did it

[NJRoadfan]

So the real issue is that, as usual, the cabbies don't want to go to Brooklyn (cause that's where all the hipsters likely to use this app live).

I wonder if the conflict of interest is with "black" car livery service? They can't pick up hails (don't know if that changed, it was always reserved for medallion carrying "yellow" cabs), but this might enable them to if an app "requests" their services.

Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all about turf wars between limo services and cab services in NY. Basically a cabbie in new york, according to regulations, HAS to stop for anybody that hails them. Where as a limo service is appointment only and CAN'T stop to pick people up on the road ... they have to only pick up the appointment.

So bascially, this app makes cabbies into a pusedo limo service. They by pass people on the street hailing them, and go pick up the appointment.

There is a bunch of noise about discrimination against people without smart phones ... but what is boils down to is, once again, government regulations stopping free enterprise. They need to drop this silly non-sense about limo service vs taxi service.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[TubeSteak]

Basically a cabbie in new york, according to regulations, HAS to stop for anybody that hails them.

So bascially, this app makes cabbies into a pusedo limo service. They by pass people on the street hailing them, and go pick up the appointment.

but what is boils down to is, once again, government regulations stopping free enterprise. They need to drop this silly non-sense about limo service vs taxi service.

If you don't understand why taxis are legally required to pick up anyone hailing them,
then I guess this doesn't make sense and you can shoehorn this into the traditional
"government regulations are stifling free enterprise" world view.

There's a reason that the police and Taxi & Limosine Commision conducts sting operations to make sure that drivers are following the law.
The main ones being: you can't charge handicapped passengers more, you can't kick someone out for wanting to go to a hospital,
you can't discriminate based on race, and you can't refuse service based on destination.

More often than not, regulations are there because "free enterprise" misbehaved,
not because the big bad government is out to stop free enterprises from making money.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[prisoner-of-enigma]

More often than not, regulations are there because "free enterprise" misbehaved,
not because the big bad government is out to stop free enterprises from making money.

More often than not, these well-meaning regulations are twisted to serve special interests once the regulations have outlived their useful purpose. Then the misbehaving party *becomes* the government. The difference is, with free enterprise, you can opt out of a corrupt or discriminatory business or even create your own competing one. There is no such option when government gets involved, which is why you should *always* be wary of government assuming such powers, no matter how trivial.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, 'cause the absolute first thing I do when a capital intensive business pisses me off is to start my own competing business. You should see my empire now. I've got my own cell phone company, taxi and limo company, electric power utility, food distribution service, and of course health care system. Oh, wait, I can't just start those things up on my own, so my choices are to have a society with rules or just take whatever corporations and business owners think I deserve. Guess which one serves my interests better?

Libertarian types can be such dumbasses sometimes,

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[TubeSteak]

More often than not, these well-meaning regulations are twisted to serve special interests once the regulations have outlived their useful purpose.

Are you claiming that the regulations requiring taxis to pick up all passengers has outlived its useful purpose?
I cannot deny that regulations can end up serving special interests instead of the general public.
My rebuttal is that we should have better regulation, not no regulation.

In this particular case, the regulations governing taxis generally serve the public and the regulations should remain that way.

The difference is, with free enterprise, you can opt out of a corrupt or discriminatory business or even create your own competing one.

The balance of power is not equal between someone who wants a service and someone who provides a service.
This is why we have regulations.

Without regulations, there are monopolies and oligopies, not competition and free markets.
This is what history shows us and ideology frequently strives to ignore or deny.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[reagan9000]

In this case, this regulation is in response to previous misbehavior. NYC cabs used to accept so-called 'radio calls', where one could call a cab's central office to schedule a pickup. Cabbies would flip the 'radio call' flag on when they didn't want to pick up a minority, go to a distant destination, or charge more during rush hour. Cab companies are jumping at this app, since it gives them the ability to again discriminate against undesirable customers and inconvenient destinations.

The free market provides plenty of opportunities for cabbies to choose their customers. There are private car services and 'gypsy cabs' that customers can call or, presumably, 'hail' via an app. These companies can charge what they want and in many cases the cost is comparable to a yellow cab; in fact, private car services typically charge a fixed price that sometimes works out to be cheaper than a similar trip in a yellow cab.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[noobermin]

But this is an example of where regulation is getting in the way. At least Bloomberg seems willing to get this resolved.

See, government is good in regulating at times as a neccessary evil (I can think of how the world collapsed after Glass-Steagal was repealed), but other times regulation just gets in the way. A way to discriminate is looking at motives: is this business trying to fuck over customers by the discriminations you mentioned? No, they are just trying to reach customers and be more convient. Were the big banks trying to set up an asymmetric ponzi scheme that isn't wise but will fuck over customers? Yes.

I agree with you bud, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but we do need to throw out the bath water :) In this case, the government is in the way and needs to get out of the way so a harmless business can prosper.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[MobyTurbo]

There's a reason that the police and Taxi & Limosine Commision conducts sting operations to make sure that drivers are following the law. The main ones being: you can't charge handicapped passengers more, you can't kick someone out for wanting to go to a hospital, you can't discriminate based on race, and you can't refuse service based on destination.

They need to do more of these sting operations, because I've been refused service countless times trying to get a cab from Manhattan to Brooklyn - even though I even live in a part of Brooklyn that's just across the river from Manhattan! On the other hand, I've never been refused service based on using a smartphone app to get a limo - I like the idea of taxis doing this, it means I won't almost always have to use car services to get to Brooklyn.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Loosifur]

I know, we're such assholes for not responding to government subsidized monopolies by saying, "Well, what can you do? That's how the pseudo-free market works!" It's just like how the Iraqi elections under Hussein resulted in his winning 99% of the popular vote, thus proving that democracy is impossible and hopelessly broken.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Loosifur]

In a word: bullhockey.

Government regulation is fully capable of creating monopoly and oligarchy, and that, in fact, is what history shows us. Case in point: any socialist nation. Shit, as much as I like Doctor Who, the BBC. And, as much as the idea of big scary companies frightens you, at least you have the option to not use that companies service or product in a free market. You can choose a competing company, or a competing product. If the government controls that service or product, and forbids competition, then you've got no option. And I'm talking about the United States, too. Because any major corporation that holds a monopoly or even dominant market share of any service or product that you care to name I can point to a subsidy, tax loophole, and/or special legal category that the government has allowed which lets that company hold a monopoly.

Don't look at the US and say that free markets don't work, because we don't have a free market.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Hognoxious]

I've got my own cell phone company, taxi and limo company, electric power utility, food distribution service, and of course health care system.

Me too, I downloaded open-source plans and printed them myself.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[21mhz]

If you don't understand why taxis are legally required to pick up anyone hailing them,

I don't, at least I know it's not a universal requirement for taxis.

In Helsinki, Finland, taxis can be ordered by phone or SMS, or found at taxi ranks. You'd be lucky to hail one on the street, and I think it's against their regulations so only very "enterprising" drivers would do that.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[hufter]

Basically a cabbie in new york, according to regulations, HAS to stop for anybody that hails them.

That has to mean if the taxi is free, so that you can't discriminate people, like "That dude looks like a hobo, so I'm ignoring him, I'm looking for someone who looks rich.".

You can also "call a cab", then a taxi driver somewhere hopefully nearby will put on his meter and come to pick you up. Surely he doesn't have to stop for anybody hailing. (Otherwise it would be more like call and pray taxi service).

There's no difference between calling and mobile-app-hailing, except the way the order comes through.
The central depends on people calling taxis to make money. They don't like people being able to bypass them.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Z34107]

You may find it as inconceivable as the horseless motorcarriage overtaking the buggy, or that dangerous electric lighting displacing the proven reliability of gas lamps, but I assure your most unimaginative Lordship that people start new businesses all the time. Yes, m'lord, even "capital intensive" businesses like airlines

It's harder, though, when your "society with rules" decides you should have to give the local monopoly $1 million to drive a taxi. Or when your "society with rules" made modems and answering machines illegal until 1968. Or when your "society with rules" decides that one must completely disassemble their automobile upon sight of a horse, out of deference to the local livery lobby.

This is where you tell me to go to Somalia if I want to live in some crazy, libertarian fantasy land where it's not a crime to drive someone to the airport.. Sad that "libertarians are dumbasses" is what passes for +5 Insightful around here.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Kijori]

The problem here really is that people don't start capital-intensive businesses "all the time", and even if they did that isn't the real measure; the real question is whether people start successful and competitive capital-intensive businesses "all the time". Your example of airlines is particularly capital-intensive, and the pattern is entirely predictable: today's biggest airlines were largely formed from mergers of old airlines, rather than upstarts coming in; a few airlines carry a very high proportion of the total passengers; and if you go to (for example) JFK or Heathrow you'll struggle to find an unfamiliar airline. If you want to fly from Heathrow to Edinburgh, Paris, Berlin or Rome - all chosen because they are nearby and popular, so surely the most accessible to new entrants - you have in each case the choice of 2 well-established airlines. The same pattern is repeated across any number of industries where the costs of entry are high.

The barriers to entry for a taxi firm are clearly not on the scale of an airline. Here the barriers are tilted more towards the regulatory - licences are scarce and therefore expensive. There is clearly a degree of protectionism in this - a scarcity of licences does protect current drivers. On the other hand there are also valid concerns underlying the licencing model: taxi users are unusually vulnerable, either to price-inflation or physical attack. Regulation of taxi-drivers helps to make a taxi a safe way for women to get home at night as well as a safe way for tourists to travel without being taken advantage of. So does it achieve any of this?

Happily, to see a completely unregulated taxi system you don't have to go to Somalia; Russia and most of Eastern Europe operate on precisely this model, and do so in economies that are (mostly) capitalist and subject to the rule of law. A person wanting to take a taxi in Russia can simply position themselves on the edge of the road and beckon to the traffic. At some point someone will pull over - either a professional taxi driver or someone just accepting the occasional fare. It's best to negotiate the fare up-front, as this will limit the amount you will be overcharged. Tourists pay massively inflated fares and anyone is liable to be driven all around to justify a large and unexpected price increase. Other fairly common 'tricks' are simple crime (particularly against women) or driving way out of the city and extorting the passenger to drive them back.

Does this mean that regulation is always justified? Of course not. The point I am trying to make is simply that it is rather more nuanced than just "regulation is anti-competitive and therefore bad" or "regulation protects people so it's good". Regulating taxi-drivers brings social benefits in the shape of safety, reliability and a good reputation, for which we pay in decreased competition and therefore increased fares. Whether that trade-off is, on the whole, a good one or not is the question, but it is a rather more difficult one.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Entropius]

Taxicabbing isn't a capital-intensive business, like running a cellphone network is. In principle, all you need is a car and a little TAXI sign. It's not a natural monopoly like electric power distribution is.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Entropius]

Yep, and people realize this, so they choose the ones that have been certified. All I'm claiming is that gypsy cabs should not be banned from operating. If some company does their own independent vetting of their drivers, and builds up public trust, then why shouldn't people be allowed to choose them?

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Anonymous Coward]

>Don't look at the US and say that free markets don't work, because we don't have a free market.

Where IS there any place with both a government and a 'free market'? I challenge you to name EVEN ONE such place, that has EVER existed in ALL of human history.

The two concepts are fundamentally incompatible. Because in a 'free market' one would be 'free' to defaud one's customers - to steal from them - to accept their payments and provide NOTHING of value in return. Who or what would stop you - the customers? Bwahahaha!

A_C

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

There are still limitations like: How many cabs can operate in the market and still remain profitable while not trying to cut corners on safety (which is a problem in the private bus industry)? How many cabs can stand at popular locations without impeding other traffic? How many cab companies can exist and still be able to be inspected for regulation compliance (which include safety, liability, and driver hiring practices) at intervals that are practical enough to maintain the objectives of regulation.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If some company does their own independent vetting of their drivers, and builds up public trust, then why shouldn't people be allowed to choose them?

Yes because tourists and out-of-town business travelers would know who to trust right? Not to mention we all enjoy being pestered by drivers of "gypsy cabs", while we wait for our driver to arrive at the airport.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Entropius]

Out-of-town business travelers should be able to choose to trust whoever they like, whether it's someone vetted by the City of New York or someone vetted by the National Taxi Vetting Association or whatever.

And I have to put up with guys at bus stops asking me for fiddy cent for crack all the time; why are gypsy cabs any different?

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[CodeBuster]

Libertarian types can be such dumbasses sometimes,

You do understand that a powerful government still doesn't get you what you want right? The corporations and business owners are more than capable of capturing and controlling the powerful government to serve their needs ahead of and even to the detriment of yours. This is even worse than having powerful corporations without a correspondingly powerful central government because at least in that instance competition has a chance of breaking up bad businesses. The regulated taxi cab monopoly, secured by the medallion system, is a perfect example of corrupt interests capturing and using the power of government to prevent any sort of competition from being effective against them, no matter how bad their practices are. It's naive to expect that complaining to city hall will have any affect on these entrenched interests, backed by government power. So you see, the only viable long term solution that has a chance of working is a smaller and more limited government which cannot or rather does not interfere in the natural competitive selection process in the marketplace. Nothing is guaranteed, except that nothing will ever change as long as governments allow regulated monopolies in place of real competition.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[CodeBuster]

A person wanting to take a taxi in Russia can simply position themselves on the edge of the road and beckon to the traffic. At some point someone will pull over - either a professional taxi driver or someone just accepting the occasional fare.

A friend of mine did this while studying abroad in Russia sometimes when he needed to get around. That was nearly two decades ago now, but back then at least there were plenty of drivers willing to pick you up and take you to a destination within Moscow, especially one that was on the way for the driver, for a handful of rubles.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[scamper_22]

Of the ones you listed, only the cell-phone company and electric company would really be a challenge to operate.

The rest can and is easily accessible for almost anyone to enter. It's not just you who has to start your own, but any one in your family, your friends, your city, your country... This point seems to escape you.

Taxis - in a truly unregulated system, anyone with a car can be a taxi. I've lived in countries where this is the case. Most of the developing world is like this.

Food distribution service - You mean a delivery system? You mean people all over the world don't know how to run grocery stores and obtain supplies? Growing up in Africa, I used to travel with my grandfather weekly to stock up and trade. Not to mention the countless numbers of regular businesses in any developed country.

Health-care system - Hardly anything that can't be done. Nurses, doctors... are all capable of opening their own clinics.

Here's a relatively big hint you might wish to look into.

Service/product delivery is not limited to big corporation and big government.

History and the even current society is filled with independent operations, non-profits, mutuals, cooperatives...

Guess which one does serve your interests? A society where rules can be gamed and special interest groups define society... or one that maximizes free-entry and voluntary delivery/consumption?

What is particularly odd is this comes up in the context of taxis. Sure discussions of such rules can and have historically been applied in area where natural monopolies take place (Telecom, electric supply, roads, transit...).

That is what is very odd about our modern society.
We seem to want to heavily regulate or take over the things that naturally have a low-degree of free-entry (schools, taxis, healthcare).

We seem to want to deregulate or even privatize the things that are natural monopolies (roads, transit, electricity...)

It's all a little backwards.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[shilly]

The BBC is a crap example: it wasnt a commercial competitor allowed to evolve into a monopoly or oligopoly, it's a public corporation.

It's also perfectly possible to have effective regulation. I'd argue that London has fairly adequate regulation of cabbies, Worboys notwithstanding...

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Z34107]

There's a difference between your dinky corporate intranet and, say, Comcast buying out every competing ISP and getting Congress to make your wireless router illegal.

If you think that anything Ma Bell did was even remotely related to "edge security," I'm afraid you're the fool.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Out-of-town business travelers should be able to choose to trust whoever they like, whether it's someone vetted by the City of New York or someone vetted by the National Taxi Vetting Association or whatever.

Yes. After flying most of the day, I'll have time to decide which cabs in the taxi stand are vetted by some association. That's if the taxi stand is large enough to have enough reputable taxis mixed in with the gypsies. Oh wait, you're stuck with the cab at the head of the queue. I hope he is one of the "vetted" cabs.

And I have to put up with guys at bus stops asking me for fiddy cent for crack all the time; why are gypsy cabs any different?

I've had more than my share of beggars and they usually move on when you say no. The independent entrepreneurs I've bumped into during my travels are a little more determined.

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Entropius]

The taxi stand is not public property, and the airport is perfectly free to decide that "only taxicabs approved by the New York Association of Whatever can pick up fares here".

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The taxi stand is not public property, and the airport is perfectly free to decide that "only taxicabs approved by the New York Association of Whatever can pick up fares here".

While the taxi stand may not be open to the general public (which is what you really meant), most (if not all) major passenger airports in the US are in fact owned by the public. All the airports that I go to is owned in some form by the municipality. This would mean that the city would need to come up with a way to vet the taxi cabs that go to the airport which, by the way is very valuable to the taxi, but wasn't that what you argued against?

Re:Turf Wars ... limo vs cabs

[Entropius]

I meant "public property" in the sense that you took: open to the general public. But, yes -- the city would need to vet the taxis that go to the non-general-public portion of the airport. That is something I have no problem with, so long as it is truly being done with the best interests of the passengers rather than the protection of an artificial monopoly in mind.

Barring non-city-authorized taxis from public roads (public in the sense of "open to the public", not "owned by the government") is an entirely different thing.

Re:The 20% mandatory tip did it

[alen]

Almost no chance of a fare back to manhattan means wasted time and money
I know a few a few cab drivers.

Rightfully so..

[thatskinnyguy]

They nixed it and rightfully so. Think of all the damage caused by hail. Their insurance premiums would go through the roof in no time!

Re:The 20% mandatory tip did it

[SvnLyrBrto]

It also worked here in San Francisco.

Thing is though... that tactic *wouldn't* work if Uber weren't so astoundingly superior to the alternative. We have the same problems as New York... a corrupt medallion system that leaves too few cabs on the roads to the point that it's sometimes faster to walk than to take a cab somewhere. Calling a cab to be dispatched to you is a sick joke unless you're going to SFO. And the cabbies scream bloody murder whenever City Hall tries to improve the system... even if it's something as simple as issuing more medallions.

It should be no wonder to anyone with half a brain that people who actually need to move about town applaud the company that's done an end-run around such a stupid, dysfunctional, and corrupt system; and created a "cab" system that actually works.

Silly

[pcjunky]

This is silly. Cabs have been using twoway radios for decades.

cool

[beatmaker]

This is crazy coool.

Big Government

[websaber]

This is why people have trouble trusting the government, their only interest is to sell Medallions for their own profit.

Re:Big Government

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why people have trouble trusting big corporations, their only interest is to sell Medallions for their own profit.

FTFY. Large companies own nearly all the medallions in NYC.

Here's a good example: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120617/TRANSPORTATION/306179971

Re:Big Government

[BlueStrat]

FTFY. Large companies own nearly all the medallions in NYC.

Yes, because government set it up that way intentionally with their medallion system.

Government doesn't want a bunch of independent operators and small companies. They're too hard to regulate/tax/control, and too difficult/time-consuming for government to obtain details of passengers' travels that they want to track, and they don't provide the kickbacks the medallion system generates.

Strat

Re:Big Government

[BlueStrat]

Private power/big corporations corrupting government. Small businesses do less/less-organized bribing.

You got it backwards.

Politicians convince us to give them (or they simply grab) some power, and then they work with their cronies outside government of all types, not just commercial interests, to "monetize" this new power of government to benefit themselves while keeping out competition and taking away freedom and wealth from everyone else. They also use their power to make sure even the honest businesses and officials must either "play ball" and go along/keep quiet about the corruption or face the consequences. Just like the mob.

The NYC politicians and bureaucrats took the power to regulate taxis, implemented the medallion system, and now have themselves a nice racket that any mob boss would envy, "all legal-like, see?".

You can't fix it by only attacking the side that doesn't have the power to write/enforce/adjudicate laws and has the monopoly on the use of lethal force. If the government is corrupt, just exactly how effective do you expect it will be (and has been so far) in bringing it's partners-in-crime (the corporations you refer too) to justice? You know, the guys they've been protecting and helping? It's like expecting the local sheriff in some tiny 1930's-era deep-south town to bust members of the local KKK for some violent acts when the sheriff is the leader.

We've been steadily giving the government more and more power and taxpayer wealth for over a half-century to cure these problems, and after each time we've allowed government more powers and taxes the problems have gotten worse.

The definition of insanity comes to mind...

Strat

Re:Dear NYC:

[RightSaidFred99]

Only they are not sane restrictions. You seriously think that convoluted, corrupt system you have is the only way to prevent kidnappings? Lol, what a fucking joke.

How about an app that announces

[future assassin]

that you have a spare seat and are leavig from one location in say 20 min and heading to another. That way you carpool and save money.

Re:How about an app that announces

[shaiay]

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=carpool&c=apps

Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[Taco Cowboy]

... A driver must not use any electronic communication device ...

I am not from New York, but I had been to New York (and NYC) many times, and have lost count of the times I took NYC cabs
 
I remember that in the NY cabs that I were in, even during pre-cellphone era, there was already an "electronic communication device" - a CB-radio
 
And the cabbies were using it to communicate with their HQ and to others, even while they were zig-zagging in and out of the city traffic!!
 
It's totally ridiculous to place a ban on the use of "electronic communication device" while they were already using "electronic communication devices" !
 
Unless of course, the CB radio they were using were not electronics - maybe they are still using vacuum tubes in their CeeBees
 

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vacuum tubes are electronic components too.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[fm6]

I'd say RTFA, but since not even the editor or submitter seems to have done so, it's seems a little lame. Suffice to say that this is not a new regulation banning Uber, but simply a memo reminding cabbies that they're not supposed to use cell phone apps while driving.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[tsotha]

Maybe so, but you can use a radio without taking your eyes off traffic. How many of those cab-hailing apps are the same?

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[msauve]

Citizen's Band is *supposed to be* only for NON-commercial use.

There is no such restriction for CB. "You can operate a CB device regardless of your age and for personal or business use so long as you are not a representative of a foreign government." - the FCC

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[interval1066]

Its just another case of government rubbing up against technology and getting burned. Government are huge, lumbering, stupid, dinosaurs, and that will never change.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[CodeBuster]

It's totally ridiculous

This is the New York Taxi Commission that we're talking about here, ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe their rules and regulations. They're an entrenched interest in New York with a legally granted monopoly going back a century or more. They're not going to roll over without a fight, no matter how ridiculous their rules might seem. If you thought that the entertainment industry was stuck in the last century, wait until you see these guys.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[Maximus633]

Not to be a jerk here... But the memo doesn't state that they can't use the cell phone apps while driving (that line is at the end). The memo states that those type of apps like Uber are not allowed due to a contractual obligation that they (The commission) has made with payment processors. It also points out that it could also cause problems with the rules for prearranged rides provision in the law.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[Maximus633]

correction... doesn't just state that they can't use the cell phone while driving.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[fm6]

OK, good point.

I've used a cab or car service maybe 3 or 4 times in my entire life, so I haven't had occasion to use Uber. I just went to their web site, and I discovered that they quote fixed prices for specific point-to-point trips. That makes them more like a black car service than a taxi service, which charges based on distance and time. There's a further distinction in that black cars can't answer hails.

These distinctions are pretty important in NYC, where a fleet of on-hail cabs is seen as an essential part of the city infrastructure, and which need to be protected from competition by black cars — or cabbies that user Uber to freelance as black cars. They're probably less important in other cities, where taxis are less common and you mostly have to call for them to pick you up anyway.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[anubi]

I think this app is great if implemented properly.

Its the customer, not the cabbie, who should be fiddling around with a cellphone.

The fare would be given the opportunity to link to a routing computer over the phone. The routing computer would know the status of every subscribing cab, its availability, location, and direction, and be able to notify the proper cab of an awaiting fare.

The cabbie gets a GPS display, much like the existing ones, but this one would be linked to the routing computer and flash where his fare is waiting. There is no reason to annoy the cabbie with anything more than where his fare is, and select one cabbie so they all don't do a mad rush. The cabbie may be given a few seconds to accept the fare, else the routing computer will select another cabbie. The computer would know which cabbies are busy delivering, which are idle, and the idea is to keep the idle ones busy and minimizing non-passenger distance. The routing computer will then inform the caller which cabbie it has arranged to pick them up, along with estimated time to arrival.

Note: This is how I would do it - exactly how they intend to implement this, I am quite ignorant. The whole concept looks great to me - it puzzles me as to why anyone would object.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[Trilkin]

He's not being paid to entertain you. He's being paid to take you where you need to go. Play Angry Birds or something if you're bored.

Re:Defnition of "Electronic Communication Device"?

[kelemvor4]

Citizen's Band is *supposed to be* only for NON-commercial use.

There is no such restriction for CB. "You can operate a CB device regardless of your age and for personal or business use so long as you are not a representative of a foreign government." - the FCC

Thanks for the informative post. I'm an FCC licensed amateur radio operator and I'd always assumed CB was off limits for businesses. I learned something today.

Well, so much for my invention...

[jjeffries]

No electronic communication devices? I thought my new invention, the Electric Middle Finger (or EMF for short), would be a big hit with the cabbies, but now I guess I'm screwed! Flickoff Industries is RUINED!

Re:Well, so much for my invention...

[fm6]

You have a bionic middle finger? Most impressive. Still, there's something to be said for the old-fashioned biological finger, which is not subject to the regulations of advanced technology.

Re:Dear NYC:

[pla]

These laws exist to keep people safe from gypsy cabs that may extort or kidnap you.

Umm... Come again?

Forgive me for suspecting you as an NYC "Taxi and Limousine Commission" shill, but seriously? Kidnapping???


And seriously, as a resident of lower Manhattan, I can tell you that Boston and LA have nothing on NYC!

Yeah, no kidding! Apparently, they lack the same risk of kidnapping, that taxi companies can have a government-sponsored monopoly as a way to minimize the risk to people in need of a ride. Daaaamn, remind me never to visit NYC again!


I realize that in some parts of the world (Middle East, Africa, Central America) you may well end up kidnapped and ransomed. I've taken plenty of unregulated cabs in the US, however, and at worst, I've found they take a slightly longer route than optimal - Which still comes out way cheaper than the average NYC cab ride. Can you sense my lack of sympathy here?

Re:Dear NYC:

[pla]

LOLs aside, I imagine if you actually had a better system in mind you would have posted it

We have this really radical system where I live... You open this magical yellow book, turn to the "T"'s, and find a "Taxi" company in the area. You call them, they send a car, and you get in.

Some of them charge a bit more than others. None of them, not even the worst of the worst, charge as much as a NY taxi. They take you where you ask them to, you pay them, and the Earth continues spinning on its axis.

That about do it for ya?

Re:Dear NYC:

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way you're safer than jumping into some random car that happened to stop when you raised your arm.

Wow. Just wow. Do people in NYC actually believe that? If so they have some AMAZING propaganda.

What government is all about..

[jcr]

Fucking over the consumers for the benefit of the cronies who pay them off.

-jcr

Re:Dear NYC:

[jcr]

Oh, you can't imagine how amazing NYC propaganda is. Their mayor is the biggest nanny-state asswipe you can imagine, and they've re-elected him.

-jcr

Re:Dear NYC:

[JDG1980]

It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty fucking simple: You want to hail a cab, look for the medallion.

That would work much better if NYC didn't arbitrarily restrict the medallion supply. If medallions were available to anyone who met a basic set of requirements (legal residence, good driving record, regular inspection of vehicle) then that would be sensible regulation. Refusing to issue any new medallions since 1937 is not.

Fucking bureaucrats.

[jcr]

The TLC aims to take a new approach by contracting with a developer to create an app with one or more functions that would enhance the city's for-hire vehicle services and improve both customer and driver experiences

Uber already did exactly that. WTFUCK makes these apparatchiki think anyone needs a government agency to spend tax money on reproducing something that's already available in the market?

-jcr

Re:The 20% mandatory tip did it

[NJRoadfan]

What amazes me is that I regularly see NYC cabs running around Northern NJ, 20+ miles away from NYC. I guess that rule about "agreed upon" out of town fares is pretty profitable. The cabbie still loses out on return fares and the time to drive back into NYC though.

meh

[LodCrappo]

you can stand in the way of progress, but you'll probably end up left behind.

This always happens.

[superdana]

This happens in every city Uber operates in. SF tried to shut them down and so did DC. But so far nobody has been able to stop them, and I hope it stays that way. While I can't say I'm a fan of their prices (Uber fares tend to be about 1.5x-2x a normal taxi fare), they're solving real problems in a calcified industry that treats its customers like crap.

Subliminal Typo correction

[CuteSteveJobs]

> The commission says its current contractual obligations love of money forbid the use of such rival technology.

Fixed that for you.

> "The TLC is eager to pave the way for taxi riders to take advantage of the most up-to-date technology, including smartphone apps that may help passengers locate available taxicabs more quickly," said TLC chairman, "once we work out how to get a piece of the action".

Oh wham!

All over the world taxi licenses earn government ridiculous amounts of money. The poor bastards that drive the cabs see little of that, with the licences purchased by wealthy investors. Government workers (or quasi-government commissions) forget their mission is to ensure the public has access to taxis. Unfortunately whenever large sums of money are waved under a government workers nose they focus on getting some for themselves. Sure they can't legally pocket it themselves, but organizations bringing in cash get star treatment and some of that cash hangs around as benefits for government workers. https://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142301617/nyc-taxi-medallions-fetch-unbelievable-returns

Re:The 20% mandatory tip did it

[Hognoxious]

Rather than try to change regulations, they openly flaunt them

I now have an image of a scantily dressed taxi driver with legalese printed all over his exposed body.

Not a nice thought.

No GPS or AM/FM Radio Either, or Radio Dispatch

[EmagGeek]

Those are electronic communication devices also.

And I'm sure ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... enforcement will become a priority as soon as they finish rounding up all the perps for spitting on the sidewalk.

Medallion?

[Compaqt]

By "medallion", is it meant a "virtual" medallion, like say, a medallion number, and all your info is on record with the city, and you can get a new certificate if you lose yours?

Or is it really a gold/copper/bronze/whatever chunk of metal, and you're supposed to hang this $1 million item off your rearview mirror so the police can easily verify you have it? That's pretty crazy, considering that it's only a, what, $50 piece of glass between a thief and $1 million?

Wait Until We Have Robotic Autos

[NicknamesAreStupid]

The car will be the electronic communication device, and there will be no human driver. The unions will not like this. Expect politicians to pass laws that make this one seem "logical and highly intuitive."

Re:Dear NYC:

[pla]

Would you take an unregulated cab if you weren't?

World of difference between "unregulated" and "so many petty rules that we dictate whether or not you can use a smartphone to book a cab".

I have no problem with basic conditions on getting a taxi license - Background check, area knowledge test, more stringent than normal insurance and inspection requirements, things of that nature. When a city starts dictating where/when/how/why an otherwise-legit cab can operate, though, we have left the realm of "safety" and entered solid "a government hand in every till" territory.

Re:Not quite

[CodeBuster]

Even so, the fee was presumably much less than the price of a taxi cab medallion in say New York City, which others have quoted as going for up to $1 million when offered at auction. Also, before discontinuing the exam, where there any limits on how many people could sit for the exam other than the number willing to show up and pay the fee to take it?

Their own app?

[watice]

Could it be because the NYC TLC wants only their own app to be used for these purposes? The request for proposals for such an official app was release over the summer a few months ago, and the commissioner had a Q&A with interested companies. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/industry_notice_12_07.pdf

Re:Dear NYC:

[watice]

does your city have terrorist attacks? no? exactly. We believe we're the center of a universe for a very simple reason. We are. ;)

Medallion cabs vs car services

[awacs]

Uh, most people (and the TLC itself) are ignoring the distinction between medallion cabs vs car service/'black cars."

Medallion cabs: yellow, spend $1mm for a medallion (a bit cheaper for an "owner-driven" medallion, where the owner promises to drive one shift a day), have meters with regulated fares, famously won't usually take you out of Manhattan, and cruise Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn, looking for street hails.

Car service: not yellow, almost anyone can get a license, not allowed to pick up street hails (MUST use a base/radio), go anywhere/pick up anywhere, and charge whatever they want.

Uber is targeted to the latter.

if they are an essential part of infastructure

[decora]

then the state should simply prop them up with subsidies, like it does for the rest of the military industrial complex, and then let the free market deal with whats left over

Obviously...

[Lord Kano]

How can the cabbies ignore black people, if they get their assignments from apps?

LK

Free Markets and such...

[Firethorn]

First, I'm a libertarian, so I tend to favor very free markets, but still... The AC was mentioning an anarchy(IE No Government). A true libertarian(as opposed to an anarchist trying to get away from the 'nasty name') is a proponent of limited government. In the case of your example, the very existence of the police precludes anarchy(yes, corporate control would be a form of government), Under a truly 'free' market there wouldn't be any police. Still, let's assume a scenario where gypsy cabs are completely legal.

Your example of a GPS log would be flawed - that would require you have a device averaging several hundred dollars to present to the officer. Less expensive would be a bit of mapwork(google routes) showing that the optimal route would be a lot shorter than what the cabbie took you, and would preclude accusations that you farked with the GPS system(though his bill showing the same mileage within tolerances would support you).

In any case, despite my support for free markets, I DO support a few controls. Call them 'proactive fraud/harm prevention measures'. First step to ask 'Is this a problem, or a solution seeking a problem?'. Rather easy example - Weights & Measurements. We catch companies trying to short customers fairly often. It's unfair to ask consumers to constantly haul precisely calibrated measures around, plus, how can you trust the customer's measure? Fraud is possible on both sides. Thus enter the (theoretically, but at least mostly) neutral third party of the government official, who has the responsibility and duty to randomly check all the pumps, measures, scales and whatnot to ensure they are within tolerances. Back him up with fines of sufficient nature that businesses don't try to cheat and just pay the fines as reducing, but not eliminating, the profit from deliberately mis-calibrated measurements. Same, for the most part, with the FDA/USDA. I'd reform and streamline both, but wouldn't eliminate their function.

The last function would be the enforcement of a 'standard contract' between venders and consumers. Think of it as an efficiency measure - If you can go into the store and know that, outside of prominently published exceptions, you're guaranteed a working product, with a 30 day full money back return policy, and a few other things, it prevents you from 'wasting' time reading every store's individualized contract.