Taxi Owners Sue NYC Over Uber, While Court Overrules Class-Action Appeal (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Taxi owners in New York have filed a lawsuit against cab-hailing app giant Uber, citing damaged revenues and a hefty fall in value of NYC's 'medallion' business. The case against the city and its Taxi and Limousine Commission claims that the regulators have unfairly permitted Uber to steal away business from the regulated cab industry. Getting away without regulation has enabled Uber drivers to compete directly, and drown out official taxi companies. A further lawsuit case hovering over Uber this week, is its request to immediately appeal an order approving class certification filed by its own drivers. The appeal was denied by a U.S. court yesterday.

Comments

NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[ZorinLynx]

The taxi system already has good infrastructure in place and could destroy Uber if they wanted to, simply by competing fairly and adopting the "choose where you want to go before the cab gets to you" model.

But instead of doing this, they try to take the easy way out and sue.

Think of how optimized the cab system could be if they used Uber's model? But no, it's still based on the old "hail a cab and tell them where you're going" system.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

No they couldn't. The dispatcher job was replaced with software allowing Uber to charge less money even if they did follow all the rules. Unless the taxi companies are prepared to fire all their dispatchers they will never be able to compete.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I don't know much about Uber, I don't see how their model is different from a regular taxi. They both need to pick you up at your current location and then you need to tell them where to go.

I don't see how Uber knowing in advance where you want to go could change the outcome.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I don't see what they're complaining about. In a few years, the drivers for both taxis and Uber will be replaced by computers too.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[ottothecow]

Plenty of cab companies and taxi associations have tried to create "official" taxi apps.

They are all god awful. People use uber partly because it is cheaper (is it even cheaper in NYC? I thought it cost more than a yellow cab there)...but they also use it because it is seamless, the cars are clean, and the drivers aren't smelly dudes yammering away on their phone. See the use of the more expensive "Uber Select" and "Uber Black" as proof that it is not just about undercutting the taxis.

Most NYC rides aren't dispatched anyways...they are flagged down on the street.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Krishnoid]

You know things have degenerated when suing is the *easy* option.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[mattack2]

I don't use taxis nor Uber (I've been in a taxi once in my life).

It does seem somewhat unfair to me that the existing taxis have a government mandated "monopoly", but then anybody else can come in and undercut them. That is, taxis are being held to more strict (and thus expensive) regulations than Uber and the other companies are.

Either get rid of some of the regulations for the taxis or make these other taxi-like services ("if it quacks like a duck") meet the same requirements.

I do think the line can get somewhat blurrier regarding AirbnB (which I've never used) vs. hotels, though I admit I can't explain why. (In other words, the analogy in this case would seem to be the same, but Joe Schmoe's extra room shouldn't be held to exactly the same requirements that a real hotel room is.)

(I do love the TV show "Taxi" though.. heh)

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

When the driver knows in advance where you want to go, then you get to know in advance how much it is going to cost.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[aXis100]

The main difference in the business models is that Taxi companies have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a taxi license/plate/medallion, the supply of which has been artificially restricted by government regulation. This forces costs up for them and prices up for customers.

There is no such regulation on Uber and so they are competing on unequal terms.

I'm not a big fan of taxi companies but they have a point. In order to be fair, the Government may need to start handing out some refunds on taxi licenses / medallions.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[BitterOak]

I'm not a big fan of taxi companies but they have a point. In order to be fair, the Government may need to start handing out some refunds on taxi licenses / medallions.

It's more reasonable to assume they'll simply require Uber drivers to carry medallions.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[hawguy]

No they couldn't. The dispatcher job was replaced with software allowing Uber to charge less money even if they did follow all the rules. Unless the taxi companies are prepared to fire all their dispatchers they will never be able to compete.

If their dispatchers are what's holding them back from competing and providing a service that customers want (while reducing labor costs too!), then why wouldn't they fire all of their dispatchers?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Firethorn]

The main difference in the business models is that Taxi companies have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a taxi license/plate/medallion, the supply of which has been artificially restricted by government regulation. This forces costs up for them and prices up for customers.

Given that this is specifically about NYC, which I've done a bit of study on, it's actually worse than you say. NYC taxis are some of the most highly controlled in the world. London's Black Taxis are up there too, but at least they require quality drivers. NYC, from my understanding, is much more concerned with the vehicle, medallion, and operating methods.

Peak price for the medallion was over $1M, and the loan using one as collateral ran roughly 10%. So the 'permit' to operate a taxi in NYC ran, as an opportunity cost, roughly $100k/year. Before the costs of the car, insurance, fuel, and driver. If you figure on 3 rides an hour, 24 hours day, 365 days a year(they hand off the permit to successive drivers in the company), that's 26k rides. Or the permit being $4 for every ride.

2014 factbook: 13,437 medallions, 485k per day. That's 36 rides per medallion(I was figuring 72, double theirs), which increases that to $8/ride. Though I think the value of medallions have dropped from their high, and interest rates are lower. $740k@7% is only $142 per day, or still around $4/ride. ;)

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[ShanghaiBill]

If their dispatchers are what's holding them back from competing and providing a service that customers want (while reducing labor costs too!), then why wouldn't they fire all of their dispatchers?

Because the dispatchers ARE the "taxi company". If you get rid of the dispatchers, there is nothing left except the medallions, which are just an expensive sunk cost. Taxis are quickly becoming obsolete, and in a decade they will be as common as pay phones.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Opportunist]

Ch... change? What? But that costs money!

No, let's sue to keep our monopoly. Monopolies are good. If you're the one holding it.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

I regularly use Uber black here in Australia. It definitely costs more, 15-20% more even - but I'm prepared to pay that for the ease of use, they cleaner cars and drivers who aren't psychopaths that complain about how bad their lives are.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[dbIII]

Are they allowed to take the easy way out or are they tightly regulated while Uber is not?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[stephanruby]

I don't know much about Uber, I don't see how their model is different from a regular taxi. They both need to pick you up at your current location and then you need to tell them where to go.

I don't see how Uber knowing in advance where you want to go could change the outcome.

No, in fact it's the taxi drivers that usually have more information about rides than Uber drivers.

Once booked, an Uber car can not be flagged someone else, it can not hear about other people needing rides to other locations, and it can not make itself available for other tentative bookings. First in, first out. That's how it works. There is no inventory sitting in queues waiting midway to be processed (if you don't mind me using the metaphors of lean manufacturing).

In the case of a taxi however, even if they're using a taxi app, there is no guarantee that they're coming to pick you up, because someone else could flag them on the way, they may get a more attractive offer of someone needing a ride to the airport (instead of a five minutes ride), they may not like the color of your skin or the way you're dressed or the way you speak, and they're always trying to book their next ride before they're finished with their existing one.

In the case of Uber also, the inability to do double-booking is important, but it's not the only thing that makes the service better. Since the transaction goes through whether you're picked up or not, you better be there when the Uber driver shows up. And the Uber driver better pick you up, because otherwise he'll get a charge back on his account and he'll get a very bad customer rating on his profile (assuming the gps data from both phones do not contradict the story of the customer).

Not only that, but as a user using the Uber app, you're instantly reassured after ordering the Uber car, since you're seeing its dot immediately moving towards you. In the case of a taxi however, even if you were to pinpoint its real-time location on a map, you would probably see the dot moving away from you as it is trying to finish its last ride.

Combine that with the fact that the medaillon system is archaic and highly inflexible, it's no wonder medaillon holders are not happy. During peak hours, Uber drivers can come out of nowhere. Their marginal costs for Uber are constant. In the case of a medaillon holder however, during peak hours, he can't split his medaillon(s) in two. The most he can do is to force a rotation of drivers to use his medaillon 24 hours a day 7 days a week even during low peak hours, to make sure he squeezes out every penny that he can out of that medaillon (or medaillons) so he can try to recoup his investment. And that doesn't solve the problem, that in places like New York or San Francisco, there are not enough taxis during peak hours, so it's not even worth trying to get one during those times. So before services like Uber came along, people opted for public transportation if they could during peak hours, or they opted to bring in their own car, and paid outrageous amounts for parking.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If NYC (or any area) is going to let Uber in, they need to remove the regulatory hurdles from the taxi companies rather than try to force regulatory hurdles on Uber drivers. Some regulations need to remain for both, of course, such as commercial insurance for every driver and regular criminal record checks, but NYC should be forced to pay out the cost of the taxi medallions (since they forced the taxi drivers to buy them from them in the first place) and let taxi companies fend for themselves.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[un1nsp1red]

Taxis are quickly becoming obsolete, and in a decade they will be as common as pay phones.

That would be great! Right now, pay phones outnumber taxis in Los Angeles by several orders of magnitude.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[ArhcAngel]

The cost of a medallion is a one time cost not a perpetual one. The government only makes money on the original sale. What the Taxi "Owners" (there are very few drivers who can afford a medallion.) are suing over is the resale value of their coveted medallions.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[angel'o'sphere]

In the case of a taxi however, even if they're using a taxi app, there is no guarantee that they're coming to pick you up, because someone else could flag them on the way, they may get a more attractive offer of someone needing a ride to the airport
That is nonsense. Legally questionable, and what taxi business would allow that?

The rest of your post shows you never really dug into the matter.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[angel'o'sphere]

The permit is to run "plenty of taxis".
Not just a single one.

I doubt any "single" taxi driver in NYC has a medallion. The company they are driving for has one.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a cow just before the price of milk plummeted. Should NYC pay me for that as well?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of interest, can an Uber driver deny a ride? Like say they get called to the rough area of town and there is a drinking party and the guest can hardly stand, do they have to pick up the person like Taxi's do or are they allowed to cherry pick their rides?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Chris Johnson]

It's different in that when Paris was attacked by terrorists, regular taxi drivers rescued victims and people in danger of being killed, and Uber shut down and was gone during the crisis.

I suppose it could've been worse, they could have hit new highs for surge pricing.

Odd how Slashdot hasn't seen fit to mention this interesting data point...

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

Nobody dispatches a taxi, unless it's raining and they want to wait inside a restaurant while a taxi shows up, and even then, you have someone from the restaurant go hail you one. Private cars are cheaper and nicer than taxis and 100% legal.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[gumbi west]

Not in NYC. In NYC undispatched rides are regulated an dispatched rides are unregulated(ish).

The regulation is mainly about keeping the streets from becoming overcrowded and reducing throughput. It would probably make the most sense to just tax time in the street for all cars equally. Then you could even do peak taxing and improve efficiency.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you shouldn't be forced to keep buying the cow. That is were your analogy fails and what the gp was trying to convey.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[gumbi west]

there is this thing called economic costs that you may want to look into.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Firethorn]

The permit is to run "plenty of taxis".

The permit is to run ONE taxi at any given time. As I mentioned, they hand the permit off to successive drivers, so nominally speaking the permit is in operation as close to 24/7 as they can manage. Though maybe I should have been more explicit that they'll trade off cars as well.

There are single taxi drivers with their own medallion, there's restricted medallions where the owner can only own 1, and must drive something like 210 'shifts' a year with it, it's an owner-operator medallion, and is somewhat cheaper than an unrestricted one.

The company they are driving for has one.

Actually, the company they're driving for probably has 'numerous' medallions. As I said, they need 1 for each taxi on the road collecting fares.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[gumbi west]

It's less about the regulation and more about the cost of the medallion that allows them to have a car on the street.

The main idea of the medallion is to keep the number of cars on the street to a reasonable number so it will have to be applied to uber sooner or later.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[lymond01]

I was in NYC for a taxi strike in the 90s. For a person who walked and took the subway, it was heaven. Half the cars disappeared from the streets. So much quieter.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

The "hard" option is to compete, and taxis can't do that. That'd be hard.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

He can deny it before he's accepted it. But once he's accepted it, denying it will likely result in a very poor review, hurting his ability to get more rides.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

I've been stranded waiting for a taxi. The taxi that was sent never made it. This happens about 50% of the time for a pickup where hailing is common, and never in locations where hailing isn't common. Taxis are allowed to take a hail while going to a dispatched call. If the dispatched call is too short of a distance, they'll try to get out of it. An airport fare is much better than a shorter in town fare.

That you think it shouldn't happen isn't proof that it doesn't.

Uber doesn't steal from taxis. People hail taxis. People dispatch Uber. Dispatched cars in NYC don't need medallions. They are private cars.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

It does seem somewhat unfair to me that the existing taxis have a government mandated "monopoly",

Yes. It's *impossible* for a new entrant to become a taxi, without buying government permission from a private party (at a profit to that private party). That's quite unfair, and a horrible monopoly model. That's why people applaud Uber. It's not that they like Uber, but that it's breaking the broken regulations.

Either get rid of some of the regulations for the taxis or make these other taxi-like services ("if it quacks like a duck") meet the same requirements.

In NYC, "private car" service is explicitly not a taxi. They don't have medallions, and don't follow the same rules. Uber, being a dispatch-only service, is explicitly not a taxi in NYC. Uber is banned by law from responding to on-street hails. So they aren't quacking like a duck.

I do think the line can get somewhat blurrier regarding AirbnB (which I've never used) vs. hotels, though I admit I can't explain why. (In other words, the analogy in this case would seem to be the same, but Joe Schmoe's extra room shouldn't be held to exactly the same requirements that a real hotel room is.)

I've stayed at AirBnBs where the host built a separate building for AirBnB guests. They had a separate reception area, and operated it very hotel like (with the magnetic keys you see in all the hotels these days, and such). Of course, when you AirBnB through Europe, you'll find that many places, like in Italy, are registered hotels.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[gumbi west]

That does sound nice.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[mattack2]

In NYC, "private car" service is explicitly not a taxi. They don't have medallions, and don't follow the same rules. Uber, being a dispatch-only service, is explicitly not a taxi in NYC. Uber is banned by law from responding to on-street hails. So they aren't quacking like a duck.

Well, that's what I mean though. I understand that the laws obviously are not written from a layman's perspective. From a regular person's perspective, a taxi, Uber, and a "private car" service are all some way to get them from point A to point B in a car vs. some other method of transportation.

That's why it seems like they should be treated the same.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Akili]

Personal anecdote:

I live about three miles from my local airport, and I have learned that while taxi drivers will take me home from there, they outright refuse (using silent neglect) to pick me up. I called not one but two different taxi services, the first one with over an hour's notice, and neither one could get a taxi to me. The dispatcher apologized, but that was all they could do. I ended up driving to the airport myself in a rush and paying for multiple-day airport parking instead. Subsequent occasions faired no better, and I eventually stopped trying.

Regardless of how one thinks they should work, evidence so far suggests that you're only guaranteed service once you're actually sitting in the taxi.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently those were rumors quickly proven false:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1...
Do you happen to drive a taxi?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

They are in some places, but in NYC, they already separated out Taxi as the only service that could respond to a hail, and a private car service that can't respond by hail, but can respond to a call, email, letter, or anything else that's not a wave-down in the street. I've been told that taxis are the only ones that can have taxi ranks, but the hotel I stayed at in NYC had two separate ranks for taxis and private cars. But to book the private car, you walked inside the lobby and requested one from the concierge, and he wrote it down on a piece of paper and walked you out to the private car rank.

What you think makes sense has nothing to do with the law. Because of the shortage of taxi medallions in NYC, there are more limousines in NYC than taxis. Call them all taxis and require medallions from all of them, and you'll collapse the economy of the largest city in the US. NYC is happy with how it is, and changing it so an outsider can understand it better is not high on their list.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[zippthorne]

They're both regulated. The regulations are not the same, nor should they be. Dispatched rides are also rationed, and for some reason the ration books (i.e. medallions) are transferrable between private parties, raising barriers to entry for newcomers and allowing a cartel of entrenched speculator/investors to control the industry, to the detriment of both drivers and riders.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[tompaulco]

The "hard" option is to compete, and taxis can't do that. That'd be hard.

It would be easy to compete if they didn't have to obey the law. If the city would reimburse all of their sunk costs on Taxi medallions, remove the regulations which regulate the prices that taxis can charge and remove the insurance and inspection requirements, then taxis could easily compete with uber and due to their economies of scale, they could crush Uber. But unfortunately, Uber chooses to continue to operate without paying any attention to the rules which other companies in the same sector have to obey.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[TapeCutter]

That only works in the center of certain large cities (eg: NYC), everywhere else more taxi's are dispatched than flagged down, except for Fri/Sat night shift, I know this because I drove one for 3yrs. Suburban work is mostly shuffling old people around and trips to the airport. IMO Uber are parasitic rent seekers, they are an old fashioned limo company "on a computer" and should be regulated as one. Whether you agree with the current law or not, the authorities should not have allowed Uber to continue to profit by ignoring it.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in NYC for many years, and did not know they have dispatchers. I even tried to contact these fairy tale creatures but only spam websites come up in google. It is my understanding that medallions are privately owned by many different entities which precludes having a central dispatch system.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[dbIII]

That's what I was attempting to point out. The taxi companies are stuck with extra costs while Uber is not. They can't take the easy way out without being shut down while Uber can.
Uber - bringing all the joys of third-world piecework home. If they were not blatant liars pushing the "ride-sharing" fiction I'd give them a bit more of the benefit of the doubt.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[TapeCutter]

I drove taxis 25yrs ago, we had computerised dispatch back then (with a dispatcher entering the data), all of them now have their own app where the user fills out their own details. The taxi dispatchers are there to answer the phones, the dispatch company is usually owned and operated as a co-op between the individual taxi owners. AFAIK Uber doesn't offer the "human on a phone" option, it's web form or nothing.

Since there are thousands of taxi owners paying for a few drones in a call center it is an insignificant part of the cost of running a taxi. By far the biggest cost of running a cab is maintenance, fuel, insurance, and the interest you pay on the loan you took out for the "medallion".

If hipsters want to change the law into a race to the bottom for owner-operators, then the first thing they must do is buy back those medallions at a fair price. People have worked their entire lives to pay for a single medallion, a bunch of parasites who believe the law doesn't apply to them are rapidly making them worthless.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[stephanruby]

That is nonsense. Legally questionable, and what taxi business would allow that?

That's a very good question. What taxi business would allow that? Or a better question would be which taxi business would allow that?

Talk to your taxi drivers. Some of them use multiple dispatch centers to get referrals.

I'm not saying all of them do. Also, I am speaking specifically about San Francisco during peak hours, which is where I live. It probably won't apply to you if you're walking out of a five star hotel in San Francisco, or if you live in a city where the number of medaillons is not artificially set in stone.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Sylak]

This is what Virginia does for Uber and Lyft, at the very least for picking up and dropping off at the airports (DCA and IAD)

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Firethorn]

I know of them as opportunity costs.

Basically, if you forgo purchasing X, and instead dump the money into investments, how much would you make? How much would you make if you sold the X and dumped the money into investments?

So an object that's worth $1M has an opportunity cost somewhere between $50k-$100k a year, because you could make 5-10% in returns if you invested in the markets.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

That only works in the center of certain large cities (eg: NYC)

As this article and discussion is about NYC, I'll take your post to be in agreement, since you say it works in NYC, but not elsewhere, when I said nothing about elsewhere, you haven't disagreed with anything I said just disagreed with the idea of agreeing with Uber. We get it, you hate Uber, and Uber is 100% legal in NYC and works well in NYC as a competitor of taxis.

Whether you agree with the current law or not, the authorities should not have allowed Uber to continue to profit by ignoring it.

Uber is compliant with NYC law. That's why the taxis are suing NYC. They know Uber is legal, and don't want to lose that argument again. So they are suing NYC to change the law to make the 100% legal Uber into an illegal service. Private car service is well defined in NYC, and Uber is following those rules to be a 100% legal limousine service.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

That is nonsense. Legally questionable, and what taxi business would allow that?

Every one, especially NYC's YellowCab who's known for pulling that bullshit.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

No one owes anyone anything, it's a cut throat market. If someone can do my job for cheaper then well that's what is going to happen, I don't get any special protection. Why should they?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, really?

Over here they took both payphones down ten years ago. Both, as in, both the one that took coins, and the one that took cards.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, chinky-boy.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Jack Griffin]

Right now, pay phones outnumber taxis in Los Angeles by several orders of magnitude.

I think that says more about Los Angeles than the pay phones...

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Jack Griffin]

If hipsters want to change the law into a race to the bottom for owner-operators, then the first thing they must do is buy back those medallions at a fair price. People have worked their entire lives to pay for a single medallion, a bunch of parasites who believe the law doesn't apply to them are rapidly making them worthless.

Medallions, or plates as our equivalent is here, are an investment choice. People chose that investment as a way to try and make some money and it was short-sighted.
If you chose to put money into an industry with one of the worst reputations ever, that was just ripe for tech VC to disrupt and destroy your investment, then it's you have no-one to blame but yourself.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Jack Griffin]

Given that this is specifically about NYC, which I've done a bit of study on, it's actually worse than you say.

Similar story here. The Taxi plate was up to about $400k prior to Uber, but this was driven by a corrupt industry that invested huge dollars in lobbying to keep the plate pool deliberately small.
Technology has made the whole concept of taxi plates obsolete. It was a form of regulation to try and keep some sanity in an era where there zero surveillance or tracking. These days with electronic driving records, insurance histories, GPS, and camera in everyone's hand, there is simply no need for such outdated monopolies.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Fuzi719]

I don't use taxis nor Uber (I've been in a taxi once in my life).

So, obviously, that qualifies you to comment knowledgeably about a taxi/Uber issue. SMH.... The level of discourse here has seriously eroded.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[FooAtWFU]

In the case of a taxi however, even if they're using a taxi app, there is no guarantee that they're coming to pick you up, because someone else could flag them on the way, they may get a more attractive offer of someone needing a ride to the airport

That is nonsense. Legally questionable, and what taxi business would allow that?

That's not exactly how it works, but it's hardly nonsense. Plenty of NYC taxis break the rules to ask you where you're going and leave you without a ride if they don't want to go there.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[LWATCDR]

Exactly, Uber is the Walmart of transportation.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[IndustrialComplex]

With regard to calling Uber parasitic rent seekers... Isn't that exactly what this medallion system created? A bunch of rent seeking?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[IndustrialComplex]

The main difference in the business models is that Taxi companies have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a taxi license/plate/medallion, the supply of which has been artificially restricted by government regulation. This forces costs up for them and prices up for customers. There is no such regulation on Uber and so they are competing on unequal terms.

The supply of the taxi medallions has been restricted by regulation... regulations specifically lobbied for by the taxi companies. This is their own mess that they created, and a disrupting technology is ruining the business model they turned into law.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[edtice1559]

I took a taxi recently in Santa Clara. The driver pays $1400/month for dispatch! That's a significant cost. The dispatch companies are rent-seekers and they are quite effective at it. Maybe in some places, dispatch is a co-op but certainly not everywhere.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[JeffOwl]

I have had similar experience, though I live about 6 miles away. I've had drivers try to refuse only to be told by the guy on the curb doing the assignments that if he refused he would have to go to the back of the queue anyway. The driver said that he had been waiting three hours and that he'd be losing money. Too bad. I have never, ever seen that airport not have a huge line of cabs waiting to pick people up. Maybe they just have too many. I saw a driver refuse to give a ride to a family with a service dog, back of the queue with him for another three hours. Frankly this seems like a terrible job.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[dj245]

Given that this is specifically about NYC, which I've done a bit of study on, it's actually worse than you say.

Similar story here. The Taxi plate was up to about $400k prior to Uber, but this was driven by a corrupt industry that invested huge dollars in lobbying to keep the plate pool deliberately small. Technology has made the whole concept of taxi plates obsolete. It was a form of regulation to try and keep some sanity in an era where there zero surveillance or tracking. These days with electronic driving records, insurance histories, GPS, and camera in everyone's hand, there is simply no need for such outdated monopolies.

Clearly you have never been to a place with too many taxis. Having too many taxis is a drag on society as empty taxis occupy valuable space on the roads, take up parking spaces on the sides of streets, and add unnecessary pollution and noise.

The medallion system is a market-based system that tried to solve that problem. Do you have an idea that might work better? The problem of "too many taxis" may not exist for your city now, but if the market was completely opened up it could become a major problem very fast. Good luck trying to close the barn door at that point.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[dj245]

I've been stranded waiting for a taxi. The taxi that was sent never made it. This happens about 50% of the time for a pickup where hailing is common, and never in locations where hailing isn't common. Taxis are allowed to take a hail while going to a dispatched call. If the dispatched call is too short of a distance, they'll try to get out of it. An airport fare is much better than a shorter in town fare. That you think it shouldn't happen isn't proof that it doesn't. Uber doesn't steal from taxis. People hail taxis. People dispatch Uber. Dispatched cars in NYC don't need medallions. They are private cars.

Uber drivers play all sorts of games with canceling fares which are too short or not "ideal" for them. And Uber's real-time map is a lie, which is obvious in several places that I have tried it. At least the taxi companies are regulated so there are complaint channels and potential consequences. With Uber you're relying on a sleazy company to police themselves.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA. Stinky cabs compete with uber. Frkn cheap @ss owners with broken down smelly cars. Get real. Without the government and gun, these businesses go the way of the DODO, extinct.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[DarkOx]

Once booked, an Uber car can not be flagged someone else, it can not hear about other people needing rides to other locations, and it can not make itself available for other tentative bookings. First in, first out. That's how it works. There is no inventory sitting in queues waiting midway to be processed (if you don't mind me using the metaphors of lean manufacturing).

This IS NOT TRUE in locations where Uber has pooling. Major cities like NYC, Uber drivers can and do get notices of other riders and are allowed and will take you out of the way to pickup those riders. Now you still pay the original price, but getting to your destination can take ALOT LONGER than expected. If you have not given yourself quite a lot of extra time, taking Uber to JFK from downtown Manhattan can be a big mistake!

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Coren22]

I'm confused how Uber is suddenly such an issue because it is popular, but private car services were perfectly ok, even though they fill the same purpose.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/search?...

Because clearly that was never an issue with taxis.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[ragefan]

By far the biggest cost of running a cab is maintenance, fuel, insurance, and the interest you pay on the loan you took out for the "medallion".

Uber drivers have all of these costs too, with the exception of the Medallion, and probably cost more for the one-off Uber driver as the cab companies are able to pool their costs across their fleet. Also, what would prevent a cab company from converting cabs to Uber cars and flying under the radar without medallions?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Coren22]

Private car services (of which Uber is in NY) have never needed medallions. Why the sudden hate for Uber when they just popularized an existing thing?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[ragefan]

This is specifically what Uber's demand pricing is designed to do. Too many Uber drivers in an area with too few jobs, lower the rate, as more users need rides, increase pricing to draw in drivers. Allows for more direct control than the medallion system which forces the medallion owners to ensure the medallion is trying to make them money 24/7 by having the car out on the road thus contributing to your problems.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[painandgreed]

In the case of a taxi however, even if they're using a taxi app, there is no guarantee that they're coming to pick you up, because someone else could flag them on the way, they may get a more attractive offer of someone needing a ride to the airport That is nonsense. Legally questionable, and what taxi business would allow that?

Seattle's Orange Cab from my experience.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[gumbi west]

Right, so it is a perpetual cost. But only because you can resell the medallion. Otherwise it would be a sunk cost.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[oh_my_080980980]

Uber insists they are not a taxi cab service. So fuck off. Uber is trying to avoid the laws that regulated taxi services. Follow the fucking law!

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you you nitpicking moron.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[rahvin112]

The government is under no obligation to provide a return on investment on ANY item. You bought that medallion as an investment, if your investment doesn't perform because the regulatory climate changes that is the risks you take when you invest money.

This would be no different than bailing out private investor who lost money in a stock purchase and it's equally absurd.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[AK Marc]

And Uber's real-time map is a lie,

Wired ran a factless article saying they think that it's not accurate. Uber responded "nuh uh", and Wired responded 'is too".

If it were so fraudulent, it'd be easy to prove false, right? Well, Wired couldn't, and instead published rumours as fact. Great journalism.

I deal in fact. Not deciding I don't like something, so I hate on it regardless of fact.

With Uber you're relying on a sleazy company to police themselves.

Right, sleazy company. You don't like them, so you repeat other's lies about them, so you don't have to take responsibility for your assertions of sleazyness. We get it, you hate Uber. Just post "I hate Uber" and move on. Arguing the points when you obviously don't understand them doesn't help your case. It just makes you look more irrational.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[david_thornley]

In some places, some Uber services are completely legal. In others, Uber drivers do not have sufficient licensing or insurance, and can be breaking more laws than that.

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I took out a loan on the cow? Can I walk away from that?

Re: NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Grishnakh]

The problem with your analogy is that you didn't buy the cow from the government.

A better analogy would be if you were a dairy farmer, and the local government forced you to buy a $1M certificate in order to stay in business and sell your milk to local customers. Then the local government allowed Walmart to ship in milk from out-of-state and sell it with no extra costs, which undercuts you and puts you out of business. Bottom line: the government should never have required you to buy a $1M certificate to stay in business, so it should repay you for that, plus any interest you may have paid on a loan to get that certificate.

Now of course, one flaw with my analogy is that I presumed the farmer was already a farmer. With NYC cab companies, they don't predate the medallions; people buy those things to get *into* the business. But still, the whole thing was wrong to begin with: the medallions were nothing more than a restraint of trade, and a way of limiting competition. The government should never, ever be in the business of limiting competition. Enacting sensible rules to ensure public safety, sure, but limiting competition just to increase profits? Hell no.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Grishnakh]

It's completely different. Have you never heard of a limo? That's exactly what Uber is. Limos do not drive around the streets at random and pick people up when they raise their arms; you have to call for them and tell them where you are, and where you're going. Then they tell you how much that will cost (there's no taximeter charging you extra for stopping at lights). Uber does the exact same thing, except instead of calling, you just use an app.

They *already had* limos in NYC, and they were indeed regulated entirely differently than taxis. That's why Uber is legal in NYC; it's just another limo service.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Jack Griffin]

The medallion system is a market-based system that tried to solve that problem.

Can't comment on Medallions, but with our Plates, there was no free market about it. Each time the State Gov wanted to review Plate numbers, the taxi lobby would go full force to block any attempts to increase them. And it worked every time.

Do you have an idea that might work better? The problem of "too many taxis" may not exist for your city now, but if the market was completely opened up it could become a major problem very fast. Good luck trying to close the barn door at that point.

What stops to many fish and chip shops from opening? Or Shoe shops? The real free market has already solved that problem, and Uber is closer to that ideal that the old taxi monopoly.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[mattack2]

You don't have to be a jerk about it. Just because I don't use taxis means I can't have an opinion about "various transportation methods where you're paying a person to drive you around"?

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Firethorn]

Correct. If you can't get money out of it, it's a sunk cost, and if the value of a medallion goes from $1M to $400k because of competition, that $600k would count as a capital loss, just as if it's discovered that your property is chemically contaminated and thus worth less because of cleanup costs or that it can't be used as a playground/child care facility or such.

That being said, if your medallion is suddenly worth less, it reduces the opportunity cost, so you're more likely to hold it. Unless the reason it's value is dropping is that competition is causing you to earn less money, which means that you have to do the 'whole' cost analysis thing again.

And on that note I wonder if I have a cyber-stalker working to downgrade my comments...

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[stephanruby]

Uber drivers play all sorts of games with canceling fares which are too short or not "ideal" for them.

Uber drivers need to accept an offer, before it gets confirmed to the passenger. So yes, a passenger may never get picked up for all kinds of reasons, but at least, he is not mislead into believing someone will pick him up.

And Uber's real-time map is a lie, which is obvious in several places that I have tried it.

That article is interesting, but very thin on details.

My google latitude tracking information (that I give family members access to) can also be out of date. My gps may be off, or my battery may be low, thus my phone may think that I am still at the same location I was at 30 minutes ago, but that doesn't prove that I am purposefully misleading my family members.

The article then goes on to try to back up its claim by talking about a patent Uber had issued on the practice, but if you read the paragraph further, you find out that the actual patent mentioned had actually nothing to do with the main point the article was trying to make.

In any case, that is something that you can easily verify for yourself. There are $20 off promo codes floating around the internet for first-time Uber customers, so you might as well use one of those promo codes, book a $5 to $19 ride, and see if the virtual dot does follow the car coming to pick you up. For me, it did it the couple of times that I did it. For you, it may not. But if it doesn't, I'd sure like to know about it.

At least the taxi companies are regulated so there are complaint channels and potential consequences. With Uber you're relying on a sleazy company to police themselves.

You're making it sound like we're in Somalia or something.

The legal system hasn't gone anywhere. And the credit card charge back system hasn't gone anywhere either.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[stephanruby]

This IS NOT TRUE in locations where Uber has pooling. Major cities like NYC, Uber drivers can and do get notices of other riders and are allowed and will take you out of the way to pickup those riders. Now you still pay the original price, but getting to your destination can take ALOT LONGER than expected. If you have not given yourself quite a lot of extra time, taking Uber to JFK from downtown Manhattan can be a big mistake!

You're right. In San Francisco, I think it's called UberPool.

That option doesn't really change my larger point. No customer gets forced into an UberPool. It's an option that the customer has to select when he's first placing the order. And for the Uber driver that picks up a customer that has selected the standard option instead of UberPool, all the things that I previously said would still apply, such a driver would not be allowed to coordinate his next fare in advance.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[BadgerRush]

As things stand today, the only parasites are the medallion owners, after all they are the only ones who siphon huge amounts of money from the system without providing any service. A medallion system is the textbook definition of a parasite, it doesn't create absolutely any value, instead it just subtract value from the taxi service causing the service to be more expensive than it should, more crappy than it should, and less profitable for the drivers actually doing the work.

And by the way, uber drivers also have those same costs as taxis (with the exception of the ridiculous medallion cost), so arguing that taxis are in a disadvantage because they have to pay fuel, maintenance, or insurance[1] is stupid and dishonest.

[1] I'm aware that in some cities the laws where so stupidly written that someone could drive for uber without paying full insurance, so in those cases people should campaign to change the laws to require all professional drivers to have the appropriate insurance, and that is it, that would solve all the problem. To argue instead that cities should ban uber is just a corrupt tactic to try and keep the faulty corrupt taxi system standing as it is.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[stephanruby]

Private cars, not just taxis, rescued wounded strangers to take them to the hospitals. That doesn't mean Uber cars weren't part of those cars. After all, if you take on a bleeding stranger in your backseat, turning on the Uber app on your phone makes about as much sense as a taxi driver turning on his meter for the same thing.

Now granted, Uber cars may be more difficult to spot, so if you're carrying a bleeding person in your arms, and you know paramedics are going to be overwhelmed, your first impulse may be to be looking for a taxi instead, but if you can't see a taxi, you might as well try to flag down the first car you see if that's the case. Who can blame Uber for that? Uber cars are not really designed to be flagged down. If Uber cars started carrying little mini-cab placards on top of their cars like some mini-cabs do in the UK, I can bet you that the french CEO of Uber would promptly be sent back to jail.

In fact, whatever did happen to that guy? Was he ever released? Is Uber still operating in France? By your statement, you're implying that they still do.

Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber

[Agripa]

They have the power and guns of the government at their disposal. Why should they spend money to directly compete when the return is ten times greater lobbying?

Remove the medallion then

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the free market sort it out.

We are at that point now. The previous rational, whatever it was, for controls is obsoleted by Uber.

Re:Remove the medallion then

[viperidaenz]

You mean until the streets are so clogged with cars so it ends up being slightly quicker to walk across town, and slightly easier to sit in a car and pay for not having to walk/get wet in the rain?

Re:Remove the medallion then

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Uber's business model. Either it is fought adequately or it is accepted.

Re:Remove the medallion then

[Chris Johnson]

Or when there's a real emergency and Uber shuts down rather than get stuck in an unprofitable or bad-PR situation. There are situations where their surge pricing would not be well received and where they'll switch right off, as France learned.

Re:Remove the medallion then

[gumbi west]

Hey, there is this thing called the tragedy of the commons. There are solutions to it. Medallions are an example solution. Some regulation is good.

Re:Remove the medallion then

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the taxi shill - posting a lie over and over won't make it true.

Customers aren't property.

[jcr]

Uber is eating their lunch because cabs SUCK. I have no sympathy at all for those rent-seeking bastards.

-jcr

Re:Customers aren't property.

[Anonymous Coward]

rent-seeking bastards.

Do you realize this exactly describes Uber drivers? There is exactly no point in Uber's business model where the drivers are any better than the average taxi driver. They can, however, be worse, as they aren't as likely to have commercial insurance (good luck getting any money out of the driver if he gets into an accident with you inside) and the criminal record checks seem to be optional.

Re:Customers aren't property.

[swillden]

There is exactly no point in Uber's business model where the drivers are any better than the average taxi driver.

Have you ever been in a taxi? Or an Uber car?

I could debate the theoretical ins and outs of the business models and how they might affect quality, but there's really no need because simple observation demonstrates that you're wrong. I have occasionally encountered a taxi that was clean and in good condition, with a driver who is polite and friendly. I have also encountered many cabs that were old, dirty, smelly and with a driver who was rude and ornery. I've yet to find an Uber car or driver that wasn't very pleasant.

Last weekend I took an Uber from my hotel in London to Heathrow, and took the opportunity to ask the driver about his background and his motivation for driving for Uber. It was really interesting. He was a well-spoken, neat, polite black man with five children, and a bachelor's degree in some sort of I/T (I didn't ask for details). He was originally from Somalia, but had left to escape the turmoil when he was 17, moving first to Dubai and then to London, where he's been living for 15 years. He drove for various minicab services until he got his degree, then went to work doing tech support. He liked the tech support job, but found he didn't make as much money as when he was driving a cab, so he decided to try Uber. He loves driving for Uber. He makes roughly as much money as when he was driving a cab, but loves the flexibility that Uber gives him. If he wants to go do something with his kids, he just logs off and does it. If he needs a little more cash, he works a little more, and makes sure to be working during surge times.

He still does tech support from time to time, but only on a short-term contract basis, which he says pays better than the full-time job he once had but doesn't provide a stable income. Uber provides him with a flexible alternative work option that makes it possible for him to do the intermittent contract work. He likes the variety, though his family prefers the times when he's driving, because they see more of him then.

His goal is to build up a nest egg of about $200K US and then move back to Somalia and open a retail business focused on selling imported goods. He says he took a lot of business classes while doing his degree and feels confident that he can be successful. I think he will.

All in all, he was a pretty impressive guy. Definitely not the sort I've found typically driving cabs.

Re:Customers aren't property.

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Pay - Uber drivers are paid a commission. Approximately 20% of the fare charged is kept by Uber, the driver receives the rest at the end of the week, along with a detailed statement (ie a paycheque). No money changes hands with riders, which reduces costs and security.

2: Insurance - In the event of an accident, the passengers and the community are insured by Uber NOT the driver. Where I drive, Uber carries liability insurance 2.5x what the taxi industry is regulated to. The driver and the car are insured by the driver's insurance. If the driver doesn't have commercial insurance (I do) then he opens himself up to risk of non-coverage if the insurance company wants to try to not pay. But that has nothing to do with the passengers, nor the community. Basically, I could drive my car through a bus shelter and then crash into a bus. If I have passengers, Uber pays for the liability. If I don't have passengers, then my insurance pays for the liability just as it would for any driver in a normal non-Uber scenario. Again, since this is the media/taxi-industry's favorite FUD item.

To be clear: UBER (not the driver of an Uber car) CARRIES LIABILITY INSURANCE ON THE PASSENGERS, AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE INSURANCE OF THE DRIVER HAS NO BEARING ON THE OUTCOME FOR THE PASSENGERS IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. THEY WILL CARRY AT LEAST MINIMUM REQUIRED OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE, AND WILL OFTEN TIMES CARRY HIGHER LEVELS.

Hopefully this will make this fallacy go away finally.

3: Criminal records check - it is done before I am even accepted by Uber to be a driver, and it is done to the same extent as me volunteering at a school. The same records and processes are followed with the exception that it is not handled directly by me, nor do I have to pay anything.

4: Safety - Uber requires that their driver's cars be inspected annually (and will prevent drivers from being able to go online and use the car), and to the same standards as any safety check. The garage has to sign off on the inspection, and by doing so, they are just as liable should there be a mechanical issue that can't reasonably be put down to wear and tear since the last inspection.

5: Surge pricing - many drivers, myself included don't like surge pricing. When surge occurs we get a lot of cancelled rides because passengers will often wait it out. Those that do take rides tend to give lower ratings because they feel that the should have a happy ending or something special for the extra money they just paid. Personally, I tend to use the surge times when the go over 1.5x as a chance to take a break and have a coffee and a pee break.

Source: I am a part-time Uber driver in a Canadian city in Ontario, one which probably has the most anti-Uber taxi regulations on the books, having been revised 4 months prior to Uber beginning operations in this city. For the record, I have a 4.86 star rating currently, my car is a 2014 and I carry commercial insurance because I use my car in my day job too.

Re: Customers aren't property.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your observations in no way contradict Uber being rent seeking bastards. They put almost all the financial burden and risk to give you a good service on the drivers, the drivers aren't Uber, they're not the rent seekers, don't let the bluring of lines Uber does to the general public lead you to false conclusions.

Re: Customers aren't property.

[swillden]

Your observations in no way contradict Uber being rent seeking

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

They put almost all the financial burden and risk to give you a good service on the drivers

Which is exactly why Uber drivers are better than taxi drivers, thus clearly contradicting your original claim (assuming you're the GP). Uber drivers have direct financial incentives to provide good service. These incentives are stronger than the similar incentives for taxi drivers, even though taxi drivers are tipped and Uber drivers aren't.

don't let the bluring of lines Uber does to the general public lead you to false conclusions.

What blurring is that? It all seems very clear to me: Uber is just the service that connects drivers and riders, facilitating payments, doing a bit of quality control, and taking a cut of the transaction. To the degree that Uber does a good job, they'll attract more riders and more drivers, and get to take the cut of more transactions. If they don't do it as well... the competition is only an app download away, for both drivers and riders.

Re:Customers aren't property.

[Holi]

Uber is eating their lunch due to the fact that Uber does not follow the regulations imposed on cab companies.

Re:Customers aren't property.

[SvnLyrBrto]

Have you ever been in a taxi? Or an Uber car?

I could debate the theoretical ins and outs of the business models and how they might affect quality, but there's really no need because simple observation demonstrates that you're wrong. I have occasionally encountered a taxi that was clean and in good condition, with a driver who is polite and friendly. I have also encountered many cabs that were old, dirty, smelly and with a driver who was rude and ornery. I've yet to find an Uber car or driver that wasn't very pleasant.

Basically this. I've lived in San Francisco for the better part of two decades now. And for most of that, the only late-night transportation options were taxis (just bloody awful) or MUNI Owl service (worse). Uber (And, to be fair, Lyft and Sidecar as well.) provides such a higher quality of service that I really can't fathom the people opposing them. Even when the only Uber available was the black car service, once I tried it I happily paid the higher price vs the cabs; it was SO much better. The legacy cab companies made their bed with their horrible service. Uber would never have managed to get started if the taxis didn't suck major ass (Remember... for those first few years, when the black car service was all the Uber there was, it was almost always at least 20% more expensive than a taxi.).

In addition to your list, also throw in the fact that Uber cars show up when and where they're supposed to. The drivers will take you out to the avenues without throwing a hissy fit. They'll actually show pick you up in the avenues, and not just on 19th. And, since all billing is inherently handled via the app, they never try the "my credit card machine is broken, cash only" scam.

Really, the only thing that makes any sense to me is that the anti-ridesharing people are really either just paid shills for the taxi companies, or people who just live out in remote suburbs and don't realize just how terrible cabs are.

Re: Customers aren't property.

[david_thornley]

Rent-seeking normally means getting the government to pass laws or enact regulations to safeguard your business model. Arguably, by ignoring some of these rules, Uber has an artificial advantage due to government regulation, and hence is rent-seeking.

Re:Customers aren't property.

[david_thornley]

If someone is out driving for Uber, and gets into an accident without having a passenger, there's still going to be liabilities, and the insurance companies are not required to cover anything involving commercial use of the car without having the appropriate insurance. It's possible to do a lot of damage in an impact, and it isn't any help to the victims if the driver gets convicted of driving without insurance.

Re: Customers aren't property.

[swillden]

Arguably, by ignoring some of these rules, Uber has an artificial advantage due to government regulation, and hence is rent-seeking.

But Uber isn't ignoring the rules in NYC, and it's the taxi companies who are trying to get the city to change the rules in order to preserve their business model.

Re:Customers aren't property.

[jcr]

Do you realize this exactly describes Uber drivers?

You don't know what "rent-seeking" means. Feel free to try again when you've educated yourself.

-jcr

Re:Customers aren't property.

[jcr]

Uber drivers are paid a commission.

Wrong.

Uber is paid a commission. Uber riders pay a fare, most of which goes to the driver, and a portion of which goes to Uber for making the connection between the customer and the driver.

-jcr

Re: Customers aren't property.

[david_thornley]

I don't really know about Uber's operations in New York. I know that there is at least one Uber service that is legal. It may be that not all of them are, and Uber is known to pay no attention to certain laws as long as the legal staff is fairly sure they can blame violations on the driver.

Re: Customers aren't property.

[swillden]

Uber is known to pay no attention to certain laws as long as the legal staff is fairly sure they can blame violations on the driver.

Cite?

my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[turkeydance]

you know...watching an old movie with my sister (she LOVES movies) and her daughter asks about the tech in the movie. "why would anyone...?" take your pick: landline, taxi, whatever. well, she does LOVE horses, so there. bottom line: her generation doesn't care about medallions/taxis/etc.

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[PopeRatzo]

When I watched the three stooges I didn't ask my parents why they had to crank the phone

Yeah, but you were in your thirties.

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

The three stooges must have helped you with you're spelling.

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[dbIII]

I don't have to ask about cranking the phone because when I was young my dad pulled an old phone out of a box and said - "hold these two wires while I turn this handle".

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[antdude]

Horses are older than landlines, taxis, etc. Tell her "why would anyone ... horses?" [grin]

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

ladies ride horses to get off

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

not just ladies one time i helped my uncle jack off a horse

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[edtice1559]

Because she doesn't understand them and how bad the taxi market was before regulation.

Re:my niece doesn't understand dial telephones

[david_thornley]

They seem popular among young girls who haven't ridden any yet.

Evolve or die

[digitalPhant0m]

It's not like the Taxi industry could adapt to the changing market place; Instead let's insure that we save a dying business model and hamper progress by using legislation as an excuse for for necessity.

Re:Evolve or die

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be fair here. It's not the taxi companies themselves at fault, but the artificial distinction between the rules, regulations and taxes within which they operate (not by their choice) and Uber because - they do it on the internet! Level the playing field at whatever level, then let them compete equally! Otherwise, it's not real competition or capitalism.

Re:Evolve or die

[Dynedain]

Funny, in other countries (like say my recent visit to Hong Kong) you can book a local taxi through Uber, so clearly Uber is open to the idea. But no, in NYC they decided to go their own way and create a crappy booking app and sue Uber because they were suddenly forced to compete.

And aside from the ride-sharing, at the more expensive Uber tiers (like "Black") they are operating fully within the laws for a livery company with licensed drivers.

The medallions is a racket scheme where people got rich taking out loans to by $1m taxi licenses due to an artificial scarcity and building up mini empires as licensing middlemen who lease the medallion to actual drivers. There's no way a taxi concession license is worth $1m even in NYC. It's an artificial market that's being disrupted and rightfully so.

Re:Evolve or die

[edittard]

Ensure - to make sure that something happens.
Insure - paying premiums, just in case it doesn't.

Re:Evolve or die

[angel'o'sphere]

You forgot:
Unsure: not knowing what is going on ...

Hey Uber- pay up! You are BREAKING THE LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that these tech companies get all the breaks? Look what Amazon has done to local retail in America - decimated it! Now scum like Uber, Lyft, AirBnB come in with their "sharing economy' BS by leveraging "spare capacity", which is NOTHING but code for - "race to the bottom of the wage barrel". What about the negative externalities of these greed ball companies? how many taxi drivers can't support their families? How many hotel workers out of work? And on and on. And look at who is profiting - DIng! It's the senior executives and investors of these parasitical companies. They make me sick! And, the politicians in their pockets make me sick! These assholes are BREAKING THE LAW!! Why aren't the senior executives of Ube, Lyft, AirBnB in jail?!?

Re: Hey Uber- pay up! You are BREAKING THE LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

So all these redundant cab drivers, hotel workers, etc. can get jobs in the New Service Economy. For example, I would be happy to pay someone $5 per hour to mow my lawn. But not $15 per hour. If you can't raise a family on $5 per hour, then I'll hire your kids to weed my garden for $3 per hour, which should cover the cost of food and clothing. Problem solved.

Re: Hey Uber- pay up! You are BREAKING THE LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't hire the guy whose post you're replying to, he sounds like a whiner.

Re: Hey Uber- pay up! You are BREAKING THE LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whiner? You spelled that wrong, it's "winner"

Re:Hey Uber- pay up! You are BREAKING THE LAW!

[Beerdood]

Cab prices are high and fares are inflated because of artificial scarcity via taxi medallions. That's the real issue here. This is why you wait over an hour on a late weekend night, or 3+ hours on new year's eve for a taxi. Cab drivers either have to buy a medallion at a ridiculously inflated price (via a 2nd mortgage or something) OR they have to lease one out from $$richowner$$ who makes money by doing absolutely nothing (at the expense of every cab patron, who pays slightly more).

And look at who is profiting - DIng! It's the senior executives and investors of these parasitical companies.

. Oh, the irony in your post. I'm surprised you didn't mention the "parasitical senior executives of craigslist taking away jobs from pawn shop owners that can't support their families".

If you're going to criticize anything Uber does, it should be the blatant disregard for local regulations that put taxis at a disadvantage. Force them to adhere to the same standards that taxis have to do (passenger insurance, proper bookkeeping to ensure drivers pay income tax, sales tax if applicable on fares, etc..) Once they're all on the same playing field, then there's nothing legitimate for taxis to complain about.

And finally, your "race to the bottom of the wage barrel" doesn't really apply here. If prices drop and your average uber driver makes less, then the consumers and passengers benefit! If the level field is completely even and your average cab fare is much lower, then the cab drivers were making far more than they would have via normal supply and demand . The only losers are those that own the medallions (and the taxi drivers who provide shitty customer service; who are forced to clean up their cabs, play music that the customer wants to hear, and clear their cars more frequently. Boo hoo).

Re:Hey Uber- pay up! You are BREAKING THE LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Pay - Uber drivers are paid a commission. Approximately 20% of the fare charged is kept by Uber, the driver receives the rest at the end of the week, along with a detailed statement (ie a paycheque). No money changes hands with riders, which reduces costs and security.

2: Insurance - In the event of an accident, the passengers and the community are insured by Uber NOT the driver. Where I drive, Uber carries liability insurance 2.5x what the taxi industry is regulated to. The driver and the car are insured by the driver's insurance. If the driver doesn't have commercial insurance (I do) then he opens himself up to risk of non-coverage if the insurance company wants to try to not pay. But that has nothing to do with the passengers, nor the community. Basically, I could drive my car through a bus shelter and then crash into a bus. If I have passengers, Uber pays for the liability. If I don't have passengers, then my insurance pays for the liability just as it would for any driver in a normal non-Uber scenario. Again, since this is the media/taxi-industry's favorite FUD item.

To be clear: UBER (not the driver of an Uber car) CARRIES LIABILITY INSURANCE ON THE PASSENGERS, AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE INSURANCE OF THE DRIVER HAS NO BEARING ON THE OUTCOME FOR THE PASSENGERS IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. THEY WILL CARRY AT LEAST MINIMUM REQUIRED OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE, AND WILL OFTEN TIMES CARRY HIGHER LEVELS.

Hopefully this will make this fallacy go away finally.

3: Criminal records check - it is done before I am even accepted by Uber to be a driver, and it is done to the same extent as me volunteering at a school. The same records and processes are followed with the exception that it is not handled directly by me, nor do I have to pay anything.

4: Safety - Uber requires that their driver's cars be inspected annually (and will prevent drivers from being able to go online and use the car), and to the same standards as any safety check. The garage has to sign off on the inspection, and by doing so, they are just as liable should there be a mechanical issue that can't reasonably be put down to wear and tear since the last inspection.

5: Surge pricing - many drivers, myself included don't like surge pricing. When surge occurs we get a lot of cancelled rides because passengers will often wait it out. Those that do take rides tend to give lower ratings because they feel that the should have a happy ending or something special for the extra money they just paid. Personally, I tend to use the surge times when the go over 1.5x as a chance to take a break and have a coffee and a pee break.

Source: I am a part-time Uber driver in a Canadian city in Ontario, one which probably has the most anti-Uber taxi regulations on the books, having been revised 4 months prior to Uber beginning operations in this city. For the record, I have a 4.86 star rating currently, my car is a 2014 and I carry commercial insurance because I use my car in my day job too.

Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Roger W Moore]

Actually that was my immediate reaction but while I know we are not expected to read the article I did at least think that the submitter should. The taxi owners have NOT filed a law suit against Uber as the first line of the summary says, they have filed a law suit against NYC (as the title says) over them allowing Uber to operate. This seems to have some merit.

If you are going to create an artificial monopoly and charge people a lot of money to take part in it then they do have a grievance if you suddenly let others take part without paying the same fee. Of course if they had not created an artificial monopoly in the first place, or at least kept the costs to take part reasonable and the service quality high, then this would not have been an issue.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[angel'o'sphere]

The correct way would be to enforce that Uber follows the law and challenge NYC (and other cities) to hand out more "medallions" / licenses to run a cab business.

The your called monopoly is only the (questionable) scarcity of "medallions", not the other legislations.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[gumbi west]

NYC has a lot of people in it and the streets are not wide enough to cary a level of traffic that a commuting pattern like another city work work. If you are going to have cars you are going to have to regulate the number. parking costs does that (to an extent) for personal vehicles, but not so for taxis. Medallions are a good thing, they prevent the tragedy of the commons.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Firethorn]

They've made an artificial monopoly, yes, but part of the 'problem' is that Uber is arguably NOT acting as a taxi service per the rules of NYC. They're operating under their 'black car/livery car' rules, which are more relaxed, and do not have medallions.

Another problem is that they're not actually 'charging people a lot of money'. Sure, there's fees to operate a taxi, but they're not that much higher than for a black car. The medallions are permanent in nature and were mostly issued ages ago, and are thus sold between private parties, often at auction.

So the argument of the medallion owners is that NYC, who created the medallions in such a way that they could be sold, now has a duty to protect the value of said medallions(I saw reports that Uber has knocked ~40% off their value at their peak). I'll note that the Taxi companies themselves have and will lobby heavily against the issue of more medallions, because more medallions waters down the value of the ones they have now.

Then you introduce Uber, which can afford to pay it's drivers ~$4/ride more because they don't have to pay for a medallion. Charge the riders less because they don't have to spend the money installing an official taximeter, paying dispatchers, etc...

Because of their rating system though, you have to be a quality driver to stay with the service, but it pays more money. So you get the drivers who know that they're being rated, are motivated good drivers, going to uber, leaving the bad ones with the taxi companies. This causes even more people to take Uber.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[AK Marc]

In NYC, Uber does follow the law. That's why the Taxis are pissed. They essentially want to sue NYC to change the law to outlaw the currently legal Uber.

Re: Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology blurs the line between "taxi" and "car service". The distinction was clear when you had to go to a landline. One you could get anywhere, the other you order over the phone. Cell phones allowed for curbside service but there's a pretty long loop between client, dispatcher and driver there. An app though can forward your request to a driver down the block making it effectively hailing.

The city is the right target here, they have created an environment where a heavily regulated service has to compete with a near identical one that isn't. If the "controling congestion" story holds NYC will have no choice to regulate car services replacing taxis anyway.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Holi]

Except the cab companies did not create the monopoly, that was the medallion system created by the legislature.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Holi]

No they don't NYC has many regulations regarding cars for hire, Uber does not follow any of them. Commercial licenses for the drivers. Medallions for the cars.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Holi]

There are three classes of FHV (For Hire Vehicles) service in New York City: Community Cars (aka Liveries), Black Cars, and Luxury Limousines. For-hire service must be arranged through a TLC-licensed base and performed by TLC-licensed drivers in TLC-licensed vehicles.

Uber drivers and their cars are not TLC-Licensed so no Uber does not follow the rules.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[david_thornley]

As I understand it, the medallion is required to answer a street hail, and is not necessary for a scheduled pickup. Uber's role in this is that they've made scheduling work close to as fast as a hail.

As far as commercial licenses and insurance, Uber can weasel out and say they require those things for their drivers, but the drivers don't always comply, and let the courts figure out who's to blame for what. It is definitely cheaper to have a private car network that pays for neither insurance nor adequate licensing.

Re:Summary wrong: Uber is NOT being sued

[Firethorn]

Uber drivers and their cars are not TLC-Licensed so no Uber does not follow the rules.

From NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission, I'm seeing that Uber IS TLC licensed.
LICENSEE NUMBER ALTERNATE NAME OF LICENSEE STREET ADDRESS CITY LICENSE TYPE DESC TOTAL AFFILIATED
B02598 UBER-HINTER LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVE LONG ISLAND CIT TLC License Base - Black Car 1523
B02617 UBER-WEITER LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVENUE LIC TLC License Base - Black Car 2161
B02682 UBER-SCHMECKEN LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVENUE LIC TLC License Base - Black Car 7822
B02764 UBER-DANACH-NY,LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVENUE LIC TLC License Base - Black Car 4357
B02765 UBER-GRUN LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVENUE LIC TLC License Base - Black Car 1540
B02835 UBER-DREIST NY LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVENUE LIC TLC License Base - Black Car 3954
B02836 UBER-DRINNEN-NY LLC 27-55 JACKSON AVENUE LIC TLC License Base - Black Car 2917
B02864 UBER-SIEBEN-NY,LLC 628 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 15
B02865 UBER-VIER-NY LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 37
B02866 UBER-ZWEI-NY LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 111
B02867 UBER-FUNF-NY LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 30
B02869 UBER-ZEHN-NY LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 62
B02870 UBER-NEUN-NY LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 15
B02871 UBER-ACHT-NY,LLC 628 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 294
B02872 UBER-EINS-NY,LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 16
B02875 UBER-SECHS-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 32
B02876 UBER-VIERZEHN-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 16
B02877 UBER-ZWOLF-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 19
B02878 UBER-ELF-NY,LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 584
B02879 UBER-FUNFZEHN-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 32
B02880 UBER-NEUNZEHN-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 75
B02882 UBER-ZWANZIG-NY,LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 10
B02883 UBER-SECHZEHN-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 10
B02884 UBER-DREIZEHN-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 30
B02887 UBER-EINUNDZWANZIG-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 20
B02889 UBER-ACHTZEHN-NY, LLC 636 WEST 28 STREET NEW YORK TLC License Base - Black Car 11

So, with it being shown that they ARE TLC licensed bases, with well over 9k associated drivers/vehicles, do you have any further complaints about widespread non-following of NYC's own rules? I know uber violates the rules in other jurisdictions, but they seem to follow the rules in NYC. At least as much as the taxi companies themselves do.

Well they are in the right..

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, to be a taxi driver, you need a LOT of money, for the permit itself, to insurance and what not... Then comes in Uber, who doesn't do any of that, bypasses every law on taxi because they think they are above that...
I mean sure, regular taxi services are completely outdated in comparison, but it doesn't mean Uber can legally operate without paying the same fees a taxi driver has to pay. Because at that point, why does the taxi driver have to pay for all that crap when he could just go rogue and become an Uber driver, like seriously.

Re:Well they are in the right..

[wisnoskij]

The taxi company owner needs a lot of money, the taxi driver is typically an illigal alien who does not even speak English and has 5 dollars to his name. The owners typically buy the badges, not to run a taxi service so much as to invest in taxi badges becaue prior to Uber their "worth" tended to keep going up and up. Because, the goverment has granted you a monopoly, you do not have to worry about oout performing your compitition. That is worth a pretty penny. And then people just started treating it as a high risk stock market.

It's a tax

[dbIII]

One thing that fucks it up is that it is a source of serious funds for the city so there is an immediate conflict of interest. Ensuring that there is a service present becomes secondary.

Re:It's a tax

[Dynedain]

The city is not getting $1m for each medallion. That's the artificial market created by middlemen trading in medallions.

Re:It's a tax

[gumbi west]

Except that the cost of the medallion is a function of how useful it is, so the service quality is basically all there is.

Re:It's a tax

[edtice1559]

Which doesn't change anything for the poor taxi drivers. I'm surprised that this is as big of an issue in NYC and I wonder who is really behind this. I've talked to taxi drivers in other jurisdictions who said that if Uber would just raise the price by about 30%, they would drive for Uber instead. In NYC where the prices are high, I'm surprised that drivers are staying within the system at all.

Re:It's a tax

[Firethorn]

I've talked to taxi drivers in other jurisdictions who said that if Uber would just raise the price by about 30%, they would drive for Uber instead. In NYC where the prices are high, I'm surprised that drivers are staying within the system at all.

It depends on the market and level of service you're performing for Uber. I assume you mean that the 30% is the rate at which Uber pays it's drivers?

The basic Uber service is the cheapest. If you drive a car of sufficient luxury and have a professional license, you're paid more per trip.

In a number of markets a professional Uber driver makes more money than a Taxi driver putting the same hours in. This is generally in the cities with the most restrictive Taxi regulations. The net result is that a lot of the 'best' drivers, those that can keep up 5 star ratings, leave the taxi companies for Uber, making taxi service, on average, even worse.

Re:It's a tax

[edtice1559]

Uber pays 80% of the fare to the driver. What the drivers are saying is that their income is X per day. If they were to drop driving their taxis and drive for Uber instead, they would take a hit to their income. If Uber were to increase fares by 30% above today's rate, they would give up being taxi drivers and become Uber drivers. But because Uber's fares are so cheap, they can't earn a living. But another 30% and they could.

Amazon

[tlambert]

Look what Amazon has done to local retail in America - decimated it!

Dude, that was, in order:

(1) strip malls put individual storefronts out of business, and raised rents when they were gone

(2) shopping malls put many strip malls and individual storefronts out of business, and raised rents when they were gone

(3) Walmart put many "anchor stores" in shopping malls out of business, which then killed individual mall stores dependent on foot traffic, and killed many strip malls with limited varied compared to Walmart, and remaining storefronts, all by buying in bulk, undercutting prices (even if good had to be sold at a loss to do so), and then raising prices once the others were gone

It's all about driving down aggregate costs (which is one reason many places in California have ordinances on maximum store size: to keep Walmart out, or at least from realizing a high enough economy of scale to drive smaller stores out of business, because they are more or less the same size

Amazon was pretty much uninvolved with any of that.

Re:Amazon

[Ichijo]

Moreover, cities don't force Amazon to build abundant, cheap customer parking as they do to brick and mortar stores, so that's another cost Amazon doesn't have to pay.

And, cities gave big-box stores deed restrictions as a way to prevent competition from other brick and mortar stores.

So I wouldn't give Amazon or big-box stores so much credit for their own success. It's the gross incompetence of city planners that has been destroying small business for decades.

Re:Amazon

[serviscope_minor]

Amazon was pretty much uninvolved with any of that.

No,but amazon was involved of abuse of the tax system. Inter state VAT in the EU was originally charged at the local rate, which made it super easy to do business, because you didn't need to know everyone else's rules, just sell abroad like you sell locally. So Amazon set up shop in Luxembourg and sold Europe wide on a massive scale, undercutting bricks and mortar stores which have to charge VAT at local rates.

Eventually the EU clamped down on it and funnily enough, Amazon are no longer the cheapest on a lot of stuff. I don't buy from amazon on principle, but they come up in a lot of searches, so I'm reasonably aware of the prices. So turns out their secret sauce wasn't funky software, crazy warehousing systems and worker abuse, it was just large scale tax avoidance!

Anyway thanks to them we now have the abomination known as VATMOSS. Nice of the EU to not bother to exempt small businesses.

Anyway, I gather much the same sort of thing happened in the US with sales taxes. I don't know what the outcome has been however.

Re:Amazon

[mjr167]

Amazon never won out cause of tax. Amazon charges tax now, and I still buy stuff from them instead of my local stores. Because Amazon has what I want when I want it. I once tried to buy a book from a local book store. They didn't have it, but would order it for me. It was going to take them two weeks to get it and cost around $15. Amazon had the book for $10 with two day shipping.

Re:Amazon

[shbazjinkens]

You're right, but some specialty shops hung around because Wal-Mart and the mall didn't ever supply huge selections of niche materials like tools, hobby aircraft, knitting supplies, etc etc etc. The internet in general is responsible for the disappearance of lots of small niche businesses, but Amazon most of all because it's a central place where you can buy everything on a scale that Wal-Mart never imagined.

Re:Amazon

[serviscope_minor]

I once tried to buy a book from a local book store.

You know there's a whole lot else other than your local store and amazon. Other online retailers for example. Amazon's large scale tax avoidance hurt the other online retailers who were smaller and operated out of a sensible country.

It's also got much *much* worse for non book things (where they don't have a stranglehold over the suppliers). I recently found an item that was HALF the price from a bricks and mortar store in central London (just off Oxford Circus). Half the price, and available same day.

Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[Anonymous Coward]

The new companies are getting the breaks largely because the old guard is not willing to move with the times and change their service to match user expectations. They want the old days back, and refuse to evolve. It's just like the Big Music establishment, the same dinosaur mentality.

The taxi establishment could trivially out-compete Uber if they wanted to, even with their slightly higher costs owing to city regulations, because they have a vast infrastructure already in place and would merely need to add new mechanisms of customer acquisition and travel-destination choices, smartphone apps and so on.

But they're choosing not to do so, and instead are trying to hold onto the past through litigation. It's no surprise that they get no sympathy.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[gumbi west]

You understand nothing about this situation. NYC taxis do exactly one thing, hailed rides. If you want dispatching, you call a "car service" that costs less than the cab. The reality is that before cell phones and smart phones dispatched cars were just vastly inferior and so weren't that numerous. Now they aren't that bad to use.

The only real regulation that is a pain for the cabs is that a medallion costs about $12/hour (in rent). They are there to keep the number of cars on the street at the correct level. Soon, they will have to be applied to dispatched cars and then uber will enter a new world.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[tompaulco]

Taxi companies can't just "do what uber does" because that would be illegal. They can't bid rides out and change prices during "peak pricing" because prices are regulated. They can't offer a price in advance because pricing is regulated by the mile and they do not know in advance what route they will end up taking. It is not the taxi companies that would have to change to compete with Uber, it would require the regulations to change to allow what Uber is doing to be legal, and then the cab companies could follow suit and shortly after would probably put Uber out of business.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[Anonymous Coward]

NYC taxis do exactly one thing, hailed rides. If you want dispatching, you call a "car service" that costs less than the cab.

If NYC taxis do only one thing as a service, hailed rides, then they can't complain about a completely different operation like Uber which is not providing their service at all. Hailed rides is a completely different business, and they have it all to themselves. It's not like the people needing transport actually belong to them. They're free to use whatever kind of service they like.

What the taxi business is really complaining about is that many of the people who previously hailed a taxi are now using a new type of Internet-dispatched self-service, and so there are fewer people hailing rides on the street or phoning a taxi dispatcher. Well tough shit, times change.

I guess the horse buggy operators felt exactly the same way when motorized transport appeared and took part of their custom away. Well tough shit, times change.

The only part of the complaint that has merit is lack of consumer protection in the new rides. Don't worry, that will come and it will come fast, as soon as girls start disappearing after taking unregulated transport. The pushback will be ferocious and the new services will be regulated in nothing flat, at least in those jurisdictions where politicians occasionally do something useful, and banned in the rest.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[Jack Griffin]

Who gives a fuck about Taxi companies?
If taxi drivers simply swapped over to Uber, it would be win-win. Customers get imprvoed service, drivers keep their jobs, and fuckwits who imposed the shitty taxi services on us for decades go bankrupt.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[pinzvidz]

No, no, no, we don't want smelly taxi drivers who don't have a fucking clue where they're going to switch across to Uber.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[Anonymous Coward]

Certain destinations come with a set fair, often times to-from airports to city centres. But in exchange for regulated pricing (designed to give operators a fair chance at earning a living), taxis are granted the ability to pick people up on the streets, and taxi-stands (created by municipalities and private businesses at no cost to the taxis) which gives them a greater opportunity to earn. Limo services also often use these stands to wait for free because they are often owned by the taxi companies.

Uber drivers don't get that luxury, and if nobody is online, they don't get rides. So there is some equality that people seem to miss out on when they claim that Uber is unfairly operating.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[jratcliffe]

If you want dispatching, you call a "car service" that costs less than the cab.

You mean more than the cab. Black car services are more expensive than regular taxis.

The reality is that before cell phones and smart phones dispatched cars were just vastly inferior and so weren't that numerous.

The services were vastly superior to cabs (Town Cars vs. cramped taxis, better drivers, no partitions, etc.), but they did require that you called a car service, so there was more of a lead time.

Re:Taxi establishment digging its own grave

[jratcliffe]

Uber doesn't fix a price in advance, they bill by the minute and the mile, just like the cabs do.

Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[slimjim8094]

In NYC the Taxi and Limousine Commision regulates... taxis and limos. Taxis are hailed and can't be called, and limos are called and can't be hailed. You can't carry passengers for hire without being one or the other.

For years and years this has been the case. You'd "dial 7" or "dial 6" or whatever and the "black car" (technically a limo, but to distinguish from the yellow taxis) would come pick you up.

So Uber shows up and the T&LC goes "Great! Another black car company! Fill out this paperwork and you're all set". All the drivers are licensed limo drivers and all the cars have T&LC plates on them. You just use an app instead of a phone call. In competition a lot of the black car companies have put out their own apps that do the same things.

I guess this is different than most cities, where I understand Uber drivers are less stringently licensed and their vehicles are not specifically registered...? Seems like a fairly reasonable system actually and I wonder why more cities don't adopt it. It solves the "problem" of Uber nicely. There's a lot of complaining about Uber in NYC but don't see what all the fuss is about - was anybody complaining about the other black car companies?

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Dynedain]

The complaints and lawsuits aren't about the Uber Black and above service tiers which you rightly identify as legally licensed livery services.

The complaints are about the low-cost tiers which are essentially the same thing as Lyft. Unlicensed individuals selling rides for hire through Uber as a booking agent. The drivers and vehicles aren't licensed as limos or taxis, and the cars don't have the special plates or stickers. Uber is taking a cut and claiming it's OK because there's no licenses required for dispatchers. According to Uber it's the individual drivers who are breaking the law and that they are independent contractors. It's a nice huge legal grey area that's unregulated.

Same thing about Air B&B. There's a service gap between "loan my apartment to a friend while I'm out of town in exchange for a few bucks" and hotels. The companies that have used technology to insert themselves in this gap as a middleman have facilitated a lot of abuse of the legal grey areas. Where do you draw the line between renting, hoteling, and sharing? It's easy to identify the extremes that are clearly abuse, but very hard to draw clear delineators that trigger different regulations.

How do you draw the line between carpooling, ride sharing, and operating a taxi?

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: the driver takes money (above cost) for the ride.

The real trouble with NYC's taxi system is the medallion system which limits the supply of taxis. (Note that driver licensing/regulation is separate from the medallions.)

I wouldn't mind it so much if the same people who favor the medallion to "protect jobs" also won't restrict visa workers or illegal immigrants to protect everyone else.

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The point of medallions isn't to protect jobs. It's to try to control the number of cars driving around looking for a fare. and clogging up the street.

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Anonymous Coward]

well since the number of people in NYC needing rides is not increasing dramatically, then the number of cars on the street won't increase much. So your clogging the street comment is moot. It will simply bee Uber giving customers a better experience for less of a price. Win-win-loseforthecabbies.

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[jratcliffe]

The complaints are about the low-cost tiers which are essentially the same thing as Lyft. Unlicensed individuals selling rides for hire through Uber as a booking agent. The drivers and vehicles aren't licensed as limos or taxis, and the cars don't have the special plates or stickers.

Except, in NYC, the low-cost tier (Uber X) IS licensed as limos, with drivers with Taxi and Limo Commission licenses, and vehicles with the special TLC plates. The only difference between Uber X and Uber Black in NYC is that Uber Black has nicer cars (think Escalades vs. Camrys). This is a big difference between NYC and the rest of the country. NYC doesn't have the "Bob and his Chevy working for a couple hours driving people around" aspect.

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Holi]

Back before the Medallion system, cabs actually clogged the roads in NYC making it difficult for emergency vehicles to move around. It is in fact the whole reason for the medallion system. And they do increase the number of medallions when needed, in 2009 the number of medallion was increased to 13,237 from 11,920.

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Holi]

I have made the opposite argument in the past, and I was wrong. In NYC it seems Uber is following the TLC regulations/

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[Dynedain]

So any random schmoe in NYC who wants to drive for Uber or Lift is actually getting the much more expensive TLC plates? I don't buy that. Next time you see a pink mustache check the plates.

Re:Uber in NYC *is* regulated.`

[jratcliffe]

That's exactly what they're doing. Since NYC has a very well established set of infrastructure for handling so-called black car services (and a lot fewer lower-income people who happen to own cars), Uber decided to just fit themselves into that.

Programmers sue Offshore Consulting Agencies

[deodiaus2]

The offshore consulting agencies and their cohorts, large businesses which employee engineers conspire against hard working programmer who have honed their skills and handicraft only to see the market flooded by cheap offshore agencies. Furthermore, most of these head hunters are now staffed with former low paid consultants brought to this country under the dream of making it big one day.

But uber is bitcoin only

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how a bitcoin-only system like Uber can win over the traditional taxis.

Re:But uber is bitcoin only

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Uber happily charges my AMEX card.

Wagon of Fools

[wisnoskij]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Re:less uber hype,more anti regulation support ple

[ZipK]

Uber and its peers have significantly improved the experience of per-ride paid transportation:

- Hail by app.
- Identify the car and driver that will pick you up.
- Track the car as it comes to pick you up.
- Price estimate from the company before you get in the car.
- Pay by pre-registered credit card.
- Provide feedback to company and other customers.

These items improve upon calling a dispatcher who may or may not answer, having an unidentified car sent to pick you up. having no idea where the car is or whether it will actually arrive, not knowing the price until your trip is complete (and having to haggle with drivers who add extra fees that may or may not apply to your trip), finding a taxi's credit card reader "broken," and not being able to hold drivers accountable for the condition of their car or the quality of their service.

liability and insurance are the big ones also labo

[Joe_Dragon]

liability and insurance are the big ones also labor laws.

The taxi company's may abuse the labor laws. But they have full liability for accidents lift and uber look for loops holes even when a 6-year-old girl is killed by a uber driver that is on duty but uber has there system setup so they are not in there book.

Cabs Are Heavily Regulated

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not too much to ask for the new player to face the same regulation. This doesn't have to be a death sentence to either party. If they were brought into the regulation, than they could both compete fairly, and we'd see which one offered the better product.

No pity for the medallions.

[Anonymous Coward]

I might actually feel badly for the medallions... except for the fact that there are many areas where hailing a cab is next to impossible and, even then, if you need to get off of Manhattan they will simply refuse the fare unless you've managed to wedge yourself into the car first.

If the yellow cabs were more accessible, cleaner and more professional I don't think Uber would even be a question given the higher price. When someone is willing to spend more money for a different product that should tell you something about your own business. The way to fix that isn't suing people... It's just doing a good job and providing a superior product.

Re:liability and insurance are the big ones also l

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Pay/Fares - Uber drivers are paid a commission. Approximately 20% of the fare charged by Uber is kept by Uber, the driver receives the rest at the end of the week, along with a detailed statement (ie a paycheque). No money changes hands with riders, which reduces costs and increases security. This method also removes the option of "give me $20 cash and I'll take you there, no meter..." and provides a trail of the money flow. This puts the onus on the drivers to report the income to the proper tax agencies to avoid audits and prosecution. The onus IS on the drivers, so some will try to flout the rules, just as the taxi driver puts the $20 in his pocket or the server at a restaurant pockets the cash tips. However, only the stupid ones will, given the attention that the agencies are showing Uber.

2: Insurance - In the event of an accident, the passengers and the community are insured by Uber NOT the driver. Where I drive, Uber carries liability insurance 2.5x what the taxi industry is regulated to. The driver and the car are insured by the driver's insurance. If the driver doesn't have commercial insurance (I do) then he opens himself up to risk of non-coverage if the insurance company wants to try to not pay. But that has nothing to do with the passengers, nor the community. Basically, I could drive my car through a bus shelter and then crash into a bus. If I have passengers, Uber pays for the liability. If I don't have passengers, then my insurance pays for the liability just as it would for any driver in a normal non-Uber scenario. Again, since this is the media/taxi-industry's favorite FUD item.

To be clear: UBER (not the driver of an Uber car) CARRIES LIABILITY INSURANCE ON THE PASSENGERS, AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE INSURANCE OF THE DRIVER HAS NO BEARING ON THE OUTCOME FOR THE PASSENGERS IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. THEY WILL CARRY AT LEAST MINIMUM REQUIRED OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY IN THE MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE, AND WILL OFTEN TIMES CARRY HIGHER LEVELS.

Hopefully this truth will educate the naysayers that like to parrot media FUD and make this fallacy go away finally. Maybe I need to put some "!!!!11!1!ZOMG" in it to get people's attention?

3: Criminal records check - it is done before I am even accepted by Uber to be a driver, and it is done to the same extent as me volunteering at a school. The same records and processes are followed with the exception that it is not handled directly by me, nor do I have to pay anything.

4: Safety - Uber requires that their driver's cars be inspected annually (and will prevent drivers from being able to go online and use the car), and to the same standards as any safety check. The garage has to sign off on the inspection, and by doing so, they are just as liable should there be a mechanical issue that can't reasonably be put down to wear and tear since the last inspection.

Source: I am a part-time Uber driver in a Canadian city in Ontario, one which probably has the most anti-Uber taxi regulations on the books, having been revised 4 months prior to Uber beginning operations in this city. For the record, I have a 4.86 star rating currently, my car is a 2014 and I carry commercial insurance because I use my car in my day job too. I average about 6-7 hours, two nights every second week. I am honestly having a blast doing it and not a single passenger of mine has said that they will ever go back to taxis, and it's all because of the service.

If I you have passengers is the coverage hole

[Joe_Dragon]

If I you have passengers is the coverage hole that real taxis have.

Non Uber ones are covered when they are going from the depot to there work zone, on the clock waiting for a fair, hired on there way to a fair, sitting in a taxi waiting zone, after a fair going back to there work zone / waiting area (manly airport cabs that drop people off and then drive back with out a fair), end of day back to the depot.

Re:If I you have passengers is the coverage hole

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss this part?

The driver and the car are insured by the driver's insurance. If the driver doesn't have commercial insurance (I do) then he opens himself up to risk of non-coverage if the insurance company wants to try to not pay. But that has nothing to do with the passengers, nor the community.

It's called "reading comprehension"

My employer doesn't insure my car while I drive to work either.

For me: GPS is the killer feature

[noldrin]

I don't know about NYC cabs specifically, but everywhere I go, traditional cabs don't use GPS. So instead of sitting back and relaxing, I have to play navigator to the guy driving the cab. This is interesting in locations I've never been. I give the address, and the drivers asks me which highway to take. How am I suppose to know? I end up using my phone's GPS just so the driver can go where I need.

Now you can run into problems with Uber when they are relying on GPS to get places somewhere like Boston, and the major roads are underground and the buildings can interfere with signal. You'd think someone driving Uber would at least know where the major sports arenas are located, but I guess not. Anyways, an experienced cab drivers, with GPS, who I could hail from my phone, would be my goto service, regardless of all but extreme pricing differences. Boston cabs wouldn't even take credit cards till Uber (and some even still use carbon paper to do so) so they still have a long ways to go to catch up.

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates antivirus that I overturned on false positives (1/8 over time) were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap too) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> Con't in part #3/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates antivirus that I overturned on false positives (1/8 over time) were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap too) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> Con't in part #3/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it?

Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

---

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt! You did it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

"the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

"maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

"I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

Childish sigs = all you've got!

"I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

&

"You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

&

"I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

"written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

You're 30++ & haven't done either!

Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

APK

P.S.=>

"I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

You PROVED I am... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

+ how to migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

"figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

---

"it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it!

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

---

"Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Mine doesn't to get new data to update hosts vs. threats. Only hosts itself updates need it vs. WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

---

"90's tech to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

"I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #2/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it?

Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

---

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt! You did it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

LOL People called UBER fool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are people with the word "Uber" in their names, as you can probably tell from the fact the rest of their names are largely (all?) Germanic. Epic fail!

I win again - APK.