[mc32]

This is the perfect time for an upstart to provide a service which does conform with city regulation and it or they will be able to swoop in when or if other cities institute similar requirements to the dismay of the incumbents.

[kodablah]

I'm hoping for the opposite. I am hoping that the voters who wanted the extra regulation (or just wanted to spite Uber/Lyft out of anger towards their campaign practices) receive sub par service. As a counterbalance, sometimes it's good that there are consequences to added regulation that makes businesses want to cease operations (regardless of who is "right" here).

[rat87]

I'm hoping that other cities start regulating uber/lyft and they are forced to stop whining, and come back/follow the law because of the money they lose.

sometimes it's good for there to be consequences

[schwap]

> I am hoping that the voters who wanted the extra regulation ... receive sub par service.

Why?

[kodablah]

To encourage compromise in other areas of the country/world where citizens and voters often think there is no downside to adding regulation. So I guess in a precedent-setting way (unfortunately to the detriment of the minority that was against the additional regulations). Too often I feel locales make regulations, even if the majority of the citizens want them, that they feel have very little downside purely because they don't think companies are willing to leave.

As egregiously capitalistic as it may sound, I like that companies have to bend and so do consumers instead of either the company's leverage being too large or the government/citizens' leverage being too large. In the ride sharing space, I believe that Uber and Lyft have bent more than municipalities.

[MikeHolman]

It seems to me that Uber and Lyft have not bent much. From my (maybe ignorant) perspective it looks like their entire practice is to completely ignore all the laws about taxi regulations until a city threatens to kick them out, by which point they have enough leverage to change the laws in their favor.

Only this time they played chicken and lost the battle.

[EdHominem]

Considering that the government wants them to buy taxi medallions at $0.5M each, there isn't a lot of bending they can do.

Everything else is a smoke screen over the issue of losing medallion sales.

What people forget during these discussions is that this is not free money for the city, it's money out of every rider's pocket for an overpriced service, some small percentage of which trickles down to the city.

As for the battle, Uber is busily serving people elsewhere while Austin is stuck with cabs. The people of Austin are the losers in this.

[mc32]

Ok. That's not an issue. Sometimes we vote against our self interest (tax increase, equality, etc.) It's okay.

[wccrawford]

I don't see either of those as being against self-interest. It's just a broader outlook on things.

If you think paying taxes is anti-self, you haven't thought much about what would happen if nobody paid taxes.

If you think equality is anti-self, you haven't thought much about the future when you might very well become a minority.

And that's ignoring the piece of mind you get from knowing you're doing the right and just thing, instead of being selfish.

[mc32]

So... People who pay taxes are being selfish? And people who propose and endorse equality are selfish, really?

Usually people who want to avoid taxes the most are those who have to pay the most.

No, I think people who seek equality are people who are selfless and try to see beyond differences. Same for people willing to pay _more_ than their fair share of the tax burden.

[asquabventured]

Perfect! More bifurcation in the industry due to regulatory overreach. What a great time to be alive!

[mc32]

What? This is like saying requiring iodine created bifurcation in the salt industry? Salt, never the less is a commodity (exceptions for pink Himalayan salt, etc.) Taxi services are similar. Just for context, we used to have thousands of local taxi operations, so it's not like we don't have experience with bifurcation and further, these "platform" taxi services were an additional distinct bifurcation into the traditional industry.

[rodgerd]

So just to be clear you think the ideal outcome is a monopoly by Uber?

[briandear]

Better than the existing taxi monopoly. The taxi monopoly used regulation to support a monopoly. That's wrong. Less regulation means more competition. Re: ISPs.

[mc32]

But taxis are not a monopoly. There are thousands of cab companies. If you mean they were regulated into some kind of uniform service whose results were suboptimal, ok, but that's not what people tend to call a "monopoly".

[PKop]

What do the 995 taxi cab companies existing outside of my local area do for me if I want a ride? What does there existence have to do with the constraints of local supply?

It is a de facto monopoly within the confines of a metro area where competition is absolutely regulated and limited.

[mmcwilliams]

Saying that taxis, who are regulated through medallions, are a "monopoly" is like saying that bars are a monopoly because they are regulated by liquor licenses.

[mc32]

That does not equal a "monopoly" anymore than the sole coffee shop in a small town is a monopoly. When we make these equivalences, words lose their meanings.

[chillacy]

If the laws stay in effect long enough, I wouldn't be surprised if a local startup beats U/L to the punch by better servicing Austin. Same like how there's chinese versions of lots of banned internet services.

[rqebmm]

The problem is no serious competitor wants to try because of the specter of U/L deciding to comply and showing back up.

[WillAbides]

There is no shortage of people and companies trying. The trouble is that none of them have the operational experience to make it work.

[EdHominem]

You can't conform. The goal of the regulations isn't to make ridesharing safer, etc - it's to block competition from the government-backed monopoly.

If you do find a way to comply, expect more rules to be created with your name on them.