I am writing this from 30,000 feet on my way to San Francisco. I have a great car service which I use every week when I travel. This morning, I ended up having a long conversation with Reda, one of my regular drivers, about Uber and how it's shaking up the taxi and car service business. For some reason, I've always loved talking to taxi drivers about how the business operates. It's a fascinating and often surprising lanscape, consisting of regulators (the city), fleet operators, vendors (for example VeriFone, CMT, and now new entrants like Square and to some extent, Uber), drivers -- who are sometimes employees of fleets and sometimes independent entrepreneurs, customers of various stripes, etc. I think the reason I'm fascinated by taxis is two-fold: 1) it's a hugely important part of the fabric of cities. Ubiquitous, reliable cars for hire are a big part of what make dense, urban living possible. While some urbanists and environmentalists may dislike taxis in favor of other forms of public transit, I have always been a huge fan of taxis as a part of the public transit (i.e., non-private car) ecosystem, for how usable they make the city. Taxis use can also
I am writing this from 30,000 feet on my way to San Francisco. I have a great car service which I use every week when I travel. This morning, I ended up having a long conversation with Reda, one of my regular drivers, about Uber and how it's shaking up the taxi and car service business. For some reason, I've always loved talking to taxi drivers about how the business operates. It's a fascinating and often surprising lanscape, consisting of regulators (the city), fleet operators, vendors (for example VeriFone, CMT, and now new entrants like Square and to some extent, Uber), drivers -- who are sometimes employees of fleets and sometimes independent entrepreneurs, customers of various stripes, etc. I think the reason I'm fascinated by taxis is two-fold: 1) it's a hugely important part of the fabric of cities. Ubiquitous, reliable cars for hire are a big part of what make dense, urban living possible. While some urbanists and environmentalists may dislike taxis in favor of other forms of public transit, I have always been a huge fan of taxis as a part of the public transit (i.e., non-private car) ecosystem, for how usable they make the city. Taxis use can also
show us a lot about how our cities work
. And 2) taxis have always been a big part of the american dream. For some reason (and I'm not exactly sure what that is), driving a taxi provides a certain path to employment, and often times to entrepreneurship -- maybe in reality this is on par with other careers, and perhaps it's just a more visible one, I'm not sure. My dad drove a NYC taxi in the 1970s, and I've always been proud of that. My wife's grandfather represented cab companies in Boston through his whole career as a lawyer and has endless tales of drama from that experience. So anyway, I think taxis are fascinating, and the industry has seen a lot of change in recent years. When NYC introduced (mandatory) pay-by-credit-card a few years ago, along w/ GPS tracking I had lots of conversations about how drivers felt about that (initial displeasure w/ both the cards and GPS - but ultimately appreciation for pay-by-card as tips skyrocketed). When NYC introduced new medallions for hybrid cars, I asked a lot of questions about that. All of these changes have raised questions about power, control, and opportunity in the industry. For example, in Boston, the payment processors in taxis take 6% of every transaction -- there is some speculation that this fee is artificially high due to coordination among the operators, city and the vendors. By contrast, Square takes 2.7% (plus some flat fees, I think), and many of the livery services use that. Uber takes a 20% cut, which includes a tip for the driver. Uber has shaken things up the most, as it blurs the line between "street hails" & metered rides (typically the purview of medallioned taxis) and dispatched pickups / fixed-price rides (typically the purview of car services / limos). Uber also shakes up the role of car service dispatchers, which has traditionally been very local. If you haven't been following, the entrance of Uber into American cities has caused a major stir, triggering legislative battles and lawsuits in
. In nearly every case so far, Uber has prevailed -- often times enlisting their passionate userbase to come to their defense. But it's still the case that Uber operates in a legal gray area, that tests our assumptions and beliefs about the value and necessity of regulation. Not surprisingly, the tech community is solidly behind Uber in this effort. When the DC City Council introduces an amendment specifically targeting Uber, TechCrunch (in what seems to be an unusual act of advocacy)
. Epic internet investor Paul Graham recently tweeted (with 850 retweets and 250 favorites): [tweet https://twitter.com/paulg/status/222462460978937856] David Alpert, proprietor of Greater Greater Washington, former Googler, and urban & transportation policy wonk,
outlining the clash of philosophies at work here, calling it a tension between the "permission model" (regulation and permission to operate in a certain way up front) and the "innovation model" (freedom to operate up front until you cause harm). His post, in my opinion, totally nails it: if companies like Uber can offer a service that customers
and drivers
want, and that uses competition to improve the industry overall, then we should encourage that. Though he points out an important wrinkle:
taxis are a regulated industry today. An innovation model might be better, but most taxis don't operate on one. It is indeed unfair to put a lot of regulations on one group of businesses in a space (the traditional taxis) and none on others (Uber).
That is a fascinating and somewhat hard problem, at least in the short term. So anyway, all that is to say: it's clear that Uber (and similar innovations) are better for customers (more reliable, more convenient service), and that they are threatening to regulators (loss of control / medallion revenue) and to incumbent dispatchers (routing around them). My big question is still how drivers feel about it. So this morning, I asked Reda how he felt about Uber -- and in particular, how he thinks drivers like it. His response was that he doesn't personally use it (he has plenty of business as it is), but his brother (also a driver with his company) uses it and likes it a lot. And that, in general, he feels like the regulators, fleet owners, and monopoly payment providers are generally involved in a coordinated scam to pad their pockets. If this is the case (and it's been supported by other drivers) My feeling, on the whole, is that we should support solutions that benefit two primary groups: producers and consumers, and get out of the business of protecting the intermediaries of the past. In the case of Uber, if it works for drivers and it works for riders, great. Of course, I -- like other folks working in tech -- are on the side of the intermediaries of the future (internet companies). But I would of course support a future that was even more disintermediated, open and efficient (for more on this, see Eben Moglen's great talk on Innovation Under Austerity). But to make this approach, it's critical that networks -- the intermediaries of the future -- take steps to distribute the value they create throughout the community (not just at the center), in order to create long-term, sustainable ecosystems (for instance, the way Etsy has established itself as a B Corporation). That's why I'm particularly interested in how the producers -- in this case taxi drivers themselves -- see the emergence of these new platforms, and why I'll keep on asking them.
One of the things I've learned over the past few months is that the fight for the future is being fought on many, many fronts -- and these fights take all shapes and sizes, and are constantly shifting and re-forming. Here are a few that are hot this week -- each of which will be really interesting to follow, to see how the surrounding activism and political maneuvering plays out: 1) Wikipedia Russia is blacked out today, to protest legislation that would increase government control over the Internet.
The bill, due to be considered by parliament on Wednesday, "will lead to the creation of a Russian analogue to China's Great Firewall" the website warned in a statement. The bill calls for the creation of a federal website "no" list and would have to be signed into law by Putin before coming into effect. Internet providers and site owners would be forced to shut down websites put on the list. The bill's backers, from Putin's United Russia party, argue that the amendments to the country's information legislation would target child pornography and sites that promote drug use and teen suicide. But critics, including Russian-language Wikipedia, warned that it could be used to boost government censorship over the internet. The Russian justice ministry already maintains a register of more than 1,000 sites that have been deemed "extremist" and ordered to be shut down. The bill appears to realise opposition activists' biggest fear – that a platform that has remained relatively free has become the target of Kremlin ire.
show us a lot about how our cities work
. And 2) taxis have always been a big part of the american dream. For some reason (and I'm not exactly sure what that is), driving a taxi provides a certain path to employment, and often times to entrepreneurship -- maybe in reality this is on par with other careers, and perhaps it's just a more visible one, I'm not sure. My dad drove a NYC taxi in the 1970s, and I've always been proud of that. My wife's grandfather represented cab companies in Boston through his whole career as a lawyer and has endless tales of drama from that experience. So anyway, I think taxis are fascinating, and the industry has seen a lot of change in recent years. When NYC introduced (mandatory) pay-by-credit-card a few years ago, along w/ GPS tracking I had lots of conversations about how drivers felt about that (initial displeasure w/ both the cards and GPS - but ultimately appreciation for pay-by-card as tips skyrocketed). When NYC introduced new medallions for hybrid cars, I asked a lot of questions about that. All of these changes have raised questions about power, control, and opportunity in the industry. For example, in Boston, the payment processors in taxis take 6% of every transaction -- there is some speculation that this fee is artificially high due to coordination among the operators, city and the vendors. By contrast, Square takes 2.7% (plus some flat fees, I think), and many of the livery services use that. Uber takes a 20% cut, which includes a tip for the driver. Uber has shaken things up the most, as it blurs the line between "street hails" & metered rides (typically the purview of medallioned taxis) and dispatched pickups / fixed-price rides (typically the purview of car services / limos). Uber also shakes up the role of car service dispatchers, which has traditionally been very local. If you haven't been following, the entrance of Uber into American cities has caused a major stir, triggering legislative battles and lawsuits in
. In nearly every case so far, Uber has prevailed -- often times enlisting their passionate userbase to come to their defense. But it's still the case that Uber operates in a legal gray area, that tests our assumptions and beliefs about the value and necessity of regulation. Not surprisingly, the tech community is solidly behind Uber in this effort. When the DC City Council introduces an amendment specifically targeting Uber, TechCrunch (in what seems to be an unusual act of advocacy)
. Epic internet investor Paul Graham recently tweeted (with 850 retweets and 250 favorites): [tweet https://twitter.com/paulg/status/222462460978937856] David Alpert, proprietor of Greater Greater Washington, former Googler, and urban & transportation policy wonk,
outlining the clash of philosophies at work here, calling it a tension between the "permission model" (regulation and permission to operate in a certain way up front) and the "innovation model" (freedom to operate up front until you cause harm). His post, in my opinion, totally nails it: if companies like Uber can offer a service that customers
and drivers
want, and that uses competition to improve the industry overall, then we should encourage that. Though he points out an important wrinkle:
taxis are a regulated industry today. An innovation model might be better, but most taxis don't operate on one. It is indeed unfair to put a lot of regulations on one group of businesses in a space (the traditional taxis) and none on others (Uber).
That is a fascinating and somewhat hard problem, at least in the short term. So anyway, all that is to say: it's clear that Uber (and similar innovations) are better for customers (more reliable, more convenient service), and that they are threatening to regulators (loss of control / medallion revenue) and to incumbent dispatchers (routing around them). My big question is still how drivers feel about it. So this morning, I asked Reda how he felt about Uber -- and in particular, how he thinks drivers like it. His response was that he doesn't personally use it (he has plenty of business as it is), but his brother (also a driver with his company) uses it and likes it a lot. And that, in general, he feels like the regulators, fleet owners, and monopoly payment providers are generally involved in a coordinated scam to pad their pockets. If this is the case (and it's been supported by other drivers) My feeling, on the whole, is that we should support solutions that benefit two primary groups: producers and consumers, and get out of the business of protecting the intermediaries of the past. In the case of Uber, if it works for drivers and it works for riders, great. Of course, I -- like other folks working in tech -- are on the side of the intermediaries of the future (internet companies). But I would of course support a future that was even more disintermediated, open and efficient (for more on this, see Eben Moglen's great talk on Innovation Under Austerity). But to make this approach, it's critical that networks -- the intermediaries of the future -- take steps to distribute the value they create throughout the community (not just at the center), in order to create long-term, sustainable ecosystems (for instance, the way Etsy has established itself as a B Corporation). That's why I'm particularly interested in how the producers -- in this case taxi drivers themselves -- see the emergence of these new platforms, and why I'll keep on asking them.
One of the things I've learned over the past few months is that the fight for the future is being fought on many, many fronts -- and these fights take all shapes and sizes, and are constantly shifting and re-forming. Here are a few that are hot this week -- each of which will be really interesting to follow, to see how the surrounding activism and political maneuvering plays out: 1) Wikipedia Russia is blacked out today, to protest legislation that would increase government control over the Internet.
The bill, due to be considered by parliament on Wednesday, "will lead to the creation of a Russian analogue to China's Great Firewall" the website warned in a statement. The bill calls for the creation of a federal website "no" list and would have to be signed into law by Putin before coming into effect. Internet providers and site owners would be forced to shut down websites put on the list. The bill's backers, from Putin's United Russia party, argue that the amendments to the country's information legislation would target child pornography and sites that promote drug use and teen suicide. But critics, including Russian-language Wikipedia, warned that it could be used to boost government censorship over the internet. The Russian justice ministry already maintains a register of more than 1,000 sites that have been deemed "extremist" and ordered to be shut down. The bill appears to realise opposition activists' biggest fear – that a platform that has remained relatively free has become the target of Kremlin ire.
Without question, the situation in Russia is absolutely about censorship, and is pivotal from a human rights perspective.
With Russia's main state television channels under the control of the government, and its few free newspapers unable to be distributed across a vast country with poor infrastructure, the internet has become a growing source of free information. Until now, the Kremlin has limited its attempt to control the internet to paying commenters affiliated with youth group Nashi to leave pro-government comments on critical websites, according to thousands of emails leaked by the Russian arm of Anonymous earlier this year. Blogs and social networks have been key to organising the mass street protests that have swept Moscow since Putin announced he was returning to the presidency late last year.
Will a SOPA-style blackout in Russia (though much smaller) be effective? 2) The Washington DC City Council has introduced an "Uber Amendment" that would force Uber out of competition with city taxis through pricing requirements.
While this is clearly in a whole different ballpark than the Russia situation, it's similarly about using policy to clamp down on new, networked, web-enabled ways of doing things. It's also another case study in web activism -- TechCrunch's coverage has the specifics, and also includes a series of opportunities for readers to speak up to DC commissioners. Apparently Uber is launching its own campaign, which I'll be looking to follow. 3) SOPA in bits and pieces, act one.
As is to be expected, we're starting to see the zombie children of SOPA / PIPA appear in bite sized pieces. At bat this week, Lamar Smith is drafting legislation to expand the role of "IP Attaches" to the US government. Mike Masnick at Techdirt covers the the latest act here: From the Techdirt coverage:
The specifics of the bill appear to go further than the version in SOPA. It is clear that the bill itself is framed from the maximalist perspective. There is nothing about the rights of the public, or of other countries to design their own IP regimes. It notes that the role of the attaches is: to advance the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licensees; The bill also "elevates" the IP attaches out of the US Patent and Trademark Office, and sets them up as their own agency, including a new role: the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Yes, we'll get another IP Czar, this time focused in the Commerce Department. When even the USTR is recognizing the importance of limitations and exceptions to copyright, to have Congress push a bill that basically ignores limitations and exceptions and only looks to expand Hollywood's special thugs within the diplomatic corp. seems like a huge problem.
Of course, there are many, many, many more - small and large, local, national and international. To me, all of this goes to show that while the Internet demonstrated amazing power with SOPA/PIPA, it is a different kind of challenge when things are wide ranging, small, and diffuse.
Without question, the situation in Russia is absolutely about censorship, and is pivotal from a human rights perspective.
With Russia's main state television channels under the control of the government, and its few free newspapers unable to be distributed across a vast country with poor infrastructure, the internet has become a growing source of free information. Until now, the Kremlin has limited its attempt to control the internet to paying commenters affiliated with youth group Nashi to leave pro-government comments on critical websites, according to thousands of emails leaked by the Russian arm of Anonymous earlier this year. Blogs and social networks have been key to organising the mass street protests that have swept Moscow since Putin announced he was returning to the presidency late last year.
Will a SOPA-style blackout in Russia (though much smaller) be effective? 2) The Washington DC City Council has introduced an "Uber Amendment" that would force Uber out of competition with city taxis through pricing requirements.
While this is clearly in a whole different ballpark than the Russia situation, it's similarly about using policy to clamp down on new, networked, web-enabled ways of doing things. It's also another case study in web activism -- TechCrunch's coverage has the specifics, and also includes a series of opportunities for readers to speak up to DC commissioners. Apparently Uber is launching its own campaign, which I'll be looking to follow. 3) SOPA in bits and pieces, act one.
As is to be expected, we're starting to see the zombie children of SOPA / PIPA appear in bite sized pieces. At bat this week, Lamar Smith is drafting legislation to expand the role of "IP Attaches" to the US government. Mike Masnick at Techdirt covers the the latest act here: From the Techdirt coverage:
The specifics of the bill appear to go further than the version in SOPA. It is clear that the bill itself is framed from the maximalist perspective. There is nothing about the rights of the public, or of other countries to design their own IP regimes. It notes that the role of the attaches is: to advance the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licensees; The bill also "elevates" the IP attaches out of the US Patent and Trademark Office, and sets them up as their own agency, including a new role: the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Yes, we'll get another IP Czar, this time focused in the Commerce Department. When even the USTR is recognizing the importance of limitations and exceptions to copyright, to have Congress push a bill that basically ignores limitations and exceptions and only looks to expand Hollywood's special thugs within the diplomatic corp. seems like a huge problem.
Of course, there are many, many, many more - small and large, local, national and international. To me, all of this goes to show that while the Internet demonstrated amazing power with SOPA/PIPA, it is a different kind of challenge when things are wide ranging, small, and diffuse.
