The disallowing internet apps seems dumb. Seriously, if I could flag a regular cab with a general purpose app that would be about 95% of the value of Uber to me.

I'm sort of baffled why someone like Yellow Cab doesn't just put out an app.

The use of Internet or cellular telephone software to calculate rates shall not be permitted unless such software complies with and conforms to the weights and measures standards.

Not disallowed just have to show your app is measuring properly.

Or just have the driver type in the fare manually from their meter?

At least here in Columbus, Yellow Cab does have an app for that: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id628065359?mt=8 or https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apcurium.M...

With all the crazy laws surrounding taxis and liveries, I wouldn't be surprised if an app like that is illegal in some municipalities.

It doesn't matter if it is an app or a phone call there is a culture in the Taxi industry of just ignoring calls for a pick-up in certain areas that they view negatively. Uber and Lyft don't discriminate like that.

You've obviously never tried to hail an Uber from a dodgy neighborhood in Boston then. It takes me twice as long to get picked up where I live, versus my girlfriend, and I generally have to go through a driver switch or two.

Well yeah it takes a little longer because drivers aren't going to hang out in that neighborhood. You do eventually get picked up though. My experience in Baltimore with taxis is that no amount of calling will get them to come to a part of town they don't like. Nothing is going to change the fact that it is a crappy part of town but the difference between no pick-up ever and pick-up with a small glitch is huge for a lot of people living around those areas.

Is a Uber or Lyft driver required to accept any pick-up?

No, but, they track acceptance % by drivers so a driver that is screening locations like that will put themselves at risk of being kicked off Uber. The expectation is that the acceptance % is very high and that once a fare is accepted it is 100% carried out. Also when they display a potential fare to a driver they only show an estimate of how far away it is in minutes and a very zoomed in map of the location so it is hard to even know where you are going to be headed exactly before you accept.

There is one: https://www.hailocab.com

That's pretty much what Hailo is. It's not yet as widespread as Uber though.

Introducing some consumer protection measures back into the Uber model may make sense, depending on how it is done. Writing into the law that the only way to ever provide any taxi service ever is exactly and only the exact way it is done today, by what today is de facto a cartel, does not make sense. Since this law is doing a bit of both, it's hard to give a snap summary of goodness or badness, but on the whole, I'd rather do nothing and wait a bit more for real problems to arise before I write into the legal code the impossibility of ever again innovating in the field of taxi-like transportation. (Especially with driverless cars metaphorically just around the corner. Whatever regulation may be desirable there, nobody's currently in a position to write it.)

It is not clear to me that Uber is a huge problem for anybody but an industry being disrupted yet, and that is not only not a crime, it's a feature of the system. (Feel free to correct me in replies, if you like; this is not a permanent state of mind. It really is not clear to me right now that Uber is a significant danger to anyone but existing taxi companies. I've heard a couple of anecdotes, but so far the taxi industry is well able to keep up with "anecdotes" of how they do bad things too, so calling it a "wash" would probably be doing the current incumbents a pretty big favor....)

The premise of these companies is essentially that one doesn't need licensing for drivers if the system keeps a reputation history. This bill makes that explicitly illegal. The companies will no longer be able to serve that jurisdiction.

Can you not keep a reputation history for drivers that have a license?

They're not referring to a drivers license here, which would be eminently sane. They're referring to taxi licenses, which are artificially restricted.

40-1-193. (a) No transportation referral service provider subject to this part shall contract with, utilize, or refer individuals or entities to limousine carriers or taxi services that are not properly licensed by the state or a political subdivision of this state, are not properly insured under state or local law, or which use drivers that are not properly licensed under state and local law to carry passengers for hire.

And it's worth pointing out that taxi licenses are really an artificial barrier to entry to keep existing taxi services safe. Atlanta's apparently costs a median 36,000, and in big cities like Boston or NYC, they can run into the hundreds of thousands.

These licenses aren't tied to a driver, rather they usually lease them from a managing company. Safety's got nothing to do with it.

(ref http://taxirisk.com/taxicab-facts-for-atlanta-georgia/)

Is the license the same thing as a medallion?

If they just want to ask someone to pass a test and/or background check, that seems fine. If they refuse to issue one because there is a limit, that works against consumers.

Not necessarily. NYC introduced medallions because a glut of taxis we're clogging vital infrastructure and nobody could make a profit, thus safety and maintenance were compromised. Capitalism does not produce the optimal outcome for consumers when externalities are not part of the equation.

At least here in New York, Uber cars are licensed as limos, not taxis. Taxi medallions are often artificially restricted, but I've never heard of limo licenses being capped.

You are correct. It is completely unreasonable to ask Uber to license there drivers like all of the other transportation services.

Exactly. And using unlicensed drivers is not Uber's one advantage over established taxi companies.

I too was surprised at Uber's tone. I mean, requiring commercial drivers to have a commercial insurance policy and ensuring that the measured rates are accurate as measured by a neutral 3rd party are only things that could help differentiate Uber's service. Plus, unless they have posted per-mile or per-hour livery rates, Uber's pitch as a private, centrally dispatched livery/transport service should make their pricing manipulations okay.

I actually almost hope this passes?

Uber always sends you an exact map of your route. You can verify the billing yourself or prove to a third party that the billing is miscalculated.

I'm with you on insurance and licensing, but "certified GPS billing" seems backward. Imagine the app is open source and people are not complaining about suspicious behaviour or billing patterns in the reputation ranking system -- why would this be necessary?

Would you buy gas at a pump that was not certified? Do you check to see if your pump was certified when you get gas? Would the rank and file consumer verify the routing measurements of an app or even know how or have the tools to accurately do so?