UberMoto Pitches Novel Solution to Lifting Ban: Change the Laws

[snoop1130]

UberMoto Pitches Novel Solution to Lifting Ban: Change the Laws
By Sasiwan Mokkhasen
Staff Reporter

Photo: Uber / Facebook

BANGKOK — Transportation officials said they need to deliberate further over legal amendments proposed by Uber which would allow its UberMoto taxis to roll out again.

Weeks after the on-demand motorcycle taxi service was banned in the country, authorities said Monday that the San Francisco-based company pitched its own fixes to regulations such as operating territory and registration.

Full Story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1465292563

-- Khaosod English 2016-06-07

[trogers]

All of a sudden those few hundred thousand baht motorcycle taxi jackets become worthless?

[Chang_paarp]

Looks like Uber has found the benefit of the cake box.

[Kasset Tak]

So many people around the world either hate or like Uber and other ride share apps/companies.
What I like about them is that they are usually cheaper then taking an ordinary taxi.
What I don't like about them is that they don't follow the rules and regulations that are set for ordinary taxis, Uber drivers don't have the insurances that an ordinary taxi must have and the companies don't take any social responsibility for the drivers as a taxi company must do by paying for social security and so on.

[denkiblue555]

All of a sudden those few hundred thousand baht motorcycle taxi jackets become worthless?

Who has motorcycle taxi jackets worth a "few hundred thousand baht" ?

[mike324]

All of a sudden those few hundred thousand baht motorcycle taxi jackets become worthless?

Who has motorcycle taxi jackets worth a "few hundred thousand baht" ?

moto drivers that ply the popular routes such as thonglor and silom to name a few....its no joke, they pay dearly to secure a spot to drive in prime locations...why? they can make upwards of 2000 baht day, cut out fix cost such as fuel,rent, etc, they still make from low to mid 1000s for popular routes

[Bob12345]

All of a sudden those few hundred thousand baht motorcycle taxi jackets become worthless?

Who has motorcycle taxi jackets worth a "few hundred thousand baht" ?

A few 100,000 baht jackets?

Or a few hundred of these 1000-baht jackets?

Not sure what the average going rate for the motorcycle jackets is, but 1000 baht per month doesn't sound to strange (it sounds "way too cheap" actually).

And in Bangkok alone there must be over a thousand of these guys working.

The money is going somewhere, and they won't be happy.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Bob12345

[mike324]

All of a sudden those few hundred thousand baht motorcycle taxi jackets become worthless?

Who has motorcycle taxi jackets worth a "few hundred thousand baht" ?

A few 100,000 baht jackets?

Or a few hundred of these 1000-baht jackets?

Not sure what the average going rate for the motorcycle jackets is, but 1000 baht per month doesn't sound to strange (it sounds "way too cheap" actually).

And in Bangkok alone there must be over a thousand of these guys working.

The money is going somewhere, and they won't be happy.

To secure a jacket for popular routes, jackets costs over 300,000 baht EACH! this is the price sold by driver to driver or head of the stand to driver...not from the land office of course. That is nothing close to average rate. Average rate is probably just couple thousand baht to join a stand, on top monthly rents. There was an article on Bangkok Post a year or two years ago, you can probably still find it online. TV doesn't allow posting of BP links.

[Redline]

So many people around the world either hate or like Uber and other ride share apps/companies.

What I like about them is that they are usually cheaper then taking an ordinary taxi.

What I don't like about them is that they don't follow the rules and regulations that are set for ordinary taxis, Uber drivers don't have the insurances that an ordinary taxi must have and the companies don't take any social responsibility for the drivers as a taxi company must do by paying for social security and so on.

It's about choice on both sides. These companies are unstoppable now because large corporations are make big investments

[impulse]

So many people around the world either hate or like Uber and other ride share apps/companies.

What I like about them is that they are usually cheaper then taking an ordinary taxi.

What I don't like about them is that they don't follow the rules and regulations that are set for ordinary taxis, Uber drivers don't have the insurances that an ordinary taxi must have and the companies don't take any social responsibility for the drivers as a taxi company must do by paying for social security and so on.

It's about choice on both sides. These companies are unstoppable now because large corporations are make big investments

There's a lawsuit going on now that may stop them in the USA.

They're being sued for colluding on prices under ant-trust laws. Seems they claim their drivers aren't employees, so they shouldn't have to pay employment taxes and take on the liability for their "independent contractors". Maybe they're right.

But then at the same time, they are getting a few thousand "independent contractors" together under a common pricing scheme, which violates anti-trust laws. That's thousands of competitors colluding on prices. And if there is no set pricing scheme, many of the benefits and covenants go out the window.

Seems they're finding out they can't have it both ways.

I don't know when it's going to happen, but their business will go the way of Napster. Napster had a great business model, too. But also based solely on empowering people to break the law.

Or, we'll end up with a watered down Uber-Lite, that connects legal, licensed taxis with people who need a taxi ride. Hardly the disruptive force they hold out right now.

[CaptHaddock]

So many people around the world either hate or like Uber and other ride share apps/companies.

What I like about them is that they are usually cheaper then taking an ordinary taxi.

What I don't like about them is that they don't follow the rules and regulations that are set for ordinary taxis, Uber drivers don't have the insurances that an ordinary taxi must have and the companies don't take any social responsibility for the drivers as a taxi company must do by paying for social security and so on.

It's about choice on both sides. These companies are unstoppable now because large corporations are make big investments

There's a lawsuit going on now that may stop them in the USA.

They're being sued for colluding on prices under ant-trust laws. Seems they claim their drivers aren't employees, so they shouldn't have to pay employment taxes and take on the liability for their "independent contractors". Maybe they're right.

But then at the same time, they are getting a few thousand "independent contractors" together under a common pricing scheme, which violates anti-trust laws. That's thousands of competitors colluding on prices. And if there is no set pricing scheme, many of the benefits and covenants go out the window.

Seems they're finding out they can't have it both ways.

I don't know when it's going to happen, but their business will go the way of Napster. Napster had a great business model, too. But also based solely on empowering people to break the law.

Or, we'll end up with a watered down Uber-Lite, that connects legal, licensed taxis with people who need a taxi ride. Hardly the disruptive force they hold out right now.

Uber drivers should indeed be counted as employees, not independent contractors. However, Uber will adjust and won't disappear. It has too much consumer acceptance at this point as well as inherent efficiencies. One way they could fix this particular problem is to copy the new Banana taxi app which has apparently just come out here in BKK. No set price. The drivers bid for each job. Subcontractor problem solved, although perhaps not actually better for the driver.

[impulse]

So many people around the world either hate or like Uber and other ride share apps/companies.

What I like about them is that they are usually cheaper then taking an ordinary taxi.

What I don't like about them is that they don't follow the rules and regulations that are set for ordinary taxis, Uber drivers don't have the insurances that an ordinary taxi must have and the companies don't take any social responsibility for the drivers as a taxi company must do by paying for social security and so on.

It's about choice on both sides. These companies are unstoppable now because large corporations are make big investments

There's a lawsuit going on now that may stop them in the USA.

They're being sued for colluding on prices under ant-trust laws. Seems they claim their drivers aren't employees, so they shouldn't have to pay employment taxes and take on the liability for their "independent contractors". Maybe they're right.

But then at the same time, they are getting a few thousand "independent contractors" together under a common pricing scheme, which violates anti-trust laws. That's thousands of competitors colluding on prices. And if there is no set pricing scheme, many of the benefits and covenants go out the window.

Seems they're finding out they can't have it both ways.

I don't know when it's going to happen, but their business will go the way of Napster. Napster had a great business model, too. But also based solely on empowering people to break the law.

Or, we'll end up with a watered down Uber-Lite, that connects legal, licensed taxis with people who need a taxi ride. Hardly the disruptive force they hold out right now.

Uber drivers should indeed be counted as employees, not independent contractors. However, Uber will adjust and won't disappear. It has too much consumer acceptance at this point as well as inherent efficiencies. One way they could fix this particular problem is to copy the new Banana taxi app which has apparently just come out here in BKK. No set price. The drivers bid for each job. Subcontractor problem solved, although perhaps not actually better for the driver.

Napster had a huge following and lots of consumer acceptance, too. And a really big war chest. And a business based on breaking laws. Just like Uber (and Banana, apparently).

Isn't bidding on rides against the laws that set prices for legal taxis? If they're legal taxis, they're breaking the law that sets prices. If they're not legal taxis, they're breaking another law that says you have to register and have a hack license to carry passengers for hire. Either way, it's a business based on enabling drivers to break laws. Eventually, that rarely ends well. May take awhile, but it will end badly.

[CaptHaddock]

In the late 90's when the bank Citicorp bought the Travellers, an insurance company, it violated the Glass-Steagal act that had been on the books since the Great Depression. So, Sandy Weill just got the Congress to repeal Glass-Steagal.

Laws can change. In particular, taxi regulations set up an inefficient monopoly. The claim is that they protect the public by doing so, but when you look carefully, for instance, at the insurance requirements you find that they are not as nearly complete as you thought. The quality of the service is poor. I am most familiar with New York City where taxi drivers are recognized to be the worst drivers on the road. The drivers themselves are mostly independent contractors who rent the car and medallion from fleets. There are few remaining owner-drivers because the capital requirements for medallion ownership create a barrier to entry in favor of corporations. Although a monopoly, taxi fares did not nearly keep up with inflation because the Taxi and Limousine Commission was responsive to the interests of the middle-class riders, not the drivers. So, over time the drivers changed from native English-speaking New Yorkers who knew the city to fresh immigrants who had very poor driving skills, poor English, and little knowledge of the city.

It's true that Napster went away, but so did the previous business model for the record business. Uber pairs buyers and sellers in the short-range transportation market far more efficiently than any previous method including hailing a car or radio dispatch. They enable for the first time the efficient use of the vast inventory of private cars, which in the US are driven an average of one hour per day. And they provide a better product at a lower price. That model is not going to go away.

[farang000999]

Napster went away, p2p file sharing did not.

[farang000999]

Napster went away, p2p file sharing did not.

[impulse]

Uber pairs buyers and sellers in the short-range transportation market far more efficiently than any previous method including hailing a car or radio dispatch. They enable for the first time the efficient use of the vast inventory of private cars, which in the US are driven an average of one hour per day. And they provide a better product at a lower price. That model is not going to go away.

Dating sites aren't going away, either. They also put together a vast inventory of an underutilized commodity with very willing consumers. And they make money at it.

But I just can't see a dating site that sets prices for P4P "dates" going much distance before being shut down. Because sharing rides and beds for free is legal. But charging for either one is treated very differently from a legal standpoint.

Uber's got a great idea, but they're going about it in an illegal way. And the CEO is too arrogant to think he can be stopped. He's wrong. (Kim DotCom comes to mind) Someone else will use the same concept, come at it a little differently, and make a solid business out of it. Not a $60 billion market cap in 2 years business, but solid. Like dating sites.

[CaptHaddock]

Uber pairs buyers and sellers in the short-range transportation market far more efficiently than any previous method including hailing a car or radio dispatch. They enable for the first time the efficient use of the vast inventory of private cars, which in the US are driven an average of one hour per day. And they provide a better product at a lower price. That model is not going to go away.

Dating sites aren't going away, either. They also put together a vast inventory of an underutilized commodity with very willing consumers. And they make money at it.

But I just can't see a dating site that sets prices for P4P "dates" going much distance before being shut down. Because sharing rides and beds for free is legal. But charging for either one is treated very differently from a legal standpoint.

Uber's got a great idea, but they're going about it in an illegal way. And the CEO is too arrogant to think he can be stopped. He's wrong. (Kim DotCom comes to mind) Someone else will use the same concept, come at it a little differently, and make a solid business out of it. Not a $60 billion market cap in 2 years business, but solid. Like dating sites.

Your analogy is far from apt. The objection to prostitution is effectively universal. Forty-nine states outlaw it. Driving people around for money, although regulated, is not illegal in any state. And no one thinks it's immoral by its very nature.

Uber could lose its first mover effect and be superseded at some point by a more effective competitor. IBM once dominated the PC market, but has since quit that business completely. But Uber now has a globally dominant position. In the US, although there may be some local resistance from vested interests, there is no prospect of national-level opposition that is going to out-lobby a $60 billion behemoth because taxi companies are not national. Uber will eventually solve the remaining auto insurance issue for their drivers but setting up their own insurance company and providing insurance directly, perhaps even automatically on a per ride basis. In the same way that the auto makers set up their own banks to finance car purchases. Their economies of scale will be a huge advantage in confronting other problems as well. Any company can put itself out of business by being stupid, but Uber is too big to be driven out of business by opposition at this point.

[impulse]

Any company can put itself out of business by being stupid, but Uber is too big to be driven out of business by opposition at this point.

So was Napster.

Uber's a business model based on enabling people to carry passengers for hire without the expense and bother of being licensed to do so. They may get insurance. They may get the employee/contractor issues straightened out. They may even get past the price fixing/anti-trust issues, though I doubt it.

But they can't get past the issue of hack licences, which are in tightly controlled supply and extremely expensive, and have been for generations.

They're going to burn through their available cash fighting lawsuit after lawsuit, criminal case after criminal case, and buying market share in dozens of countries. Then, they'll go away, or they'll morph into a mediocre call center for legal taxis, which is hardly the disruptive technology they're pushing.

And then Yahoo will buy them for their name recognition, and we all know that's the kiss of death.

[impulse]

Just a follow-on.

In New York City alone, there are 40,000 legal cars for hire, and taxi shields have auctioned off for as much as $600,000 (wikipedia and others). That's $24 billion of entrenched interests in one city alone (and a lot of why NYC taxi rides are so expensive). Figure NYC is about 2-3% of the US population and maybe 5-10% of the taxis, and that means there could be as much as a $250-500 Billion of entrenched investment in taxi shields the USA alone. Meaning there are $$ Trillions of dollars of entrenched investment in legal taxis around the world.

Uber's war chest ain't nearly big enough to fight that, especially with the inertia of 50 years of law against them. Maybe make them nervous, but Uber will get buried sooner or later when they burn through their cash.

Still, if I had a $ Billion to spare, I'd have bought a $ Million piece of ground floor Uber, on the tiny chance they'd be able to turn my $ 1 million into $100 million. But I wouldn't bet any money I'd miss- like my retirement. And the ground floor opportunity is long behind us.

Edited June 11, 2016 by impulse

[CaptHaddock]

Just a follow-on.

In New York City alone, there are 40,000 legal cars for hire, and taxi shields have auctioned off for as much as $600,000 (wikipedia and others). That's $24 billion of entrenched interests in one city alone (and a lot of why NYC taxi rides are so expensive). Figure NYC is about 2-3% of the US population and maybe 5-10% of the taxis, and that means there could be as much as a $250-500 Billion of entrenched investment in taxi shields the USA alone. Meaning there are $$ Trillions of dollars of entrenched investment in legal taxis around the world.

Uber's war chest ain't nearly big enough to fight that, especially with the inertia of 50 years of law against them. Maybe make them nervous, but Uber will get buried sooner or later when they burn through their cash.

Still, if I had a $ Billion to spare, I'd have bought a $ Million piece of ground floor Uber, on the tiny chance they'd be able to turn my $ 1 million into $100 million. But I wouldn't bet any money I'd miss- like my retirement. And the ground floor opportunity is long behind us.

And the last news on the NYC medallion market is that prices are down from the peaks above $1 million per, but the price drop hardly represents the actual dire state of that market, because there are virtually no sales at all anymore. The market has disappeared. So, the medallion buyers and sellers don't think that they will succeed at driving Uber out and restoring the value of medallions. The record companies were able to drive Napster out, because there was a small number of companies who had already organized and fund trade groups to protect their intellectual property interests. But they did not succeed in resuscitating the old model of the record business. I understand that lately income from sales of recordings has declined so much that bands now expect to be profitable only from live concerts, a condition which had not prevailed for a long time already.

The taxi business by contrast is widely dispersed in small companies who have not organized national trade organizations to defend their protected business, because they have never faced national competition before. You apparently expect them to be able to unite to protect themselves, but, if so, where are they? Uber is already well-entrenched in NYC without any effective opposition that I can see.

Whether they win or lose in particular localities has essentially no effect on their overall success. No single region, even NYC, is essential for them.

Uber is more like Ebay. They have been able to bring eager buyers and sellers together for the first time creating a new marketplace.

Ebay isn't going anywhere.

Uber's business model depends not so much on going around the hack's license requirement, which is not a very effective barrier to entry, but by circumventing the medallion cost, which is. But only the fleet owners care about their investment in medallions, not the municipalities whose benefit from selling medallions ceased a long time ago. Subverting the medallion requirement is economically beneficial, because it was only a monopolistic barrier to entry in the first place. Consumers got no benefit from taxi regulation. Drivers were licensed, but it didn't produce safer drivers. Just the opposite. The drivers themselves did not benefit from monopoly pricing power because the local government attended to the interests of the voting public and the fleet owners, not the drivers. And the riding public knows all this. And they will object in large numbers if anyone really tries to shut down Uber.

So, I think you are dreaming. But perhaps you are right and the medallion market and the venture capitalists who fund Uber are wrong. If so, wait for the Uber IPO and short it. Be my guest.