InstantCab gets a Progress and Persist notice from SFO
blog.instantcab.com
blog.instantcab.com
If I'm in charge of SFO operations, InstantCab is at least the third entity to enable third parties to engage in unregulated cash-for-ride transactions, and is doing so without asking me how best to go about it. At this point, I would be much more annoyed than curious (fool me once, etc)
For the founders: Do you believe the burden of mediation here lies with SFO (status quo) or with you (new entrant)?
Have you at any point before receiving this communication contacted SFO regarding what you were doing with the community drivers at the airport?
Do you think it's fair to your non-community taxi drivers that you're cannibalizing a market that they have to pay regulatory fees to participate in (the right to pick up at SFO)?
The underlying issue is that too many people who are setting out to "disrupt" an industry come off as arrogant when faced with _any_ resistance to their fantastic new business model. IMO, interacting with people who are skeptical of your new ideas and winning them over is a critical (and underrated) skill amongst engineers/technologists/etc
Indeed we have met with and had detailed discussions with SFO (and other regulators).
I don't see how re-imagining the letter we got from SFO as one written with a positive tone and poking some fun at cease and desist letters in general, on April 1st no less, is arrogant.
I totally see how "re-imagining" an official letter to can be construed as arrogant. It makes it seem like you think the rules doen't apply to you. That's the impression I got when reading your post. When authority tells you to stop, deflecting the response into humor doesn't seem very mature. I remember being a kid and making fun of my dad who was getting angry at something I did, but it only happened once due to the consequences.
FWIW, I also support peer-to-peer driving arrangements, and more transparent access to regulated markets, but I also don't think kicking the hornet's nest and laughing about it will work.
I would also be curious to find out which areas of the world have governmental bodies that actively try to seek and promote innovation.
Historically, the process has often worked like this:
- Innovation violates existing law because the law couldn't foresee it. - Authorities send cease and desist notice to innovators - Negotiations, public outcry etc result in compromise
If the final goal is compromise, why not start with a positive outlook?
By the way this applies to startups as much as regulators. A lot of startups take the attitude that regulators are evil, corrupt and should be completely ignored. At least one startup in our industry currently comes to mind.
I (and we at InstantCab) disagree with this outlook. Obviously regulators have a job to do, and generally it is for good reason. Disagreements are bound to happen, but discussion should happen in an agreeable fashion.
That very much fails to be the case. Suppose for instance we had a law that said "no new way of doing X is legal." That law would, in fact, foresee (not de re, but de dicto) all innovation in the realm of doing X, and it would exclude it from the law---that would actually be its intention! That might be a bad or stupid law, but that's not the point; no innovation in the realm of doing X falls outside it. You presumably mean that something falls outside the law in the sense of falling outside what's legal, which is very different, because something can only be illegal if it's within the scope of the law. (My choice of rye bread over whole wheat falls outside the law; the law is silent on it.) It's of course also possible that something very new comes along and it's just unclear* where it stands vis-a-vis the old laws, in which case, sure, the laws don't foresee that (unless some innovative (!) legal argument is brought to bear to show how the new phenomenon falls under the old laws after all).
* (this is actually material for support for the claim that many innovations fall outside the law, though not support that's very helpful to you. My innovations in the preparation of toast, for instance, are likely to fall outside the law, as beneath the law's notice. My innovations in murdering my enemies may also fall outside the law as such, that is, it may not be a legal matter that I killed them precisely this way.)
It also, of course, isn't the case that---as often seems to be assumed on HN---the innovative is the good. (Trivia: when Catullus in the first Catilinarian says that someone was a revolutionary, he describes that person as "novis rebus studentem"---pursuing "new things". Not every revolution is a positive one.) Thus the final goal may well not be compromise, and a good thing, too. Nor is it obvious that if the final goal is compromise or something like it---and compromise, in itself, is an exceptionally stupid thing to have as a goal, just about as stupid as having novelty, in itself, as one's goal---the onus is on the government to move first. Why doesn't the company in question start by making overtures to the government, you know, making a positive first step, instead of starting off by transgressing the law? A friend's summary of Tom Slee's complaint about Über et al. seems apt: "He's a social democrat; I suspect when he looks at these companies, he sees a bunch of venture capitalists deciding that they're going to unilaterally reshape the licensure frameworks that dozens of separate localities have democratically enacted over decades of contestation, and that seems a clear affront to a number of (legitimate) values." If you're going to speak the language of compromise, i.e., deny that you're after a unilateral reshaping, then why do you start off with a transgression designed to accustom people to your service before you've cleared it with the relevant authorities?
Anyway, and this is really to the parent of my comment above: the government sponsors an incredible amount of innovation. The National Science Foundation, for instance, gives out a lot of money to scientists; I'm sure not all of the work is ground-breakingly transformative, but that's the nature of the beast. The NEH, the CDC, the NIH, all public universities, the NEA, lots of non-national governmental grant-making or study-sponsoring agencies---all of these things support innovation of one sort or another.
Whether what they support is as innovative and rad-i-kool as yet another unlicensed car service, I admit I don't know.
At least, that was the general idea. Obviously, I've forgotten the details. Included was some self-congratulation about a company-wide sense of humor.