This story shows some of the subtly of lobbying that I think people fail to appreciate. Lobbying isn't about spending money for votes. It's about making sure lawmakers understand your narrative. Ultimately, lawmakers have to defend their positions against their opponents. How do they do that unless someone explains why a particular position is a good one? Take surge pricing for example. People react negatively to it, but it has support from economists. Lawmakers don't know this innately. Lobbyists tell them, give them the ammo they need to come out in support of a position consistent with their ideology.
Uber has powerful narrative that resonates with politicians: new technology obsoleting outdated regulations. In the past 25 years, that's been a powerful narrative both for republicans and moderate/conservative democrats (like those in Virginia). The counter narrative: consumer protections, equal access, are weaker in the current political climate, especially somewhere like Virginia.
I think Uber is a great contrast to the relative lack of traction net neutrality has had among lawmakers. It's an esoteric point, not easily understandable like better taxi service. And it cuts against the trend of deregulation. So despite there being a lot more money behind net neutrality, it's been a harder sell.
"It's about making sure lawmakers understand your narrative."
Agree. And what most people don't realize, that I have found out personally, [1] is that lawmakers (and/or their staff) are more than willing to listen to informed opinions and thoughts by individuals who are not "lobbyists" and don't represent "money". That the impediment to lobbying is really not always money but the ability to form and back up your argument or point of view and to sell your idea. There is no doubt in my mind that you and many other commenters on HN would make good "lobbyists" if they decided to take the time to make sure lawmakers understood their point of view.
[1] I've personally been down to Washington and have discussed issues in person with not only congressional staff but with members of various agencies. All it took was a letter asking to have meetings. Plenty of time allotted, they listened I have received letters back with further thoughts and questions from congressional legal staff. And a congressman that I met (that I didn't even have a meeting with) asked me why I was in DC. When he heard the reason his staff followed up literally 5 times after that to see if they could help further.
The main difference between Uber's narrative and Net Neutrality is that Uber is solving existing problems here and now whereas Net Neutrality is largely meant to protect the status quo from potential assault in the future.
This makes Uber's narrative more compelling: it's urgent. And, at least in some ways, their solution is superior to those "outdated regulations."
The concern with lobbying is not so much "money for votes," but that most people are powerless, so they have no one lobbying for them. The concern, in other words, is that lawmakers don't get to consider or even understand the narrative of the people they're supposedly representing.
Lobbying is okay, as long as it doesn't also turn into "campaign donations" or "paying for parties" (like MPAA did for state AG's, in the fight against Google).
Lobbying + campaign donations should be automatically considered bribing. But this is America, the land of the free...to pay bribes legally, I guess.
Uber does make campaign donations [1]. To suggest it's all about 'spreading information' seems naive at best, if not dishonest.
Garcetti had a $250,000 campaign contribution from Uber
(or the CEO) in his run for the LA Mayor
Drischler had ordered the apps to shut down service in L.A.
soon before Garcetti took office. But the day Garcetti took
over, his office ordered Drischler to stop talking to the media.
That's a bit like arguing marketing is a force of good because it helps get information to all market participants and thereby increase market efficiency.
> So despite there being a lot more money behind net neutrality
Well,net neutrality is a federal,FCC related issue afaik,while most taxi laws depend on states. So you dont have to lobby the whole legislative body to influence it. It's always easier to lobby local legislators.
I dont think one can compare the two. Now does it show that Uber has some power,sure they have,especially when they are able to mobilize their drivers to lobby politicians. Politicians want to more jobs not less.
I'm not taking sides in all this.What matters is,if the laws change,the legislator makes sure there is a fair competition this time and not that Uber becomes the "new boss".
Uber has powerful narrative that resonates with politicians: new technology obsoleting outdated regulations. In the past 25 years, that's been a powerful narrative both for republicans and moderate/conservative democrats (like those in Virginia). The counter narrative: consumer protections, equal access, are weaker in the current political climate, especially somewhere like Virginia.
I think Uber is a great contrast to the relative lack of traction net neutrality has had among lawmakers. It's an esoteric point, not easily understandable like better taxi service. And it cuts against the trend of deregulation. So despite there being a lot more money behind net neutrality, it's been a harder sell.