As companies see quick response to something like this they might say, "gee, MA responded quickly and found quick resolution to an emergent issue; they are receptive to new ways of doing business, I think I'll do business in their state" as opposed to a possible recalcitrant alternative, which could have happened ---letting the process drag on...
Just sounds like a politicking to me.
That's "politicking" I guess. But it's the kind of politics we want, where governments do the Right Thing because people ask them to.
[1] http://www.mass.gov/governor/utility/governor-deval-patrick....
As a Cambridge resident, I use Uber often and I think it's a valuable service. It would be a loss to the Boston area to have Uber shut down.
- calling a car to my home (faster, easier, and more trackable than phoning a taxi) if I'm in a hurry
- late-night after bars close (0200+) and street taxis are scarce (downside: surge pricing)
I'll typically prioritize my transportation: (1) walk/MBTA where possible, (2) hail a cab if they are available, and (3) Uber. Still, that leads to a handful of trips a month.
I really like he overall tone and stance taken in the statement and it seems uncharacteristic of government in general.
It uses some technology (circa 1978) called "GPS".
We're living in the future!
It doesn't hurt that his office staff use Uber, either:
http://www.universalhub.com/2012/governor-were-going-find-wa...
So is the state essentially trusting Uber's word that the device is accurate, knowing that if it turns out that it isn't, Uber opens itself up to liability?
