Uber and the taxicab industry are facing off in the Massachusetts legislature this month in a test of political wills. The taxicab industry is demanding Uber play by the same rules they're required to play by and they seem to be getting some traction.

After their recent departure from Austin, Texas, Uber is once again fighting fingerprint background checks. It would be worth the price of admission just to see if Uber would give up an entire state due to fingerprinting or relent and stay in the state regardless. While nobody has ever brought up the point before, one of Uber's new representatives is reported to have written a letter to a state senator claiming that a requirement for finger print background checks can have "a discriminatory impact on communities of color."

Really? Who could even come up with such nonsense? Well, the author is reported to be the former United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Yes, it's true, if you want to finger print background check Uber drivers you might be a racist. And here I thought this thing was about as asinine as it could get. Boy was I confused.

The New York City Taxicab and Limousine Commission is reported to be considering a rule that would require taxicab drivers to work only twelve hours in a twenty four period and seventy two hours in a one week period. That all sounds perfectly reasonable except, how do you enforce that?

I can see how Uber might be able to regulate how much time their drivers stay signed on to their dispatch system, but taxicab drivers aren't on a dispatch system. Does that two hours spent sitting in the queue at the airport count as time driving? How do you tell a break from a slow period?

As a former driver, I get the idea that if I was short on my finances I could work seven days a week to catch up, though I rarely did. There is certainly at least one high profile case that attracted attention to the driver working over twelve hours. However, what are the actual statistics of drivers working seven days a week having collisions versus drivers working only six days a week?

If the TLC can tell us that only three percent of the drivers work more than twelve hours a day and only seven percent work more than seventy two hours in a week it would seem to me that they can tell us if there is an increased collision rate for those drivers. One of the attractions of taxicab driving, at least for me, was the ability to earn extra in times of need.

Are we regulating the hustle and hard work out of the industry because of a high profile tragedy or is there true benefit to be gained from establishing these guidelines? Without a thorough examination of the facts, we're just doing something so we can say we did something.

It is reported that there are at least ten new "ride share" services starting up around the country at this time. Like any successful enterprise, Uber has numerous copy cats doing things a little differently but essentially the same. You know, kind of like Uber does with taxicabs.

Uber, having pioneered the service, is first to market and that carries weight, except that they have created their own bad perception by fighting fingerprint background checks for their drivers. Uber has taken most of the lightning strikes associated with an unlicensed startup in a licensed world so the door is open to pretty much whoever wants to walk through. Okay new kids in town, what are you going to do better? Differently? What's your claim to fame? Uber is reported to be working on time calls already, so they've figured out that hole in their service. So what else? Service counts, but the biggest fear of Uber riders is surge pricing. Tell them the price when they call in and stick to it.

Regulators have strapped so many regulations on taxicabs that it's a wonder anyone still wants to drive one when drivers can drive any other number of app driven for hire services. Uber has overcome one problem the taxicab industry cannot, they've taken the cash out of the car. Not a day goes by that a taxi driver isn't robbed, shot, stabbed, beat up or otherwise cheated out of the fare, so allowing payment in cash would definitely be a step backward.

Customers will pay for better service, professional drivers, larger vehicles and a variety of "upgrades" to a standard taxi service. At this point, the industry seems wide open to new innovation.

Uber is reported to be having issues with Kennewick Washington over background checks. While this issue isn't new considering Uber's abrupt departure from Austin, Texas over the very same matter, what really stands out to me is the amount of great press Uber gets. After reading the story and the comments from some of the good citizens of Kennewick, I'm surprised the mayor isn't being recalled for being such a backward heathen.

While the surrounding cities are allowed to Uber all they want, the poor Kennewick residents are being deprived of Uber all because of some stupid law. After all, Uber did offer to let the city audit the results of their background checks. Perhaps, a ballot initiative is in order. Oh, wait, that happened in Austin and Uber didn't like the results so they left. We'd better go for something more definite, like political pressure from the media. We'll see if it works.

New Hampshire is reported to have a new law governing ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft. The article read a little like what did Uber want for Christmas list, effectively taking local control of ride-sharing companies to the state level. The law is reported to be very vague and allows nothing for enforcement.

Imagine if you will lowering the speed limit to twenty miles an hour but doing away with the police. It will take several months to develop the rules so companies can do what they've been doing until the rules are established. The hilarious part of the story was that Uber was expected to register when the rules were put into place "since they were involved in the legislative process."

Ya think? In reviewing the proposed law it would appear that Uber wrote it and the legislature simply rubber stamped it. It's good to have friends.

It is reported that an Indianapolis city council member is recommending a change in the city's taxicab regulations. Since the state has taken ride share regulations out of the hands of the local municipalities, the council member recommended that several of the more onerous taxicab regulations be lifted, like the minimum number of taxicabs being reduced from twenty to two.

He believes that reducing the required number of vehicles would open up the industry to more competition and allow small entrepreneurs to start their own business. While "leveling the playing field" is everyone's aim, not many agree on how to do it. In fact, the rest of the council was so excited they sent it to the city's legal department.

Uber, that we're not a taxi company, is reported to be experimenting with a telephone dispatch system. No, a regular telephone dispatch system, not a smartphone app. Why, that sounds way too taxi like for a technology company, but the lucrative seniors market in Florida was just too big to pass up.

They've even invented a new phrase for us old folks who don't own a smart phone, "transit disadvantaged." Just for the record, I would like to point out that I do own a smart phone, but it's only an iphone 4s. I do claim a close personal relationship with Siri and I promised her she could stay with me. But I digress.

These "transit disadvantaged" folks were unable to use Uber since they do not have a smart phone, hence the "disadvantaged" part. However, now they will be able to use Uber and the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority will subsidize the rides. So, now that we're pretty much entrenched in the mind of America, we can start nudging the taxi industry a little harder. We wouldn't want those poor old folks to have to ride in taxicabs now would we?