Court Orders UberPop Use To Be Banned In All of Italy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Orders UberPop Use To Be Banned In All of Italy

Posted by timothy on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @02:40AM from the fiat-accompli dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A judicial court in Italy has ordered the UberPop app to cease offering its services [original source, in Italian], as it constitutes "unfair competition" again the taxi sector (taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $100k to obtain). This sentence should be valid at the national level and comes after an injunction from taxi drivers in Milan, where a Universal Exhibition is incidentally bringing in thousands visitors from all over the world on a daily basis. Sources mention a judicial request to "block" the app, though no one is sure how this sentence has to be enforced and what the fines would be in case of violations.

201 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 02:47 · Score: 0

taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain
Does that mean that each taxi driver is making more than $100k net profit per year?
1. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, it means they start with $100k of debt.
2. Re:Holy hell by Holi · 2015-05-26 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, so they have to make back their entire initial investment every year?
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
3. Re:Holy hell by TWX · 2015-05-26 03:05 · Score: 2
  
  It's called amortizing the cost of an investment. Before setting-out for a business venture, the potential business needs to evaluate costs and how those costs will be managed. If the license, once obtained, is the holder's for life, then spending $100,000 for the license could be lucrative if the financing can be found to afford it. I also expect that if Italian tax law is anything at all like American tax law, that the cost of the license and other business expenses could be written-off to at least an extent depending on how the financing is structured.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Holy hell by FatdogHaiku · 2015-05-26 03:28 · Score: 2
  
  No, it means they start with $100k of debt.
  or they are the employee of someone that paid for the licenses...
  If there is an absolute limit to the number of licenses, I could see companies hoarding them forever...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
5. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In most cities, taxi drivers usually end up taking home about $25k/year after paying all of their expenses.
  In cities like NYC, cab drivers make a little more, but have a $800k medallion to finance. It is not unlike financing a home where you don't plan on paying it off before you move again. When a driver wants to get out of the business they have to sell the medallion to someone else and hope they've paid off enough on it to break even. The financing tends to be rather high interest, so drivers end up mainly only covering the month to month interest and rarely makes any significant progress on the principle.
  Default means a driver loses his medallion and the lender gets to sell it, the driver may still be responsible for the interest owed on the medallion even after it is sold.
6. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Does that mean that each taxi driver is making more than $100k net profit per year?
  That's some fine logic there, Lou.
  Presumably, "net profit" doesn't mean what you think it means. So that'd be a good thing to learn.
7. Re:Holy hell by Paradise+Pete · 2015-05-26 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  If there is an absolute limit to the number of licenses, I could see companies hoarding them forever...
  Until Uber came along, buying taxi medallions had been a quite good investment. They're crashing now, though.
8. Re:Holy hell by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Good.
9. Re:Holy hell by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 05:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  When a driver wants to get out of the business they have to sell the medallion to someone else and hope they've paid off enough on it to break even.
  First, most cab drivers in NYC don't own a medallion. The cab company they're working for owns it and essentially rents it out to it's drivers. They also rent out the cab itself, but the cab is actually cheaper(rent wise) than the medallion. There's a limited number of 'owner-operator' medallions where one of the requirements is that the owner drive the cab for X hours/day on average, and they tend to be cheaper than the unrestricted ones.
  Second, medallions, especially owner-operator ones, have generally appreciated in value sufficient that they're more often treated as part of the owner's retirement plan/investment than 'hope to break even'.
  That's crashing right now, which kind of sucks for those that invested under the assumptions of the 'old system'.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
10. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Who would have imagined that investing in a single asset would be risky?
11. Re:Holy hell by Dorianny · 2015-05-26 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  It is not the role of government to protect investors from competition with new technology. The medallion price drop will benefit the vast majority of drivers who as you mention only rent them at rates which leave little profit for themselves.
12. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed that it's not the role of the government to protect investments, but we all know that the handful of cab company owners and owner-operators will lobby the government to protect their valuable assets.
  This is more of our so-called democratic system run a muck.
  Remember kids, Past performance may not be indicative of future results.
13. Re:Holy hell by david_thornley · 2015-05-27 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  If the new technology messes with a government-limited asset, the government really does have to take the price drop into account. A normal business that's shoved aside by new technology doesn't deserve government help, but a case like this where it's a change in regulation the problems are caused by the government and should be addressed by the government.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
14. Re:Holy hell by Shirley+Marquez · 2015-05-27 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  In areas of the US that have a medallion system, the usual result is that the medallions get bought by large ownership companies which then rent them out to operators. The rates are such that the medallion owners make most of the money and the drivers are poorly paid sharecroppers. The result in Italy is likely to be similar unless they have a restriction that the licenses can only be used by their owners.
Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

"(taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain)."
There's the problem. Piss off Italy...
1. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "(taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain)."
  There's the problem. Piss off Italy...
  As if there's no public interest in limiting the number of taxis on the road. If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable. They are a public resource, and may not be monopolized by ride-for-hire services.
  But no, we all must be butthurt about unfair competition, as if the only thing that matters is the unregulated jitney operator.
2. Re:Well there's the problem... by Holi · 2015-05-26 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Same way here, and it's for a very good reason. Let's take NY, Imagine NYC with twice as many taxi's on the road. It happened and it made it extremely hard for emergency vehicles and anyone who wasn't a tax, or really just wanted to go anywhere. So they implemented a medallion system to limit the number of cabs on the road. See it's not a conspiracy involving the "taxi lobby", in fact it's to protect us from them.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
3. Re:Well there's the problem... by HideyoshiJP · 2015-05-26 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  But, competition! And stifling innovation! Or something strangling something...
4. Re:Well there's the problem... by mridoni · 2015-05-26 03:05 · Score: 2
  
  Actually it's worse than that: licenses are numbered (numbers are decided by the local administration) but you cannot actually get a "new" one since the number of licenses has not been increased in many years and licenses are never given back but just transferred to other would-be drivers: the only practical way to get a taxi license is to purchase one from another driver when he/she retires or simply decides to sell it. This money is paid mostly under the table, and the US$ 100K is a low-ball estimate: in bigger cities like Rome or Milan, a license can easily go for EUR 200K.
5. Re:Well there's the problem... by freefal67 · 2015-05-26 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  But Uber is available in New York and the number of Uber drivers isn't regulated. I haven't heard anyone complain about the additional cars. If the extra cars are an issue, then simply implement congestion pricing, an option that was not available when the medallion system was invented. Since an Uber car doesn't congest the streets any more than any other car, why treat them differently?
6. Re:Well there's the problem... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-05-26 03:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
  That is utter bullshit. It is fear mongering at its worse. What is the worst possible thing is to have Government Granted Franchise agreements, whereby politicians can be bought and paid for by those companies buying up such agreements. The public is never served by such agreements in the long run.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
7. Re:Well there's the problem... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-05-26 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  It starts out that way. And then, it doesn't end up that way. Franchise agreements always end up hurting the public in the long run.
  If you want to fix the streets of New York City, implement better public transportation. New York could use a nice bus system.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
8. Re:Well there's the problem... by drinkypoo · 2015-05-26 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to fix the streets of New York City, implement better public transportation. New York could use a nice bus system.
  New York is also probably the only place in the USA with both sufficient population and population density to justify alternative transportation schemes. How about some overhead transport? Lots of room up there.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Well there's the problem... by CrimsonAvenger · 2015-05-26 03:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Let's take NY, Imagine NYC with twice as many taxi's on the road.
  Hmm, let's do that...
  So, we double the 13000-odd taxis to 27000-odd taxis.
  And then we compare that to the 30% of New Yorkers who use private autos to commute to work. So, 30% of 17+ million is about 5 million privately owned cars on the road daily.
  Now, it seems to me that 13K taxis is about 0.25% of the total autos on the roads, so when we double the number of taxis, we should have about 0.25% MORE vehicles on the road in NYC.
  Somehow I don't see one extra car for every 400 currently on the road to be a meaningful issue....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
10. Re:Well there's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-05-26 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As if there's no public interest in limiting the number of taxis on the road.
  No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.
  
  If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
  Hogwash. The supply would only be high if the demand was high. If there were too many taxis and not enough passengers, then some drivers would go home and take the day off. Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.
11. Re:Well there's the problem... by ultranova · 2015-05-26 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
  
  ...Taxis carrying who? The same people who are now using their own cars? Why would that make things any worse? If anything, they should get better when more drivers are professionals.
  That said, if the license system is abolished, then the government should reimburse the current license holders. After all, having had to pay for a license when newcomers don't puts them at an unfair competitive disadvantage due to opportunity costs.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
12. Re:Well there's the problem... by prefec2 · 2015-05-26 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Get of our lawn. Yankee. What we do in our country is our own business. If we limit our taxi business for good reasons (see other posts), then it is not up to you to insult us. You can do in your country, as it pleases you.
13. Re:Well there's the problem... by rubycodez · 2015-05-26 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of big cities in the USA are like that, Chicago the medallion sale prices are $270,000 and up
14. Re:Well there's the problem... by Richard_at_work · 2015-05-26 03:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If you want to see how extreme unregulated taxi services can get, I suggest visiting Kampala or some other city in a sub-Saharan country sometime - 500 drivers all vying for the same fair, to the extent where fights actually break out and the passenger is physically pulled this way and that, 30 people jammed into an 8 person minibus. Yeah, some regulation is just common sense.
15. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it's worse than that: licenses are numbered (numbers are decided by the local administration) but you cannot actually get a "new" one since the number of licenses has not been increased in many years and licenses are never given back but just transferred to other would-be drivers: the only practical way to get a taxi license is to purchase one from another driver when he/she retires or simply decides to sell it. This money is paid mostly under the table, and the US$ 100K is a low-ball estimate: in bigger cities like Rome or Milan, a license can easily go for EUR 200K.
  Exactly. It is a failure of the law. Fucking corrupted politicians. But what else in new in Italy ?
  Make it so that a license automatically reverts to the city when the taxi driver in question changes activity or retires.
  Make it illegal for a taxi driver to sell/"donate" his license to other would be drivers. This would address the worst aspects of this whole rigged system.
  I understand why taxi drivers don't want any change. After having spent 100-200k € they should at least be given the oppurtunity to repay the intial debt and at least make a living. But the system can be changed, albeit slowly. Just make it illegal from here on out to resell taxi licenses. The current generation of taxi drivers as they retire will give back the license to the city who will hopefully make a contest to give the licenses to a new generation of drivers without the absurd entry black market costs.
16. Re:Well there's the problem... by LoyalOpposition · 2015-05-26 03:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Same way here, and it's for a very good reason. Let's take NY, Imagine NYC with twice as many taxi's on the road. It happened and it made it extremely hard for emergency vehicles and anyone who wasn't a tax, or really just wanted to go anywhere. So they implemented a medallion system to limit the number of cabs on the road. See it's not a conspiracy involving the "taxi lobby", in fact it's to protect us from them.
  That would be an interesting story if it were true; it's not. The medallion system was not instituted because of traffic congestion. Rather it was instituted because the growth of taxis during the depression resulted in more taxis than passengers. Taxi drivers began working longer hours, and there was public concern about the mechanical integrity and maintenance of the taxis. The first proposed taxi monopoly didn't go into effect because the mayor was accused of taking a bribe from the largest taxi company. Strangely, a lack of maintenance is more associated with monopoly than it is with competition, and it's entirely feasible that La Guardia, the mayor who finally instituted a taxi monopoly, was merely not caught accepting his bribe.
  ~Loyal
  
  --
  I aim to misbehave.
17. Re:Well there's the problem... by tompaulco · 2015-05-26 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Get of our lawn. Yankee. What we do in our country is our own business. If we limit our taxi business for good reasons (see other posts), then it is not up to you to insult us. You can do in your country, as it pleases you.
  No argument here. I think it is good that we limit the number of taxis and ensure that they are licensed and regulated. Established Taxi Services had to pay for a medallion and it absolutely is unfair competition if a competitor is allowed to operate without having to obey the same laws that every other taxi service complies with.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
18. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You forgot something. Each taxi is on the road all day, a private auto is not.
19. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't require an overpriced toy to run a taxi, just basic labor laws and vehicle safety requirements.
20. Re:Well there's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-05-26 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  New York could use a nice bus system.
  New York City has a nice bus system. It also has one of the most extensive subway systems in the world. There is still plenty of demand for taxis. A taxi can get you almost anywhere in less than half the time.
21. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Screw the whole "medallion" process
  The number of taxi licenses should only be limited by the number people requesting one.
22. Re:Well there's the problem... by Asgard · 2015-05-26 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  How can you reasonably have 500 drivers vying for the same fare and also have 30 people in a 8 person minibus? What is the motivation to overcrowd?
23. Re:Well there's the problem... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-26 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest visiting Kampala or some other city in a sub-Saharan country sometime
  I don't know about Kampala, but in other cities in developing nations, I've found transportation to be cheap and easy to get.
  to the extent where fights actually break out and the passenger is physically pulled this way and that,
  Lucky, then, that Uber addresses that issue.
  
  30 people jammed into an 8 person minibus
  That's not the same crowd that rides Uber or taxis; and those people are happy that they get cheap transportation at all. If you regulate away their overcrowded minibus, they have a big problem.
24. Re:Well there's the problem... by serutan · 2015-05-26 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Render city streets unnavigable? Where would the massive number of additional customers come from to support enough taxis to do that?
25. Re:Well there's the problem... by gstoddart · 2015-05-26 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, piss off Uber.
  The laws and regulations exist. That Uber (and you) disagree with those regulations is completely fucking irrelevant.
  Uber doesn't get to throw a tantrum like a child and refuse to adhere to the law. You can't refuse to eat your broccoli, the real world doesn't work like that.
  Don't like it, try to change the law. If that doesn't work, you can suck it up and accept that the law exists, and claiming you don't like it or that you think it doesn't apply to you is nothing but a crock of shit.
  Just because in some libertarian fantasy of the world you think you shouldn't be regulated doesn't mean a damned thing.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
26. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you get twice as many. With a taxi, the occupancy factor of the car is halved since the car has to make a round trip rather than being parked at one end.
  This is, by the way, one of the same problems as the driverless taxi concept that has become weirdly fashionable. They accomplish the remarkable feat of having cars on the road that aren't carrying *anyone*, pushing the floor of vehicle occupancy below one, so that you get more cars driving for a fixed number of person-miles.
27. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Also that Uber drivers aren't properly insured to be carrying passengers. Anywhere.
28. Re:Well there's the problem... by Jaysu · 2015-05-26 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  True, but the non-peak hours are not the bottleneck here.
  
  --
  It has been said that 63% of all statistics are made up
29. Re:Well there's the problem... by gstoddart · 2015-05-26 04:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.
  No, that is bullshit.
  If you want fair competition, you have to do it under the same rules as everyone else.
  Not by throwing a tantrum like a spoiled child and deciding the rules don't apply to you.
  This has nothing to do with fair competition, or protecting entrenched players. This is about governments having the authority to pass laws, and whiny idiots claiming they don't want laws.
  Uber wants to run a illegal cabs, contrary to the law. The problem isn't the existence of the law. it's that Uber are a bunch of whiny self-entitled douchbags whose business model relies on running illegal cabs and playing the victim card.
  
  Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.
  Your desire to have the mythical unicorn of the free market still doesn't change the reality that those laws exist, they exist for a reason, and it's not up to Uber to decide what the law is.
  Uber aren't the champions of truth and justice ... they're a greedy corporation who think they are something special.
  But don't let reality stand in the way of your libertarian fantasy world.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
30. Re:Well there's the problem... by mrchaotica · 2015-05-26 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  See it's not a conspiracy involving the "taxi lobby", in fact it's to protect us from them.
  Let's be honest here: there's no reason why it can't be a little from column A and a little from column B.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
31. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Just zoom in on New York using satellite view: there are a lot more taxis than your 1 in 400 calculation, I would estimate around 1 in 5 or more in Mahatten. So you calculcation is at least one order of magnitude wrong, possibly even two.
32. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  [[ If you want fair competition, you have to do it under the same rules as everyone else ]]
  Implicit assumption in your statements: if rules are applied evenly to everyone, then they are not anti-competitive. But "barriers to entry" are anti-competitive. In the Italy situation, "anyone" can "compete" with the existing taxi companies as long as they happen to have somewhere near a hundred thousand dollars *per car* they want to compete with. I don't know about you, but this precludes me from being able to form a competing Italian taxi company.
33. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Ha ha ha, if you have no licencing or restrictions on who can become a 'taxi' driver standards will be nonexistent. Every man and his dog will claim to be a 'professional taxi driver' and you, the customer will have no way to decide who is safe and competent and who is not.
34. Re:Well there's the problem... by moronoxyd · 2015-05-26 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  As if there's no public interest in limiting the number of taxis on the road.
  No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.
  If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
  of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
  
  If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
  Hogwash. The supply would only be high if the demand was high. If there were too many taxis and not enough passengers, then some drivers would go home and take the day off. Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.
  Nope. The taxi drivers would compete for too few passengers by trying to undercut each other, skimming on costs thus reducing the safety for passengers etc.
  Free markets do work practically never on scale, as the ideal conditions necessary for a working free market are never met. There is always some imbalance.
35. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  When Uber is outlawed, only outlaws will use Uber!
36. Re:Well there's the problem... by moronoxyd · 2015-05-26 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because Uber wants to provide a taxi service in everything but the name, but doesn't want to play by the same rules as the regular taxis.
  Why should Uber get special treatment? Because they're new and hip?
37. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  HAHAHAHAHA you are stupid if you think I think businesses shouldn't be regulated.
  But pointless laws to create false scarcity are a crime against humanity.
38. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Possibilities:
  1) The examples are in different places. They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis.
  2) The "fares" are different people. A tourist is going to be very desirable and a local commuter very undesirable, as in an unregulated city, the taxis can charge what they can get away with. Which is a hell of a lot more with a rich tourist than a local.
39. Re:Well there's the problem... by gstoddart · 2015-05-26 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  But pointless laws to create false scarcity are a crime against humanity.
  No, again, you're full of crap and stating your opinion as if it is a fact.
  The laws aren't there to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices. You'd have to be an idiot to think that.
  The laws are to regulate who is running a taxi, the rules under which they operate, and the minimum safety standards ... stuff like that.
  That some people want to make the idiotic claims that laws are hurting innovation, or that regulating an industry is some fucking grand conspiracy to keep taxi owners rich ... saying it doesn't make it true. It's still batshit crazy stuff which has nothing to do with reality, other than indicating you desperately wish reality adhered to your crazy beliefs.
  Which is precisely what Uber does as well.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
40. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Lucky, then, that Uber addresses that issue.
  Well it kind of does. In that the passenger knows in advance they are looking for a car with an Uber sign, and they have been allocated one in advance by the system. Other drivers might try to steal the fare, but at least the passenger knows better where they stand, and know what to head for if they want the prearranged price.
  
  That's not the same crowd that rides Uber or taxis; and those people are happy that they get cheap transportation at all. If you regulate away their overcrowded minibus, they have a big problem.
  Not really, because regulated busses with greater capacity and better safety can take their place.
41. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition.
  That's simply and easily verifiably not true, in that I am an example of the public, and I value regulated taxis over unregulated ones. For all the reasons you are ignoring - safety, avoidance of being ripped-off, limitation of numbers etc. And there's plenty more like me. I suggest more than agree with you.
42. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the reality is somewhere between the two. It's nuanced. Few things are black and white.
  There is a value to regulated taxis. I support them. But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem. And civil disobedience is a legitimate way to highlight bad law.
43. Re:Well there's the problem... by prefec2 · 2015-05-26 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  In Europe cities are much denser than in the US. Therefore, we also want to limit traffic. Beside safety requirements for the car, we also want to reduce the risk of being robbed by the cap driver or worse. Therefore, we require a registration. And we want to test if the driver are a safe driver. Nothing more is normally required in Europe from cap drivers. In addition, we have labour rights. They have to be protected too. So if you are a cap company your drives must be paid well. You must pay for health, retirement, unemployment insurance etc. so if the same costs which are applied to any job is also applied to the Uber drivers then we will not have any problem with them. however, if they want to avoid payment for the social security system, they must be punished. Uber tries to evade local law in Europe and that cannot be allowed.
44. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
  of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
  It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost. Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.
  They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.
45. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why should Uber get special treatment?
  Because there's no reason in the 21st century that mobile phone operated systems, that work for everyone, shouldn't be allowed.
  Not that Uber should get unique treatment for their company, but the laws should change such that such systems are allowed.
46. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  And the best people to operate bus systems are the state.
47. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me the answer to this abuse is to make badges non-transferable and apply to the driver. When a driver retires, dies or stops paying his dues, then a new badge becomes available from the licensing authority.
48. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Make it so that a license automatically reverts to the city when the taxi driver in question changes activity or retires. Make it illegal for a taxi driver to sell/"donate" his license to other would be drivers. This would address the worst aspects of this whole rigged system.
  Then the taxi license owners would argue that instead of having an appreciable asset, they'd merely have a license, and no reason to protect it.
  See the tragedy of the commons, and why so many people insist on property rights, from real estate to intellectual property.
49. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know how stupid that sounds?
  "I'm OK with taxi regulation as long as they drop them for Uber".
  What you said sounds stupid, but it's not remotely what I said, nor anything close to the meaning of what I said. AKA a strawman.
  
  This isn't a legislation problem. This is a problem of the world not suddenly bowing to the will of a fucking tech company who thinks a mobile phone app is magic and that laws should be changed to accommodate them.
  It's not just the companies (plural) that want this, but the passengers. And the drivers for that matter. In fact there's no one that's not served by it, other than those holding badges for 20th century taxi technology.
  
  And impounding Uber drivers' cars and fining them is a legitimate way to say "we don't give a fuck that you think the law shouldn't apply to you.
  Absolutely. A key part of civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to accept the penalty, until you win through.
  
  Uber is a greedy (fucking) technology company
  Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not interested in what companies you're a fanboi of and which you're a h8er. I'm interested in rational discussion of the greatest good for the greatest number.
50. Re:Well there's the problem... by bkmoore · 2015-05-26 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  "(taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain)."
  There's the problem. Piss off Italy...
  Italy is a country and can make whatever laws they want to regulating taxis or any other industries. If a company can take away Italy's right to regulate their own markets via TTIP, then wait until some other entity or business comes to your backyard and decides they don't like the regulations that maybe you want or need to preserve your business.
51. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough, it looks like you're the one throwing a tantrum with that post.
52. Re:Well there's the problem... by danbob999 · 2015-05-26 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  But where regulation is not being updated to allow new mobile phone app services which are good for passengers, drivers and even other road users, then clearly there is a legislation problem.
  "New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
  Uber is cheaper only because they don't pay for licenses. Remove the licenses for other taxi companies, and they will offer the same price as Uber.
  So the debate isn't whether "new mobile phone app services" should be allowed, but rater if licenses fees should be lowered. And the rules should be the same for everyone.
53. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  That some people want to make the idiotic claims that laws are hurting innovation, or that regulating an industry is some fucking grand conspiracy to keep taxi owners rich ... saying it doesn't make it true. It's still batshit crazy stuff which has nothing to do with reality, other than indicating you desperately wish reality adhered to your crazy beliefs.
  You believe that mobile phone operated and called computer systems don't exist? Or that there aren't laws in certain countries/cities that ban them? Or that there's no reason not to have outdated taxi systems that don't serve the public as well, or what? What is it you are claiming is bat-shit crazy, and has no reality?
  Perhaps you should calm down and think about the topic before you post again.
54. Re:Well there's the problem... by IamTheRealMike · 2015-05-26 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Your desire to have the mythical unicorn of the free market still doesn't change the reality that those laws exist, they exist for a reason, and it's not up to Uber to decide what the law is.
  Markets are hardly mythical. They're rather common.
  Anyway you're arguing with things he never said. Obviously the laws exist. Obviously Uber cannot decide what the laws are. The only part you're disagreeing with him on is "they exist for a reason", but that's the crux of the issue - some people believe that reason is bogus. Limiting the numbers of cabs specifically to fight congestion is so indirect it practically screams corruption. You solve congestion with congestion charges, that apply to all vehicles equally.
  
  Uber wants to run a illegal cabs, contrary to the law. The problem isn't the existence of the law. it's that Uber are a bunch of whiny self-entitled douchbags whose business model relies on running illegal cabs and playing the victim card.
  Given that your post criticises Uber for "throwing a tantrum" your own writing comes across as extremely shrill. The problem is the existence of the law. You seem to think that all laws must be righteous and good and no organised group of people who give themselves a name and a logo should ever object to a law or try to get it changed (and good luck getting taxi laws changed agains the incumbents without a large large consumer group to back you up). That's an increasingly non-viable position in our world: governments create laws at prodigious rates and the effort needed to get them overturned is too large for individuals to take on.
55. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they are a country, and it would be utterly wrong to take away their rights to legislate via TTIP.
  On the other hand, civil disobedience is a valid way of protesting bad law.
56. Re:Well there's the problem... by danbob999 · 2015-05-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost.
  Yes it is. That's the whole point.
  
  Uber absolutely works within the licensing law in countries & cities such as mine who's regulations have provision for the mobile phone based service they offer.
  No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers. But we are talking about Uber X/Pop/Whatever where anyone can be a driver without paying for the license and having insurance.
  
  They only operate illegally in places with outdated laws that have not been updated for 21st century technology.
  You don't need 21st century technology to offer taxi service with no license. The old phone/dispatcher model works just fine with unlicensed drivers too.
  So again, the Uber debate has nothing to do with technology.
57. Re:Well there's the problem... by IamTheRealMike · 2015-05-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. The taxi drivers would compete for too few passengers by trying to undercut each other, skimming on costs thus reducing the safety for passengers etc.
  Except that taxi prices are controlled, either by the state (yellow cabs) or by Uber. Taxi drivers don't dynamically adjust prices on an hourly basis by themselves.
58. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  "New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
  That's not true. Taxi legislation often specifies how the taxi service is operated, such that specific taximeters and manufacturers/service companies are mandatory.
59. Re:Well there's the problem... by beltsbear · 2015-05-26 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo. We have a winner! Artificial limits on cabs serve nobody but the cab companies.
60. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  "It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost."
  Yes it is. That's the whole point.
  I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick.
  
  No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers.
  
  Yes they do. For example London. However London also has the quite separate "private hire car" category, who are not entitled to pick up hailing customers from the street or use taxi ranks. That's the group Uber operate in there. Paying the appropriate fees.
  That's the issue. Uber operate quite legally, within the system, where their system is permitted. ANd they use civil disobedience where it isn't.
  It's not about refusing to pay for badges.
61. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, because regulated busses with greater capacity and better safety can take their place.
  Which is no longer the cheap transportation they can afford...
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
62. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's the original argument behind places like NYC putting medallion systems in place. The idea is that by restricting the number of taxis, you get the following benefits:
  1. People use taxis less, because there's just not enough supply. It means that they walk a little further, take the bus, or ride the subway.
  2. Because there's not so much competition, Taxi drivers are guaranteed to make decent money and are able to afford all the regulation - things like car safety, age, equipment, etc...
  That being said, I do believe that the system has degenerated too far into a protectionist system, where the idea is to protect the current players in the cab business, not customers.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
63. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  What's not cheap about busses?
64. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Some areas are this way.
  However, consider that the book value of NYC's medallions is well over ten billion dollars. You propose taking that artificial property away from them, or even significantly decreasing it's value, and you'll see hell.
  The Taxi companies are very careful to court the local politicians to prevent that very occurrence.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
65. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  The laws aren't there to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices. You'd have to be an idiot to think that.
  The moment you create a medallion system where, by law or regulation, only a limited number of licenses are created you're deliberately creating artificial scarcity. Basic economics translates to that driving up prices.
  The Taxi industry is a classic case of 'regulatory capture', where the regulations become less about protecting the consumer than favoring the existing players through a system of waivers and them just being able to adopt to the regulations gradually, while a new player has to go through a phone book of regulations, making trivial but still business killing violations extremely likely simply due to complexity.
  NYC Taxi rules went far beyond basic safety.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
66. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, Uber provides a service PEOPLE want.
  Just because you are a corporate tool who likes the Plutocratic status quo doesn't make you right, just sad
67. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes "It's the law, so it MUST be right!"
  You people are so cute.
68. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Artificial restraints on trade to protect a calcified, outdated mode.
69. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  "For all the reasons you are ignoring - safety, avoidance of being ripped-off, limitation of numbers"
  I see you've never taken a licensed taxi in Rome. I've never feared for my life more doing 160 kph down a highway with 3 painted lanes on the road and 5 lanes of traffic going down them. The 160 kph wouldn't be so bad if it weren't the fact that traffic was doing 100 kph, and boy will they do everything they can to rip you off. My personal favorites, leave the meter on the "2+" setting when you're the only one in the car and it should be set to the "1" setting and charging a lower rate. And my, isn't it amazing how they always find the most scenic routes to get to your destination. It only adds 5-10 miles as well!
  And boy, aren't those limitation of numbers appreciated during peak hours and they tell you they can pick you up in an hour.
70. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Everything?
  1. A smaller bus has better gas mileage.
  2. A smaller bus can reach more areas
  3. Unregulated driver is probably paid less(being paid more isn't a guarantee of improved quality)
  4. A smaller bus is still efficient even with smaller loads.
  We have a real problem in the USA that due to low ridership, many bus systems INCREASE the pollution on the roads, rather than decreasing it. Unless you have somewhere around 12-20 riders on a bus, it's not actually more efficient/less polluting than private autos.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
71. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  >But don't let reality stand in the way of your libertarian fantasy world.
  Your fantasy world seems to believe that fairness is both a poor person and a rich person being banned from living under a bridge.
72. Re:Well there's the problem... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2015-05-26 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, shape up with that attitude or we'll put Amanda Knox on trial again!
73. Re: Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it is the law and therefore it is right. Unlike bastardized populaces like USians, we Europeans follow rules and obey orders. We are disciplined and understand what our place is in the great collective. That is why the future belongs to us Europeans, the rising Herrenvolk, marching united towards a new era in which Europe will dominate the world and subjugate the inferior, mongrel races.
74. Re:Well there's the problem... by prefec2 · 2015-05-26 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, we want all these things here in good old Europe. Therefore, we make rules. And every company has to accept that. We do not want to have de-solidarized society, like the US.
75. Re: Well there's the problem... by prefec2 · 2015-05-26 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The EU is far from perfect, but we have a different view on how countries should be organized. Social security systems are part of our countries for a good reason. People have fought for them to protect them, e.g., from the greed of employers. And actually most countries in the EU had their share of world domination stupidity, like the UK, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, etc.
  You can have all the Uber you want in the US, but we do not want that here. Is that so hard to accept. Why should we all become US American lookalikes?
76. Re:Well there's the problem... by Sassinak · 2015-05-26 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree, EXCEPT its not a matter of " whiny idiots" but rather breaking a system that by its very nature is prone to corruption and simply doesn't want change because it doesn't benefit the owners of the medallions.
  Look at EVERY shake up in the industry (in the US with the break up of "MaBell", that upstart Google with their search engines and "Free stuff", Tesla, etc...) all of these groups tried to change the status quo so you are no longer playing on field owned by someone else's rules but rather the simple premise of who has the best product/service for the cheapest price, not "I HAVE to use them because the rules dictate I must" Uber is doing nothing more than what many many others have done (and are doing).
  If they (the government) wanted it to change, they would create/revise a system in which these "self-owned" taxis can operate, pay a nominal fee and move on with their lives.. but rather than doing what other countries have done (ie: give them a framework that lets them operate), they want to just ban it (like that works).. once people get a taste of "freedom" its REALLY hard to put the genie back in the bottle). That is what the issue is.. Uber isn't saying "let us operate for free" they are saying "the rules state X, and we are operating within the confines of X, but we are not X we are Y", and the government is burying their heads in the sand saying "if you are X, only X, then you are X, everything else (Y,Z, X+1) is banned because we don't want to piss off the groups that pay a lot in taxes to us.
  
  --
  God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
77. Re:Well there's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-05-26 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
  No it isn't fair, because the number of medallions is artificially limited, so "everybody" can't get one. If anyone could enter the market, and licenses were priced to cover the cost of administration, that would be fair. What we have now is just an anti-competitive extortion racket.
78. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Invest in bubbles, and you ask for the consequences. I certainly hope that the utility of a city's transport system isn't dictated by such considerations.
79. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-26 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, until we get the verdict we want!
80. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  The number of taxi licenses should only be limited by the number people requesting one.
  Try that with hunting and fishing.
81. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about the USA but a country where proper public transport is much needed, and these mini-bus taxis are filling in for the lack of it.
82. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  In NYC, Uber drivers are forced to buy commercial insurance and have commercial plates. These are professionals. NJ/CT uber drivers can not pick up in NYC.
83. Re:Well there's the problem... by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-05-26 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  " If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable. "
  Gee, if loaves of bread were not serially numbered and limited in supply by the Bread Commission, bakers would produce an infinite amount of it, clogging every city street with baked grains.
84. Re:Well there's the problem... by cayenne8 · 2015-05-26 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  We have a real problem in the USA that due to low ridership, many bus systems INCREASE the pollution on the roads, rather than decreasing it. Unless you have somewhere around 12-20 riders on a bus, it's not actually more efficient/less polluting than private autos.
  When you can get a bus system that will take me door-to-door for all destinations I need to go in a day, on MY time schedule (or at least within 15 or so minutes of it), then I'll be interested.
  Otherwise public transportation doesn't fit into my lifestyle. The only time I really needs cabs or maybe uber when I can try it out...is if I don't feel like risking driving after drinking.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
85. Re:Well there's the problem... by jwdb · 2015-05-26 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis.
  It's worth pointing out that they're outcomes due to a lack of very different kinds of regulation. 500 taxis vying for the same fare is a result of not limiting their number, whereas 30 in an 8-person van is a result of not enforcing safety and quality standards. You could scrap the limits while still enforcing quality standards, which would put more taxis on the road without endangering people. Enforcing standards would also help somewhat with the overcrowding, as not everyone would be able to just suddenly become a taxi - gotta make sure you're up to spec, and such.
86. Re:Well there's the problem... by adisakp · 2015-05-26 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  "(taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain)."
  There's the problem. Piss off Italy...
  Taxi licenses (cab medallions) in the US can cost over a million to obtain (example New York City just two years ago). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...
87. Re:Well there's the problem... by danbob999 · 2015-05-26 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  You are wrong. London do not ban the use of mobile phone to call a cab.
88. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Duh! I'm not talking about a phone call. I'm talking about an app on the passenger side, and an app on the drivers side that calculates a fare. The legal barrier is the means of calculating the fare. (phone app vs sealed, approved, serviced meter of a specific type.)
89. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  You guys act like the medallion system just came out of nowhere - like every government everywhere just decided to all do the same thing. Taxi regulations exist for a reason. Deregulation was attempted in parts of the US in the 70s and didn't work out so well.
90. Re:Well there's the problem... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-26 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about the USA but a country where proper public transport is much needed, and these mini-bus taxis are filling in for the lack of it.
  Proper public transport as in the UK? Germany? France? Don't make me laugh. Buses in Europe are cumbersome and slow, for the same reason they are in the US: they are government-granted, subsidized monopolies (although they are still better than trains and light rail).
91. Re:Well there's the problem... by Wrath0fb0b · 2015-05-26 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you want fair competition, you have to do it under the same rules as everyone else.
  And fair rules would be that any driver that meets some objective criteria relevant to driving (vehicle inspection, insurance, licensure, ...) can operate a taxi and obey the same rules. Unfair rules would be something like "the first 1000 people to sign up" can operate a taxi and everyone else can sod off.
  Not every rule or regulation is an evil plot to suppress the entrepreneurial spirit.
  Not every rule or regulation is justified in protecting consumers or the public.
  In this case, the consumer-protection part of the laws are undoubtedly the former while the arbitrary limitations on the number of licenses seem very likely to be the latter.
  
  This has nothing to do with fair competition, or protecting entrenched players. This is about governments having the authority to pass laws, and whiny idiots claiming they don't want laws.
  Of course they have authority to pass laws. And people have the right to complain when the laws go beyond protecting consumers into protecting a racket. Not every law is foolish or an imposition or liberty but as the same time some are giveaways to special interests.
92. Re:Well there's the problem... by danbob999 · 2015-05-26 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Passengers don't like Uber because the fare is calculated using the mobile application. They like Uber because it's: 1. convenient and 2. cheaper.
  Nothing in the law in London or anywhere that I know of forbids cab companies from developing a smartphone software which is just as convenient and easy to use, while at the same time calculating the cost with the legal meter. The meter could even send its data to the cell phone.
  Uber is cheaper for only one reason, because they don't pay for licenses.
93. Re:Well there's the problem... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-05-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  A taxi can get you almost anywhere in less than half the time.
  That problem isn't the taxi's problem, it is a train problem. I could design a bus system in New York that would Eliminate the need for Taxis.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
94. Re:Well there's the problem... by CrimsonAvenger · 2015-05-26 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Quite possibly.
  However the 13K taxis is the number of medallions (or whatever NYC calls its equivalent), so there are NOT more than 13K-odd taxis.
  The 5M or so was estimated from statistics I pulled randomly from the interwebs which stated that while (slightly) fewer than half of New Yorkers even owned cars, 30% of New Yorkers drove them to work (as opposed to public transportation).
  Since most of us go to work at about the same time, I am assuming that NYC's streets are designed to handle their peak load (people driving to/from work) reasonably well. During that peak load (we call it Rush Hour down here, what do you call it up there?) there will be ~5M cars on the road in the City (note that NYC does not just include Manhattan), of which only 13K (max legal number) are taxis.
  Note that your suggested "possibly even two" orders of magnitude error implies only 50K cars on the streets of New York at Rush Hour (the 13K taxis are hardcoded into the equation - there cannot be more legally). Since that's fewer cars than we see in New Orleans (a city about 2% of New York's size) on an average commute, I suspect that you're...mistaken.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
95. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  thats fine, my life's goal is remove the 90% subsidy on your lifestyle*. We'll see how your entitled little twat wrinkles when me and my 9 buddies stop subsidizing the lifestyle of a fucking scumbag.
96. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Passengers don't like Uber because the fare is calculated using the mobile application. They like Uber because it's: 1. convenient and 2. cheaper.
  Actually, it's often not cheaper, but it is more convenient and often a nicer experience. And the majority of the rides are being paid for by a third party (the passengers' employers) since most Uber passengers are business travelers. So basically, they like Uber because it's convenient.
97. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's your prejudice, not reality. Neither government, subsidy, not monopoly affects the speed of a bus. Congestion does. And dedicated lanes speed them up again.
98. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Convenient, yes. Cheaper, depends. But don't dismiss the importance of having the price quoted before the journey - that's a BIG attraction.
  I'm afraid you've committed a classic systems analysis mistake - letting your preconceived idea of a solution affect your requirements (or use cases).
  Again, it's got fuck all to do with the cost of licenses. Uber uses drivers with badges where the law already allows for their technology to be used.
99. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's the thing. It's not a proper 'bubble'. It's 'artificial property'. You literally hold 'nothing' real by owning a Taxi Medallion. One stroke of a pen by the government - whether by the regulatory body, legislature, or court, and your property is gone. *poof*. Worthless.
  Which is why I mentioned that taxi companies are extremely protective of them.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
100. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-26 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming that 'proper public transport' would be efficient. That's not a guarantee, seeing as how these micro-buses can fulfill numerous transport needs in flexible fashions.
  Of course, perhaps you have a different picture in mind than a typical system operating large buses on fixed routes and schedules.
  I'll also note that I know it's not about the USA, but the USA is most of my experience, which is why I said so.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
101. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  This is a bonkers idea! if there is no demand for there taxis, they will not ply the roads. Granted, at some point you may see people actually opt to take taxis to every place they go to rather than their own car but that is less to do with the streets being crowded by taxis. The situation would be worse if everyone brought their own personal car.
102. Re:Well there's the problem... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's your prejudice, not reality.
  Having lived and worked in those countries, I beg to differ.
  
  Neither government, subsidy, not monopoly affects the speed of a bus.
  Physically, no. But it affects labor costs, schedules, stops, frequency, bus size, and use of technology, and those affect travel time in a big way.
  A large number of small, privately operated buses responsive to actual customer demand gets people from source to destination a lot faster than the government run behemoths that you are so fond of.
103. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Beg to differ all you like, having lived in one of those countries most of my life and another of them for a number of years, I'm not impressed.
  Certainly it affects all those things. The drivers get a decent wage, the schedules and routes mean they run all day, and often all night, when purely commercial operations would not operate outside busy hours and routes, and unlike the unlicensed systems you mention, they tend to have stops with electronic countdowns to when the busses are due.
  In Britain they partially "deregulated" the busses in the 1980s, and the services got worse and more expensive.
  As I said, your opinion is prejudice, not reality.
104. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  40 minutes to build a strawman that weak?
  that's pathetic
105. Re:Well there's the problem... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-26 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Beg to differ all you like, having lived in one of those countries most of my life and another of them for a number of years, I'm not impressed.
  Ah, there's the problem: you simply don't know any better.
106. Re:Well there's the problem... by mjwx · 2015-05-26 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
  That is utter bullshit. It is fear mongering at its worse.
  You need to go and live where there are no taxi regulations before saying anything like that.
  
  I've lived in several of these places. Taxis always ended up in the hands of criminal gangs, territories were enforced and fought over and it was at the point where the government couldn't do anything about it even if they wanted to. Case in point, Phuket's taxi mafia, you may want to note the heavily regulated taxis in Bangkok are a lot cheaper and a lot less violent.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
107. Re:Well there's the problem... by mjwx · 2015-05-26 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  How can you reasonably have 500 drivers vying for the same fare and also have 30 people in a 8 person minibus? What is the motivation to overcrowd?
  Erm, the motivation is easy money. The same thing Uber is promising.
  
  I haven't been to Kampala, but I've seen the same thing in SE Asia, in fact it gets worse there. unlicensed taxi drivers tend to form gangs, create turf and fight over their territory. Thailand is a good example. In Bangkok where taxis are regulated they are cheap, easy to find, safe and reliable if you dont feel like using Bangkok's good public transport, a trip from the city centre to BKK airport (35 KM) is a mere 400 baht. In Phuket where there are no taxi regulations taxi and tuk tuk drivers refuse to turn on less than 200 baht. So you'll take the bus then I hear you say, well good luck with that, whenever the government of Phuket gets it in their head to set up a municipal bus service (baht bus) the drivers are stopped, dragged out of their buses and beaten by the taxi mafia.
  
  Dont take my word for it, google "Phuket taxi mafia", "Tuk Tuk mafia" or even just "taxi mafia" (the first google result should be for Phuket).
  
  There are many examples of this, such as what happened when South Africa deregulated their taxi industry.
  
  We have taxi regulations for a good reason, sure I'll be the first to admit they aren't perfect, but having lived in places with the alternative, the worst protectionist policies are better than that.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
108. Re:Well there's the problem... by petherfile · 2015-05-26 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are trying to argue about different issues thinking they are the same.
  ShanghaiBill is talking about the law being contrary to the way he thinks is more effective.
  gstoddart is talking about Uber not complying to the laws as they are.
  Both point are relevant to the article, but not the same.
109. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the cabs that you cite are in Manhattan (aka "the city"). Anyone who commutes to Manhattan usually takes the subway, ferry, or bus. The few who do drive are nuts to do so. The rest of the commuters from "NYC" are driving to/from the other boroughs...
  The problem is that you don't differentiate between Manhattan and the other boroughs. It would be insane to double the cabs in Manhattan.
110. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  You misspelled a few words. Allow me to fix it for you.
  
  In Fuck It where there are no taxi regulations taxi and tuk tuk drivers refuse to turn on less than 200 baht. So you'll take the bus then I hear you say, well good luck with it, whenever the government of Fuck It gets it in their head to set up a municipal bus service (baht bus) the drivers are stopped, dragged out of their buses and beaten by the taxi mafia.
111. Re:Well there's the problem... by OrangeTide · 2015-05-26 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  off-topic, but the site referred to in your sig has lots of buggy HTML that makes it impossible to accurately complete the extremely biased survey:
  
  I don't read AC A human right
  
  The main issue I have is several groups of unrelated radio buttons were marked as "x"
  <INPUT NAME="x" TYPE=Radio>
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
112. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  And in Sydney, a permanent taxi license has in recent years cost over $400K to transfer (though it's dropping as the govt releases more "annual" licenses to dilute the value of the permanent ones). When you have to effectively have a second mortgage to cover your right to run a taxi, there's something very unbalanced in the market.
  Mind you, even the ANNUAL licenses go for $30K up. So each of those licensees starts the year of driving a taxi $30K in the hole, which means making enough money to live at the poverty line means taking in well over $1400 a week gross (~$600 for the license, $400 for expenses - laughably insufficient, $400 to be at the poverty line).
113. Re:Well there's the problem... by kwbauer · 2015-05-26 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Otherwise public transportation doesn't fit into my lifestyle". See, the problem is that you are doing it backwards. If you want to be "eco-friendly" and "green" and all that other crap, you have to fit your lifestyle into "the good things."
114. Re:Well there's the problem... by dave420 · 2015-05-26 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Did you honestly just proclaim that all bus services in Europe are cumbersome and slow? Every single one? Really? I've used some ridiculously awesome bus services (particularly in London), which were fast, convenient, cheap, and did precisely what I needed. I guess my anecdote cancels out your massive generalisation.
115. Re:Well there's the problem... by dave420 · 2015-05-26 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  There are good reasons to limit the number of taxis on streets. If this needs to be explained to you, you might want to read up on this topic :)
116. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  You're an idiot.
117. Re:Well there's the problem... by dave420 · 2015-05-26 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe where you live. In plenty parts of the world the local regulators have created decent taxi services: cheap, efficient, clean, and timely. Don't confuse your local fuck-ups for everyone else.
118. Re:Well there's the problem... by danbob999 · 2015-05-27 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  You only have an estimate of the price with Uber X. The real price is calculated per minute and per kilometer. No different from a meter. The only difference is that the price is a little cheaper, because they don't pay for the license.
119. Re:Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · 2015-05-27 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you like monopolies doesn't mean they benefit society in general, they only benefit the owners/stockholders
120. Re:Well there's the problem... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-05-27 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Did you honestly just proclaim that all bus services in Europe are cumbersome and slow? Every single one? Really?
  No, I didn't. Learn to read and understand English before you start having a debate in it.
121. Re:Well there's the problem... by cayenne8 · 2015-05-27 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Otherwise public transportation doesn't fit into my lifestyle". See, the problem is that you are doing it backwards. If you want to be "eco-friendly" and "green" and all that other crap, you have to fit your lifestyle into "the good things."
  While I have nothing against being green I'm not really willing to go out of my way to be green. If it is convenient, sure. But I've lived my life to this point enjoying certain things and a certain lifestyle and with life being so short, I'm not willing to put myself out for some benefit I'll never see.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
122. Re:Well there's the problem... by david_thornley · 2015-05-27 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Note that Uber also doesn't seem to want to conform to objective criteria, as they employ drivers who don't have commercial licenses and commercial insurance. That suggests to me that Uber is primarily being whiny about any regulation that cuts into their profits. Given two sides of an issue, there often aren't good guys to cheer for.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
123. Re:Well there's the problem... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-05-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I would settle for "within a couple blocks" if the schedule didn't suck. To get from my house, to the mall across town, takes just under two hours. It is ten minute drive (city streets). If the buses had shorter routes, and more frequency, they could do much better in ridership. THe problem is, they have long routes that don't really go where you want.
  IMHO a bus loop should be 15 or 30 minutes. Not the hour long loops they currently make.
  Currently, if you miss the bus, you're screwed.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
124. Re:Well there's the problem... by Shirley+Marquez · 2015-05-27 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Phuket (pronounced POO-ket, not FUCK-it) is an actual city and province in Thailand. Though to add to the confusion, it is a major destination for sex tourism, and a plastic surgery center that performs gender reassignment surgery (one of many in Thailand) is located there.
125. Re:Well there's the problem... by ToddInSF · 2015-05-27 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable."
  
  Except that is an unfounded assumption.
  
  It's never happened anywhere.
126. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-27 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that for every taxi / Uber / Via / Gett / other-rideshare-option, there's 1 less person who feels the need to buy a car. In some markets, it's cheaper to rideshare every day, than to make car payments.
127. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-27 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  I may have to change my sig. It's been years since I visited it.
  The survey is more an SocraticExercise than anything else, the results aren't actually tabulated.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
128. Re:Well there's the problem... by OrangeTide · 2015-05-27 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I mostly chose responses where I could cower in the corner. Because I was worried that personality type was not well represented in people who would actually finish the survey. Pity the results aren't tabulated, but now it makes more sense now that you bring up it being Socratic questioning.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
129. Re:Well there's the problem... by Firethorn · 2015-05-27 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, I just did the survey and it worked fine for me. Latest version of firefox.
  Cowering in the corner isn't necessarily a bad strategy, but it's not optimal. Defending yourself with an effective weapon generally has the best options. The 'passive aggressive' strategy of passive non-compliance that police were recommending for a while is actually the worst.
  Though I'll admit that I have a good deal of belief in the theory of 'all that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing', thus believe that even if it's non-optimal for the first person, the prevention of a criminal from attacking successive targets makes everybody safer in the long run.
  Personally, I want as many guns in 'good' hands as possible, while denying them to the 'bad' people. However, denying 'bad' people weapons is a never-ending battle. Witness England, where they're even trying to crack down on knives, sturdy umbrellas, and the sort. All that does is enable the physically fit thug.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
Italian Government: cabs are for the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 02:51 · Score: 0

If the poor can afford luxuries like cabs, what's the point of being rich?
1. Re:Italian Government: cabs are for the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  How is a taxi a luxury?
2. Re:Italian Government: cabs are for the rich by houghi · 2015-05-26 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  In Europe you can take public transport if you are not rich. In Europe a taxi is a luxery.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
3. Re:Italian Government: cabs are for the rich by fustakrakich · 2015-05-26 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's faster than a donkey...
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Who could have known? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 02:56 · Score: 0, Funny

Operating an illegal taxi service would be illegal?!
1. Re:Who could have known? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  This is why I argue against calling what Uber does as "innovative". The only innovation is that they have a ton of money and political connections behind them so they start as an illegal taxi/limo service and then once they are big enough in a region, they get the law changed in their favor.
2. Re:Who could have known? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Operating an illegal taxi service would be illegal?!
  And yet, somehow a company is allowed to charge $100K for taxi medallions, with the end result being cab fares being what they are today...
  And you want call that monopoly and their activities legal and fair.
  Enjoy your future rates. After all, you asked for zero competition.
$100k License by zamboni1138 · 2015-05-26 03:06 · Score: 2

each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain
Holy shit! No wonder the last time I was in Rome it was ~€80 taxi fare from the airport to my hotel.
Kicker: Got to the hotel and found out they had a free shuttle.
1. Re:$100k License by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Did you want to go to space?
2. Re:$100k License by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  (Italian here) 80 Euros? You have been scammed. It should be 30-40 Euros. Unfortunately taxi drivers aren't exactly... that honest. See: http://www.revealedrome.com/2013/08/ciampino-airport-taxi.html
3. Re:$100k License by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  What? But taxi drivers are licensed! Surely the $100k annual license fee the Italian taxis pay apiece is used to fund enforcement of taxi fare laws and driver safety, right?
4. Re:$100k License by GumphMaster · 2015-05-26 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  If your hotel was inside the Aurelian Wall then there is a flat EUR48 fare from Rome Fiumicino regardless of time. For destinations outside the Aurelian Wall the fare is metered. I hope you weren't additionally fleeced by a trustworthy licenced taxi driver turning on the meter for these fixed fare trips in peak traffic: the timed fare works out much better for them.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
5. Re:$100k License by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  From my Greek experience, I'd bet that the $100k for the licence are not paid to the Italian state.
  $100k would be what you will need to pay to a licence owner to have him transfer his licence to you. Of course the declared amount for the transaction would be much less to avoid taxation. This is essentially a black market price. I don't see why the investments of some people in black market goods have to be protected this way.
  Numbered taxi licences is a thing of the past, when owning a car was a substantial investment (think post-war Europe). But these times are long gone. In the meantime, South European governments kept the sector regulated so they can control existing drivers or occasionally buy-out votes by giving out new licences. It's time to do away this crap.
Easy enough to block by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:08 · Score: 0

Just tell the cellular carriers to cut the routes to Uber's servers.
ignorant white boy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:09 · Score: 0

It much feel really good to be a privileged, ignorant white-boy.
Now go back to cleaning your AR.
Good luck with that - it's Italy by Bearhouse · 2015-05-26 03:11 · Score: 1

The Western European champion for having the largest part of GDP as undeclared "underground" economy.
https://www.atkearney.com/fina...
Only the Greeks and former soviet countries do "better".
This, plus the fact that the Italian economy is not improving, and that the country is bust, will only push this trend.
1. Re:Good luck with that - it's Italy by ShanghaiBill · 2015-05-26 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  The Western European champion for having the largest part of GDP as undeclared "underground" economy.
  Also the only first world nation with a brain drain, of more educated people leaving than arriving, mostly because of lack of opportunity in a corrupt and over regulated economy. In the ease of doing business rankings, Italy is below Mexico and Colombia, and only a few notches above Russia.
2. Re:Good luck with that - it's Italy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  You just forgot to mention that in the same ranking Luxembourg is ranked below Italy. And it's the second richest country in the world by GDP per capita according to the IMF. Same story for BRICS countries, whose growth rates are the highest in the world: the are all below Italy there. So I guess that over-regulation is good, or, in alternative, you just posted garbage.
3. Re:Good luck with that - it's Italy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Well, since UberPop is an example of shadow economy, I guess that tax revenues will increase after this court decision.
  Furthermore, there are several other factors to look at to analyze a country. Italy has the second-highest life expectancy in the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), and a 10.4% obesity rate (OECD, Obesity Update 2014), one of the lowest in europe and the west. Which means, for example, that the two ugly biological monsters in the photo below (not sure if they are british or american) wouldn't even be considered "humans" in Italy, or in any other country with a low obesity rate:
  http://media.komonews.com/imag...
  So I guess that Italy has its pros and cons, like any other country.
  Note that this post might be considered completely off-topic. Just like yours.
4. Re:Good luck with that - it's Italy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Also the only first world nation with a brain drain, of more educated people leaving than arriving, mostly because of lack of opportunity in a corrupt and over regulated economy. In the ease of doing business rankings, Italy is below Mexico and Colombia, and only a few notches above Russia.
  This. It's sad to watch Italy going down the drains, although I am lucky I am beyond it's northern border.
5. Re:Good luck with that - it's Italy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  So I guess that over-regulation is good, or, in alternative, you just posted garbage.
  Quite both, but mostly the first. Regulation IS good. In the food industry for example, it's fundamental. That's why Italian food is the best in the world. And that's why TTIP would be a disaster for them, and for western consumers in general.
Italy - the day before disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:18 · Score: 0

Italy; 132.6% GDP national debt, no growth, average age about 43, huge youth unemployment, recession, deflation and emigration.
Wonder how they got there?
1. Re:Italy - the day before disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  I lived in Rome for 2 years (2013-2014), and house prices are close to Manhattan, people have one month paid vacation, they go to the restaurant for dinner at least once a week, people are slim and toned like hollywood actors, and while public debt is high, private debt is one of the lowest in the west, much lower than USA, France, UK and Germany: http://www.cityam.com/14115016...
  The State is "poor", but families are rich. 80% of families live in a house they own, renting is not very common.
  And they have one of the highest average life expectancies in the world, so obviously the median age is high too. Furthermore, I appreciate that they have kept a bloodline-based citizenship law, so they haven't turned into an african country like france.
"Unfair"? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-05-26 03:18 · Score: 1

"Unfair competition", against government laws whose purpose is, against the concept of freedom, to restrict competition? Against a government/big business coalition to carve up the rights to sell to people-qua-owned cattle?
How ludicrous.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:"Unfair"? by tompaulco · 2015-05-26 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Unfair competition", against government laws whose purpose is, against the concept of freedom, to restrict competition? Against a government/big business coalition to carve up the rights to sell to people-qua-owned cattle?
  How ludicrous.
  Well, it seems unfair if all of the previous people that started a taxi business had to be pay for a medallion, but suddenly Uber comes in and doesn't have to. If we are going to get all butthurt that Uber shouldn't have to pay, then go ahead and refund the $100k to all the other drivers as well. I am sure they will appreciate it.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
2. Re:"Unfair"? by bluefoxlucid · 2015-05-26 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  The title is ludicrous. "Court orders UberPop to be banned in all of Italy" really? Who is going to do the banning? It seems to me the court didn't actually order anyone to ban UberPop, so oh well.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
Is really unfair? What are your experiences? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 03:25 · Score: 0

It's happen the same right now in Mexico, where the taxi's services are really bad, they look bad, they smell bad, they do every kind of tricks (take the longer road or the one with more traffic) to charge you more for the services (there is an electronic tariff-meter that every taxi driver seems to have modified to charge more than the allowed).
I mean, isn't it really better a service like Ubber which is more cheap (at least for Mexico city), more well presented, etc? Or what is the experience in another countries?
The cab drivers... by dmaul99 · 2015-05-26 04:21 · Score: 1

Put yourself in their position. Let's say as a software engineer, in order to ply your craft, you are legally required to obtain a certificate from the government that costs 100 grand, up front, before you can ever get a job. You can't get around it, you can't operate out of Belize, you can't just do it on the side on the downlow. You want that job at google? Pay the 100K. You want that freelance job developing your cousin's business website? Pay the 100K or get arrested when the IRS finds out you didn't get the 100K token. It's not your fault, you have to do it.
Now say some startup bullies their way into the market with offshore workers out of India and places them in the jobs you are competing for for free, without having to get the tokens for them, without having to pay malpractice insurance, without having to even file taxes.
You gonna be cool with that? I mean it's not your fault you had to jump through the hoops to ply your trade.
Solution? Either make this startup pay for tokens and get insurance for them and do everything YOU have to do, or have the token system abolished and make it so you don't have to have insurance to work AND make the startup compensate you by refunding your token for you as a requirement to enter the market and compete with you.
1. Re:The cab drivers... by Shados · 2015-05-26 04:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't know about this case, but on this side of the world, it wasn't that simple.
  These Uber and Lyfts didn't go and bully themselves in the taxi industry. They originally operated differently: You never needed a medallion to run a car service. -You needed a medallion to pick up people hailing you in the street.-
  That is very different. What these new startups did, was use technology to remove the need to hail a cab. I could always just go and call a non-taxi car service with a phone. No one needed a medallion to pick me up after i called them.
  Since hailing a cab is now obsolete, medallions are obsolete.
  If your engineer needed to pay 100k to do work that isn't pre-arranged.....blah, the analogy falls apart so hard I can't even fix it.
2. Re:The cab drivers... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  You realize how crazy that sounds right? Put this same requirement (a medallion) into any other industry and the sense of it falls apart. Try to implement it and its insane "cost of entry" fees widely and you could watch the entire economy implode. Imagine having to get a $15k token to become a fast food cook or a $50k token to become an auto mechanic. The idea of limiting the number of professionals in a particular field isn't completely without reason, but the implementation is almost always psychotic & corrupt especially over any length of time. You can see it in practically any profession that does so (taxis, medical professions, etc). I hate to sound like a broken record but with a proper civil/criminal system (which unfortunately ISN'T the case of course in most countries) a standard free market system should be able to ferret out disreputable professionals.
3. Re:The cab drivers... by BasilBrush · 2015-05-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Solution? Either make this startup pay for tokens and get insurance for them and do everything YOU have to do, or have the token system abolished and make it so you don't have to have insurance to work AND make the startup compensate you by refunding your token for you as a requirement to enter the market and compete with you.
  No, that's a false dichotomy. You can change the law so that mobile phone driven taxis are legal within the system, whilst still leaving the system restricted to badge owners. That's exactly how Uber operate where I am. Perfectly legally, because there is a category of licensed hire cars that doesn't exclude their technology.
4. Re:The cab drivers... by penguinoid · 2015-05-26 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, a medallion system for advertizers might be a pretty good idea. After all, if there were fewer ads then each ad would be that much more salient, so there would be little loss in advertizement power but the victims^H consumers would have more time to themselves.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Unfair competition? by XxtraLarGe · 2015-05-26 04:28 · Score: 2

A judicial court in Italy has ordered the UberPop app to cease offering its services, as it constitutes "competition" again the taxi sector (taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain)
FTFY. A government solution to a government created problem. Granting taxi companies an oligopoly (a monopoly for all intents and purposes), hurts consumers by limiting supply and artificially inflating prices. Get rid of the $100k numbered taxi licenses, and let the market set the price for getting rides. A glut of drivers would result in lower fares, which in turn would cause some drivers to drop out, allowing fares to rise to a reasonable level for both drivers & riders.
If there's concern for safe drivers, that can be handled with an additional test for drivers by their DMV. For instance, the State of Michigan allows drivers to take a chauffeur's test and get the license for an additional $35. This isn't a guarantee of safety, but neither is the $100k medallion system.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
1. Re:Unfair competition? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  > let the market set the price for getting rides
  No thanks. Taxis are a form of public transportation and public transportation is price regulated for a reason.
I can't believe Uber is legal anywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 04:36 · Score: 0

Those "vested private interests" paid $100k into the city budget. I'm guessing they would mind competition less if their medallion fee was refunded and they could compete on equal grounds. It is debatable whether limiting the number of taxis in a city is a good or bad thing, but most cities already do that, and you cannot ignore those facts on the ground.
Wrong comparison by aepervius · 2015-05-26 04:54 · Score: 1

The 5 million private car commute twice per day. The taxi works upward to 24/7. If you got a commute of 1 hour, that is 10 hours per week. Compared to 24*7=168 that is 17 times about a normal commuter car. So more like 4.25% to 8.5% doubling.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:Wrong comparison by Shatrat · 2015-05-26 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking averages when the only thing that matters is peak. At 8AM and 5PM +- an hour all taxis and all commuters are on the road at the same time.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
2. Re:Wrong comparison by jonbryce · 2015-05-26 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about New York, but in London, peak hours on the roads are between about 6am and 3am the following morning.
Uber is credit card only, so very hard to "shadow" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 05:16 · Score: 0

Uber is credit card only, which makes it quite hard to avoid taxes.
I dare to guess that the 100k licence holders have much better established ways of channeling their income ;)
And being "ranked" 2nd (together with 7 other countries), being 5th in Male life expectancy (together with 10 other countries) and 4th in Female life expectancy (together with 7 others) does not mean it has "the second-highest life expectancy in the world" :)
(And the part about some fat kids being non-human is completely off-topic indeed, and does not really help your credibility )
Re:Beware Corporate Sovereignty in TPP by bkmoore · 2015-05-26 05:55 · Score: 0

If the US gets its way with TPP then corporations can sue governments for anything that negatively impacts their profits. So Italy could not regulate taxis because Uber would sue them as causing unfair trade....
Please mod AC up! The problem as I see it with TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which is a free trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union is that it attempts to grant corporations an innate right to profitability and the ability to sue any government that passes laws that might restrict that profitability.
Re:Uber is credit card only, so very hard to "shad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 06:13 · Score: 0

Uber is credit card only, which makes it quite hard to avoid taxes.
Except that maybe people just meet using Uber, but then arrange a completely different travel. Nobody can really now, it's just two people on a car. Furthermore, let me doubt that even "honest" Uber users have the accounting skills required to put the uber-related income (and expenses) in their tax forms. It's not easy, you cannot just use TurboTax, Taxi drivers usually need (expensive) certified accountants to correctly file their tax returns.

does not mean it has "the second-highest life expectancy in the world"
Yes, it does. Unless you have serious problems with the english language, which is quite likely, given the fact that you cannot even count correctly: the other countries with the same second-highest life expectancy in the world (83 years) are FIVE, not 7. Most importantly, all of them have much tinier populations, and 4 of them are tiny fiscal heavens (Andorra, Singapore, San Marino, Switzerland), which makes Italy an even more exceptional case.

And the part about some fat kids being non-human is completely off-topic indeed, and does not really help your credibility
Yours has gone away with your post, since you even made up the numbers. And something makes me think that the photo pisses you off because you're probably fat too. But that's just a wild guess.
Uber and Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 06:30 · Score: 0

Do all of the people who support Uber's "right" to do business when where and how it pleases also support Tesla and vice-versa? Do all of the people who think Uber should not be allowed to do business the way it currently does also think that Tesla should not be allowed to do business the way it currently does? If the answer to one or both of these questions is no, then what is different between the two companies?
It is the same rule by SuperKendall · 2015-05-26 07:30 · Score: 1

If you want fair competition, you have to do it under the same rules as everyone else.
Uber is under the same rules - might makes right.
Both taxis and Uber have drivers working for a large organization with lots of money trying to compete. It's just that governments fight competition through fear and intimidation; companies like Uber fight competition through better service.
If you like fear and oppressive rule, by all means cheer the taxis on.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Good luck for now but ... Self driving cars by butchersong · 2015-05-26 08:46 · Score: 1

These protectionist type measures might work for now but the whole transportation field will be turned head over heels in next few decades. Self driving cars will mean few in the cities will need to own a car. You will just hit a button on your phone to summon one when necessary. All the space and resources tied up in parking lots, taxis, large scale public transport all might be seen as archaic soon.
Not same prices. Cheaper. by denzacar · 2015-05-26 09:50 · Score: 1

Remove the licenses for other taxi companies, and they will offer the same price as Uber.

Those companies already got the cars, trained drivers, a complete support network, decades of experience...
They would bury Uber in any case where they would be allowed to play by the same rules.
Hell... they could probably forgo on the whole "mobile app" thing.
Calling a dispatcher and getting assigned and forwarded the closest car is nothing particularly innovative and has worked since... well since one was able to use a phone to call a taxi.
No need for GPS or touch screen or whatever...
Hell... call it a feature. "Retro-Taxi". For all the hipsters out there.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:Not same prices. Cheaper. by Samizdata · 2015-05-27 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Remove the licenses for other taxi companies, and they will offer the same price as Uber.
  Those companies already got the cars, trained drivers, a complete support network, decades of experience... They would bury Uber in any case where they would be allowed to play by the same rules.
  Hell... they could probably forgo on the whole "mobile app" thing. Calling a dispatcher and getting assigned and forwarded the closest car is nothing particularly innovative and has worked since... well since one was able to use a phone to call a taxi. No need for GPS or touch screen or whatever...
  Hell... call it a feature. "Retro-Taxi". For all the hipsters out there.
  You know, I do need to get from point A to point B, but NOT if it involves skinny jeans...
  
  --
  It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Y'know... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 13:24 · Score: 0

I can't believe, having read all of teh comments in this thread, that not one person has made any comment about Italian drivers in general...
The litmus test by DulcetTone · 2015-05-26 13:59 · Score: 1

My worst Uber ride was about as good as my best taxi ride, all things considered.
The taxi/medallion system should wrinkle up and die, plain and simple. There are a few factors yet to consider, but the bottom line cannot be far from that if the interests of the passengers and the largest population of would-be drivers are fairly valued.

--
tone
Uber is just another capitalist venture by BillBrains · 2015-05-26 23:11 · Score: 0

This article so well written (in Italian, so use google translator) just about sums up what Uber really is http://www.huffingtonpost.it/g...
Protecting investors? by Firethorn · 2015-05-27 07:04 · Score: 1

Well, I was just correcting what I saw as mistakes in the AC's posting. There's a reason why I said 'kind of sucks.' It's my expression for 'well, that didn't work out, but there's really nothing that can be done to recover from it'.
As for benefiting the drivers - not really. You have to remember that they're also losing fairs to the cheaper and more lushly equipped Uber drivers who, not having to pay for the medallion or follow the cumbersome NYC taxi rules, can afford to run a nicer vehicle than the cabbies.
Note on following NYC taxi rules - Uber is, to my knowledge, operating perfectly legally in NYC. NYC has several categories of 'hired vehicle'. There's two categories of taxi and several for non-taxi private car. Uber is NOT operating as a taxi service per NYC rules, but as a 'black car' service. It's drivers hold a chauffeur license, do not respond to street hails(IE putting out a hand and yelling as opposed to the app), have certain destination and pickup restrictions, etc... Matter of fact, Uber would likely fire any drivers found responding to street hails in NYC.
That being said, I have the feeling(not confirmed) that due to Uber's rating system and having superior pay, that cabbies that can do customer service better are being lured away by Uber. I remember reading somewhere that Uber effectively fires any driver whose rating drops below a 4.4 out of 5 stars.
So a guy who's friendly and shows up with a Tesla model S* will retain his position in Uber while the grouch with an old smelly Crown Vic might as well stick to the cab side.

--
I don't read AC A human right