Court Orders UberPop Use To Be Banned In All of Italy

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.

Comments

Re:Well there's the problem...

[Holi]

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.

Re:Well there's the problem...

[LoyalOpposition]

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

Re:Well there's the problem...

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Holy hell

[Firethorn]

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'.