Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Orders UberPop Use To Be Banned In All of Italy

Posted by timothy on 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.

11 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Well there's the problem... by MitchDev · · 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 · · 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 Archangel+Michael · · 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.
    3. Re:Well there's the problem... by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    4. Re:Well there's the problem... by prefec2 · · 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.

    5. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You forgot something. Each taxi is on the road all day, a private auto is not.

    6. Re:Well there's the problem... by gstoddart · · 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.
    7. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · · 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.

    8. Re:Well there's the problem... by BasilBrush · · 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.

  2. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:Holy hell by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good.