Slashdot Mirror


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.

32 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 Holi · · 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 · · Score: 2

      But, competition! And stifling innovation! Or something strangling something...

    4. Re:Well there's the problem... by mridoni · · 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 · · 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 CrimsonAvenger · · 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"
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. Re:Well there's the problem... by Richard_at_work · · 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.

    10. Re:Well there's the problem... by LoyalOpposition · · 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.
    11. 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.

    12. Re:Well there's the problem... by Asgard · · 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?

    13. 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.
    14. Re:Well there's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

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

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. Re:Well there's the problem... by danbob999 · · 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.

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

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

  2. Re:Holy hell by TWX · · 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.
  3. $100k License by zamboni1138 · · 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.

  4. Re:Holy hell by FatdogHaiku · · 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 · · 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:Good luck with that - it's Italy by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

  7. Re:Italian Government: cabs are for the rich by houghi · · 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.
  8. Re:The cab drivers... by Shados · · 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.

  9. Unfair competition? by XxtraLarGe · · 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.
  10. Re:Holy hell by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good.

  11. Re:Holy hell by Firethorn · · 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
  12. Re:Holy hell by Dorianny · · 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.