Italy Bans Uber (thenextweb.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: A court just banned Uber from using its apps in Italy -- yes, all of Italy. The court ruled in favor of the country's taxi drivers -- who filed the suit -- claiming Uber was "unfair competition." Now Uber can't use it's apps -- including UberBlack, Uber LUX, X, and Select -- and it can't promote or advertise itself at all within the country. For all intents and purposes, Uber is banned in Italy.

Comments

Appeal

[manu0601]

While this is a good news for everyone that consider Uber is evil, this is not final victory: they will appeal.

The case is likely to bubble up to the EU Justice Court.

Re:Appeal

[Rei_is_a_dumbass]

The case is likely to bubble up to the EU Justice Court.

Where they will get banned across all of Europe.

Re:Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. It's about time.

Uber is a taxi company. What they do is the exact definition of a taxi company. Using a phone app doesn't make them any less of a taxi company. It's time for Uber to follow the same rules that Taxi companies must follow, or, stop doing business.

Re:Appeal

[Shinobi]

In Sweden they do, or get banned from operating. Jail sentences have also been handed out to shady operators. Remember, not every place is as shitty as the US or Russia or China...

Re:Appeal

[fluffernutter]

They provide a certain amount of access for the disabled, where I am there are many required safety features required for the car. Anyone in the public can see if their missing the safety shield.

Re:Appeal

[djinn6]

Don't worry, the Italian taxis will prevail. They will regain their right to take you on the scenic route.

Re:Appeal

[Pentium100]

Uber wants to be "more equal than others". If there are rules that you have to follow or you can try to get the government to change the rules for everyone. Instead, however, some companies try to break the rules to gain an unfair advantage:

Emission standards (I personally dislike those rules) are for everyone, except VW - "the competitors will spends lots of money developing better engines like idiots, while we can just cheat the test".

Taxi rules are for everyone except Uber, even though the service is the same, but "on a computer", like the patent trolls who manage to get a patent for some everyday action but "on a computer".

They had a great idea and it's spread across the world quickly and rewritten the rules of getting from a to b.

What is different about Uber compared to a regular taxi?
1. You arrange the ride (phonecall to a taxi company or by using an Uber app).
2. The car comes, you get in, get driven to your destination, pay for the service.

Re:Appeal

[fluffernutter]

Where I am, there is a stab shield behind every driver, a strobe light on the top of the vehicle for emergencies, and the back seat is covered with vinyl so that it is washable. Those are the ones that are plain as day, and yes every cab has them because they wouldn't get their license otherwise.

Re:Appeal

[PopeRatzo]

What rules do taxi companies follow? Oh right, they "inspect" their fleet and follow "regulations". Sure they do.

I don't know what dingy backwater you live in, but in places where people wear shoes, taxis are inspected and regulated.

Re:Appeal

[Golden_Rider]

Fuck taxi companies

This Uber hatred is astonishing. They had a great idea and it's spread across the world quickly and rewritten the rules of getting from a to b.

What "great idea"? Ordering a cab, getting into the cab, getting from A to B and then paying? I think that idea was around already before Uber and I think people called it a "taxi".

Re:Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that any type of business could provide a better service than its peers by breaking laws and regulations if the peers still follow those (for instance selling alcohol to minors, who would certainly consider such service excellent). However, if all businesses did that the desired positive effects of regulating an industry would disappear and everybody's situation would be worse. And if some laws are "bad" that doesn't mean that they should be broken, they should be changed (through lobbying by businesses, if necessary). Ancaps and their ilk will of course make some argument that there shouldn't be laws but "rules but no rulers" or whatever and such bs. but they aren't worth talking to since if all human history isn't proof enough that the concept is nonsense, nothing will make them accept certain facts about our species.

Re: Appeal

[Pentium100]

1. I know my neighbor.
2. If he gives me a lift somewhere, he is not doing so for commercial purposes (I can compensate him for the fuel etc though). Especially not doing it as his day job.

But then again, maybe the rules for taxi are no longer needed. Great, let's petition the government to change or revoke them for everybody, not just some companies.

Maybe it would be best if anybody could get a license from the government (after passing a background check etc) that allows them to work as a taxi driver, then they could drive for Uber or any other taxi company under the same rules whether using his own car or one provided by his employer. Kinda like a private pilot license vs commercial license.

Re:Appeal

[angel'o'sphere]

It is most likely not "bubbeling up" to an EU court.
Why would it?

The EU has no business in regulating "people transportation licenses" and or "taxi service permits" etc.

Re: Appeal

[angel'o'sphere]

Maybe it would be best if anybody could get a license from the government (after passing a background check etc) that allows them to work as a taxi driver
Actually that is how taxi driving works. I can get a license by doing the appropriated tests for taxi driving. It is basically just an extension to a driving license.

Re: Appeal

[prefec2]

That is not how this court works. It can revoke the previous ruling (in this context).

Anyway we do not want gig economy in Europe, as it is bad for workers. It is Manchester capitalism all over again.

Re: Appeal

[inking]

Non-profit and any revenue made is well below the yearly taxation threshold.

Re:Appeal

[inking]

That's now how the legal system works.

Re:Appeal

[Pentium100]

IIRC I can't call Uber, so their services are unusable for me. I am not going to buy a different phone just so I can get a taxi.

Also, where I live, regular taxi service is great - they arrive fast etc. I do not know how their prices compare to Uber though.

Re:Appeal

[Mordaximus]

I don't know what dingy backwater you live in, but in places where people wear shoes, taxis are inspected and regulated.

And yet, in my neck of the woods, it's rare to get in a cab that doesn't have a check engine light on. And this isn't a dingy backwater.

Re: Appeal

[Pentium100]

Well in that case I think that the taxi rules should be removed for everybody. Let Uber and regular taxi companies compete with their technology, service and prices under the same rules.

Re:Appeal

[PopeRatzo]

And this isn't a dingy backwater.

It's common for people who live in dingy backwaters to think they don't live in dingy backwaters.

Re: Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

What's stopping a taxi company running like Uber?

Nothing.

They just want to hold on to their "licensed monopoly" cash cow.

Re: Appeal

[finlan]

Thing is, I would not mind living in Sweden. You could not pay me to live in the US.

Re:Appeal

[jonbryce]

Well no, the city councils in Rome, Milan, and so on issue taxi and private hire licences. The EU court will presumably affirm their right to do so, and to choose not to issue such licences to operators who don't meet their local requirements.

Re:Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, VW was not "cheating on the tests".

The rule was: 'if you are under test, the car has to have this properties', which their cars had.

So, while morally it is wrong, technically it was correct

Well, there is also the requirement that engine control systems do not actively circumvent pollution reduction mechanisms. There is plenty of leeway in that, however, since protecting the engine is legally a valid reason to disable or reduce some of those mechanisms. Manufacturers use this exception very widely and in most of the world, this makes pretty much every trick in the book effectively legal, or at least very easy to get away with. There is one exception: in the US the regulatory agencies decide specifically which tricks that may increase real-world emissions are allowed. This is why the US could force VW into a number of very costly settlements (and FCA will soon get similar problems), while pretty much the entire industry is getting away with exactly the same tricks in the rest of the world.

And I really doubt that other car companies don't suffer from the same problematic interpretation of laws and regulations.

They don't suffer because most of them don't sell diesel cars in the US and those that do use modified versions that are optimised for the US requirements. In the rest of the world, those tricks are legal or "legal" enough to get away with them. Moreover, VW already took the PR damage when they confessed and the public was not really interested anymore by the time it turned out that every manufacturer cheated and VW's real-world NOx emissions where actually the lowest.

Considering that VW does not produce its own engines

As far as I'm aware, all engines in VW group cars are produced by VW or its subsidiaries. They also supply a small number of engines to other manufacturers.

Re:Appeal

[SvnLyrBrto]

^^^ This.

I'm convinced that the bulk of the "We hate Uber" crowd are from places where they didn't have to rely on taxis in the pre-Uber era. Taxis are really just horrible. And Uber would never have gained a foothold were it not for the fact. I've been a regular Uber customer since they still called themselves Ubercab, were only in San Francisco, and the town cars were their only service with fares at 1.5-2x that of a cab for the same ride. And even at twice the price, Uber was a vastly superior service. And to be fair, in the here and now so is Lyft; which gets about an equal share of my business these days.

Buy the taxi companies? A pox upon their houses, I say. They made their own bed, and provided the opening for Uber in the first place, by having bloody awful and unreliable service at whatever the price.

Re: Appeal

[Highdude702]

hell lets just get rid of licensed drivers all together because the DMV is a government mandated ripoff and archetypal front capitalism. if you can buy a vehicle you should be able to drive it right?

Re: Appeal

[davester666]

I think the GP was going for more of a wish for the gov't to grant an unlimited number of taxi cab licenses, so there could more cabs. Of course, the reason why there is a limited number of licenses is because having no limit results in none of the drivers being able to get enough rides to even remotely get by. Kind of like if you try to be an Uber driver full-time.

We "learned" this a long time ago. Evidently we need to "learn" it again...

Re:Appeal

[davester666]

Yes, and the ONLY reason this "idea" spread at all, is because they use a very complicated legal setup so cities, which regulate cab companies, have a difficult time dragging them into court for violating their laws and regulations.

Re: Appeal

[dwywit]

I've been to Italy a couple of times.

The number of cars transporting people for cash greatly exceeds the number of cars with "Taxi" painted on them. You can't contact them by telephone, but hang around any popular public place (e.g. museum, train station) looking lost and they'll approach you, asking if you need transport. You can usually negotiate a price down to 2/3 or even 1/2 the starting amount.

OTOH, I've walked up to the first taxi parked on a rank, loaded with bags of groceries and souvenirs (i.e. "rich" tourist), and been refused a ride. I think it was because the distance and therefore the fare was too small. I was exhausted after the day's walking around and just wanted to get back to my apartment, about 5 - 10 minutes drive, but noooooo. When I looked at the second guy in the rank, he just shook his head sadly - apparently it's against union rules for anyone other than the first position in the rank to accept a ride (I found this out later from the apartment owner).

So as far as I'm concerned, I hope Uber wins this one.

Re:Appeal

[Exitar]

Uber is evil, but Italian taxists lobbies are more evil.

Re:Appeal

[manu0601]

It is most likely not "bubbeling up" to an EU court.

Why would it?

Because this is about market, and EU business is mainly about market regulation. Uber will likely argue that Taxi licenses are market distortion that must be removed, and I am not certain about the outcome.

Do not forget that EU justice court (that must not be confused with European Court on Human Rights) already produced nasty ruling like Laval and Viking cases, where free market prevailed over other fundamental rights./p

Re:Appeal

[easyTree]

That's funny - here is a guy who cannot keep things in perspective. You're comparing Sweden with the USA or Russia? You can compare Sweden with a US City, not the whole country. You can also compare the USA with the EU. You have no concept of size, do ya... Let me help you out:

Sweden, the country, has the population of what we in the US consider a city. Country > State > City. Your "country" is the size of our City.

We also have stores and companies. A store called Walmart here, which is where I go to buy cheap plastic Chinese garbage cans, and discount tomatoes, has same amount of money per year in sales, as your country's GDP. You're not a country by our standards. You're the size of a city, and you don't exist in economic terms.

American foreign policy condensed to a few paragraphs.

Yay. USA USA

Re: Appeal

[easyTree]

maybe the rules for taxi are no longer needed. Great, let's petition the government to change or revoke them for everybody, not just some companies

The government have such a concentration of power derived from coercive force that they are a target too tempting to pass up for anyone wanting more power. Want something? 'Donate to' (ha-ha) your local official to make it *required*.

Re: Appeal

[GuB-42]

Don't mix the gig economy and smartphones.
Smartphones allow better management of a car fleet.
You don't need smartphones to make money driving people. Just put a "taxi" sign on your car and pick up passengers.
The first part is no problem. The second one is illegal without a license. Uber does both in one package.
Maybe the law is adapted to the gig economy but smartphones, internet and the GPS have nothing to do with it.

Re:Appeal

[Lord Flipper]

It's time for Uber to follow the same rules that Taxi companies must follow, or, stop doing business.

As a former taxi driver (who honestly has no dog in this fight, personally) I have to say, "Thank you."

Although nobody is "forced" to drive a cab, for those that choose to do so, it's a tough way to make a living. Uber has been underwritten by a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires in order to operate at a huge loss, for years, in an effort to drive all competitors out of business, at which point Uber will be able to raise rates and dictate to the market, as all monopolies (sanctioned, or not) will do.

This is simply not fair, in the long run, to any of us... drivers or riders.

Re:Appeal

[mjwx]

The case is likely to bubble up to the EU Justice Court.

Where they will get banned across all of Europe.

If they dont go broke in the process. The EU takes a while to come to a decision.

In the UK, Uber is legal... they still cant make money even though they've got less overheads than minicabs and hackney carriages... let alone London's Black Cabs.

Re:Appeal

[mjwx]

I don't know what dingy backwater you live in, but in places where people wear shoes, taxis are inspected and regulated.

And yet, in my neck of the woods, it's rare to get in a cab that doesn't have a check engine light on. And this isn't a dingy backwater.

I'm afraid that statement contradicts itself.

If all taxi's have a check engine light on, you live in a dingy backwater. It might be a highly populated backwater, but it's still a backwater.

Even developing nations can manage taxis properly. Bangkok ensures that all taxi's meet a minimum standard of safety and sets fares. Sure, Thai taxi drivers are unsafe, but that's the driver, not the vehicle.

Compare that to the Philippines where taxi/trike drivers operate without effective regulations. Locals don't refer to them as a Mafia because they're highly competitive entrepreneurs with a focus on customer service and a strong business ethic and would certainly never enforce their turf with violence.

Re:Appeal

[mjwx]

Emission standards (I personally dislike those rules) are for everyone, except VW - "the competitors will spends lots of money developing better engines like idiots, while we can just cheat the test".

I largely agree with what you've said about Uber, however, VW didn't cheat because their competitors had better small diesel engines, they cheated because they wanted to sell their diesels cheaper. They did this by removing the Selective Catalyst Reduction system (the thing that requires AdBlue) which reduced costs. The problem VW had is that NOX and other emissions (not CO2 though) go through the roof without SCR so in order to pass the test, they cheated.

So your point still stands, VW bent the rules and wanted to be let off after being caught, but it just happened slightly differently to the way you described.

What is different about Uber compared to a regular taxi?
1. You arrange the ride (phonecall to a taxi company or by using an Uber app).
2. The car comes, you get in, get driven to your destination, pay for the service.

The only difference is, you pay Uber who pays the driver rather than paying the driver directly. If anything, doesn't that make Uber the drivers employer?

Re:Appeal

[torkus]

Anecdotal of course...but I live in the backwater of NYC and it's certainly NOT uncommon to see check engine lights on in Taxis.

It's also incredibly COMMON for taxi's to be horrible drivers (exactly as stereotyped) and either drive much too fast, much too slow, or take routes that make no sense (other than to increase fares), be on the phone despite the prohibition, and so on. Sure, NYC has plenty of rules and a complaint system...but it also requires you going to testify. Who has time for that just to back a complain that your drive decided to go around the block an extra time and was on his BT? Oh, and that assumes 'Muhammad' is actually driving with his own license, not the one he shares with his 3 cousins.

I'm not saying it's impossible to manage taxi's properly, but your perspective doesn't align with reality by a long stretch.

Re:Appeal

[PopeRatzo]

In every state in the US, all motor vehicles are inspected every year.

No, they are not.

There are nineteen states without any inspection requirement at all.

Unwise to play by the rules?

[Mandrel]

No means no in the personal space, but most of the big Internet companies were built on breaking the rules: Google and YouTube were built on copyright infringement, Facebook was built on privacy violations, Uber and Airbnb respectively ignore local transport and accommodation laws, PayPal violated credit card company agreements, Amazon aggressively imposes patents and parity-pricing agreements, and Snapchat has thrived from illicit activity by children, not to mention all those boosted to critical mass through illegal spam.

But once established, it's both feasible and desirable to show a kinder front.

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[radarskiy]

There is a difference between breaking the "rules" and directly committing crimes.

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[MS]

You're so right.

As a private hoster in Italy with regular license, I hope that Airbnb shuts down soon and all advertisers get a visit by the tax fraud investigators. People renting rooms and apartments through Airbnb have no licence, do not pay real estate taxes, tourist taxes, and neither income taxes, do not contribute to the local tourist board, have no assurance, do not fill out police rercordings ... and are thus unfair competition.

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[angel'o'sphere]

They pay real estate taxes. That has nothing to to do with Airbnb.
They pay tourist taxes, as that is done via Airbnb and the fees they deduct.
The money you "earn" via Airbnb is usually not taxable, as it only reduces your rent you pay yourself, and is thus not an income.
There is no difference between a "third person" that lives as a "flat mate" in your flat versus a tourist. If they "make money" by sub renting and don't declare the income, it is tax fraud. That has nothing to do with Airbnb.

Uber is something different, they "threat public safety" .... well, in theory. Could/should the laws be changed? Perhaps. Not sure actually.

Should Uber be tolerated breaking the laws? Absolutely not!

Re: Unwise to play by the rules?

[prefec2]

Uber, Lyft and co avoid laws to protect passengers and workers. These companies business model is based on not paying their share into social services like healthcare and retirements. Also they circumvent laws for sick leave and other protection rules. This is very different to YouTube which may have violated the copyright of other rich companies.

Airbnb for instance causes rising rents in cities which is bad for the present inhabitants which get displaced. Therefore, they have longer routes to commute which has multiple negative effects for the economy (more roads and mass transit, less rested workers etc.) .

What these gig economy companies do is Manchester capitalism all over again. That is bad for society. Note: The economy is there to support people. It is not a facility to suppress people and make a few very rich.

Re: Unwise to play by the rules?

[SigmundFloyd]

Uber, Lyft and co avoid laws to protect passengers and workers

ITYM "laws protecting passengers and workers".

The economy is there to support people. It is not a facility to suppress people and make a few very rich.

Hm. Interesting theory...

Re: Unwise to play by the rules?

[prefec2]

Yes I mean protecting. Obviously I fell victim of the too hasty to proofread before posting. This happens when posting from the phone. ;-)

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[MS]

bullshit! You don't know italan law.

Real estate tax for my home ("prima casa") is different (effectively zero in many regions of Italy) than that for an apartment I earn money with.
To pay tourist taxes, you have to register your guests, but you cannot register guests, if you're not allowed to rent an apartment or room. There's no way to pay taxes for guests that illegaly live in your house.
Airbnb does not pay any taxes in Italy.
All earnings are taxable. But if you don't issue a receipt, you have (officially) no income and thus no taxes are due - but that's illicit / black market.

People renting through Airbnb without lodging licence are illegal in many ways. Airbnb doesn't care, if hosters act legally or not . Airbnb simply wants to pocket 6% from the hoster and 12% from the guest - that's their business-model.

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should read the fine print of your RBnN contract.

They draw the VAT and other taxes from your customer and pay it to your governemnt/tax agencies, that includes city taxes for guests.

They do it everywhere like this. Also in Italy. For that I do not need to know any particular italian law ....

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[MS]

No. Only few cities have agreements with Airbnb like you describe.
The default (which applies to 99% of the hosts) ist that Airbnb does not collect taxes and pay them to your city/country for you.

Anyhow its wrong to ask a city to make particular agreements with Airbnb, Wimdo or whoever comes next. There are laws, which regulate rentals, and they should be obeyed - by the hosts as well as by Airbnb.

Airbnb should not accept hosts, which do not have a license - it's as simple as that. But then Airbnb would have the burden to check the legality (and even the existence!) of their hosts, which means on site labour. But Airbnb lives from the fact, that there are fake properties, and therefore Airbnb urges guests to pay through them as an escrow service. Airbnb pretends to be liable for problems which wouldn't exist, if there wasn't Airbnb. Believe me: my family rented apartments for several decades without any problems and without paying commissions to any agency. Now with Airbnb the unfair competition grows exponetially and problems arise which never happened before. And for that disservice we should pay 18% to Airbnb?!?

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[angel'o'sphere]

Airbnb should not accept hosts, which do not have a license - it's as simple as that.
If you need a license to rent something in Italy, then yes.

Never heard about something like that. In Germany you definitely don't need one.

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[easyTree]

Mr. Taxman, my salary isn't money I earn, it just reduces how much I need to pay for food, rent, Internet, booze, and gadgets. If you want, you can tax me on how much money I have left over. Yeah, I don't think that'll work.

One of the many problems with taxation.

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[easyTree]

It's good to know what the rules 'are' for real estate tax. For me, I wonder *why* they are that way and what is the moral justification ?

Re:Unwise to play by the rules?

[easyTree]

One can sympathise - the government has the greatest coercive force - who would one appeal to if change is the agenda?

Ticking a box once every four years is meaningless as it packages all future issues together such that there's no way to choose and just in case there were some way to choose, that will be nullified by the randomness in the selection process of the vast majority "She's a woman like me therefore believes in women's values", "I like his hair..."

Come on people

[thygate]

"Now Uber can't use it's apps."

so sad!

Re:Come on people

[elgatozorbas]

"Now Uber can't use IT's apps."

Better?

Re:Come on people

[ClickOnThis]

+5 funny

Re: So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? You think your comparison is apt? Uber isn't buggies vs taxis. Uber is unregulated taxis vs regulated taxis along with exploiting their unemployed drivers. Uber makes us all poorer.

Re: So...

[Uberbah]

Buggy whips are an exact comparison.

Only if Uber is a whip user as well. Since this is all about taxi services.

You are a fucking moron, and evil.

Speak up, it's hard to hear you when your voice is coming from so deep in your colon.

Can they do it?

[countach]

I don't know if Italy has the power to ban an app. Maybe on IOS if Apple is willing to play ball. But they can't ban a web app. Not easily anyway.

Re:Can they do it?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Italy can totally block URLs or IPs.

I mean, sure, people can evade that with a VPN, but Uber is built on critical mass. Italy can break that, and then find and heavily punish violators.

Re:Can they do it?

[angel'o'sphere]

Uber is not an App. In what retarded world view do you live?

Uber is a company ... and obviously it can be banned, the people working for it put into prison etc.

Re:Can they do it?

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually "blocking URLs" is not that easy, we have "net neutrality" in Europe.
An ISP would never block "URL's" or IP address ranges unless directly ordered by a court, which is super unlikely. I'm not aware that such a court order ever was given.

Re:Can they do it?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

An ISP could not block it absent a government order. But the EU's net neutrality law doesn't stop Italy from passing a law banning Uber's site or IP range, nor their ISPs from enforcing said law.

Re:Can they do it?

[thegarbz]

They don't need to ban an app. They just need to check if the app in question works in Italy and then fine the company if it does.

Re:Can they do it?

[Highdude702]

mod him up!

Re:Can they do it?

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, you are mistaken.
You can not simply pass a law that blocks a certain companies IP range.
How should that be possible? We have constitutions here, you knwo. Basic laws that for instance demand that other laws are equal for everyone.
And blocking an IP range is pretty pointless if you go via a proxy ...
I doubt any MP would be so stupid to vote for laws kike you think.

Re:Can they do it?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The EU has no such regulation (this is what we were discussing). I'm pretty sure that since Italy already passed a law making it illegal to Uber, a law saying that accessing the site is illegal and blocked at the ISP level would be constitutional. The UK does it a lot. And, for instance Italy has done it before.

As for proxies, I addressed that in my earlier post.

Re:Can they do it?

[angel'o'sphere]

That is obviously not the same thing.

In Italy this has now resulted in a new blocking order issued by the Criminal Court of Genoa. The Court ruled that Popcorn Time assists copyright infringement and has ordered local ISPs to block several domain names.

That order was referring to an illegal activity done with the App itself.

Uber is a bit more complicated as the drivers are doing the illegal activity if they carry passengers without proper license. You could argue that Uber is still on the sound legal site, or would so if it made sure its drivers have the required licenses.

Re: So...

[buss_error]

Seriously? You think your comparison is apt?
As with all analogies, there are points of non-congruence
Uber isn't buggies vs taxis. Uber is unregulated taxis vs regulated taxis along with exploiting their unemployed drivers.
Yes. Exactly. Taxi drivers are depending on a government monopoly. I just want one them that profits me.
Uber makes us all poorer.
Uber doesn't hold a gun to people's heads and force them to work for the wages they pay. Do I think Uber doesn't pay enough? I do. That's why I don't drive for them.

Re: So...

[fluffernutter]

The thing you don't understand is the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do. If Uber wants new ways then they convince people that their new ways are better and have the existing laws relaxed because then the people get to have a say on what would work best for everyone. You don't set up an illigal business.

That's all well and good

[Dunbal]

But... have people actually stopped using Uber in Italy? After all, lots of things are banned in a lot of places. Porn. Prostitution. Drugs. Gambling. And yet...

Re:That's all well and good

[hjf]

Just order credit card companies to stop processing payments for Uber from cards issued in Italy. That's what they did in Argentina.

Re:That's all well and good

[inking]

In jurisdictions where they are banned, all of the above are high risk and high yield enterprises for effectively unskilled individuals typically supervised by organised crime. I do not see many people being ready to go to prison for tax evasion in order to work as an underpaid, uninsured and non-unionized taxi driver. May as well collect welfare instead.

Re:That's all well and good

[Dunbal]

Maybe he meant cash? Oh wait, having cash pretty much implies you're a criminal nowadays too. At least that's the attitude I get from banks and government authorities.

Re:That's all well and good

[Highdude702]

the youngins havent had enough life experience to understand repercussions for crimes commited when caught. they are just going to end up fucking their self in the future if they keep acting this way.

Re:So...

[CaptainDork]

That made me think of something:

Know what we don't see much of anymore?

Horse shit in a garage.

Re: So...

[Pentium100]

Regulated == more expensive

More expensive means people have less cash for other things that are important. If you want a "regulated" taxi you can also opt for that and pay more.

Awesome, why not apply this to lead paint or mercury?

Re:Uber is banned in Italy?

[Golden_Rider]

Well, then enforcement would be pretty easy. Just order a cab and arrest whoever arrives.

Good on Italy

[rsilvergun]

They break the last vestiges of the social contract between the Capitalists and Workers. Take that away and what's left of the system will break. I don't expect any good to come of that though, it didn't in China and the USSR.

Nothing with anywhere close

[rsilvergun]

to the convenience and stability of the big CC companies. You'd be amazed just how much they do for business and consumer alike.

Re:Uber is banned in Italy?

[Godwin O'Hitler]

I was thinking of launching an Uber type service for contract killing. Decentralized of course so it can't get banned.
You enter the mark's address and upload a photo of them; I send someone out to kill them.
I can't think what could possibly go wrong.

Re: So...

[angel'o'sphere]

Does not really matter ...
The CxO's (insert appropriated letter for x) are now already rich by IPO's and "wages". If the company goes down, who cares?

Re: So...

[loufoque]

how do cheaper, faster and more reliable taxi rides make me poorer?
Before Uber, I barely ever used taxis. Now it's practical and affordable, I use it all the time.

Ah, italian taxi drivers...

[jpbelang]

Ironically, on my last trip to Italy, the only person who ripped us off is a taxi driver.

Re:Ah, italian taxi drivers...

[mjwx]

Ironically, on my last trip to Italy, the only person who ripped us off is a taxi driver.

Welcome to Italy.

I've always found it hilarious when Americans complain about their taxi drivers, all they demonstrate is that they've never been to places like Phuket, Italy or the Philippines where taxi drivers are actually criminals. I can get in a taxi in LA, Vegas, NYC, Washington DC and not have to worry, getting a taxi in Phuket requires difficult negotiations before hand, then hanging on for dear life during the ride. Fail to negotiate and you'll end up paying 4-10 times what the trip should cost.

There are few things more unstable than an Italian taxi driver stuck behind 2 priests in a Skoda.

Re:Ah, italian taxi drivers...

[strikethree]

Ironically, on my last trip to Italy, the only person who ripped us off is a taxi driver.

Same here, but in the Netherlands. I almost called the police but it was my last day and I did not need the extra 38 euros he was trying to extract from me. Missing my flight would have been more inconvenient than just letting him have the fucking money. Disgusting that there are people out there so desperate for money that they will steal small amounts at any chance. What kind of desperate life must they be living?

Soon To Reverse

[JimSadler]

When Italy gets a clue as to what Uber can really offer they will embrace Uber and beg them to enter their nation.

Good

[DewDude]

With all the underhanded unethical stuff Uber has been doing; I wish they'd ban them in the US as well. They've already been caught defrauding customers and figuring out ways to prevent detection by officials in areas they're not supposed to be operating in. Their drivers have nasty habits of being racist or discriminatory. Italian taxi drivers may have their own issues; but Uber is just as bad.

Re: So...

[jonbryce]

Über undercuts other taxi operators who comply with minimum wage requirements and drives them out of business.

Re: So...

[ClickOnThis]

For non-USians, can we get an explanation of who the libtards are?

Since you asked ... "libtard" is a portmanteau of "liberal" and "retard." It is a pejorative term wielded by unimaginative non-liberals during an argument they are losing.

Except in this case, where the GP was confused as to which side of the argument they were railing against.

Re: So...

[lgw]

The thing you don't understand is the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do. If Uber wants new ways then they convince people that their new ways are better

So, what are your views on gay marriage and abortion?

Re: So...

[Highdude702]

when the company in question has had multiple lawsuits for toxic behavior you should treat them exactly as a toxic product. moron

Uber is dying

[bluegutang]

For all intents and purposes, Uber is banned in Italy.

All major surveys show that Uber has steadily declined in market share. Uber is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Uber is to survive at all it will be among car sharing dilettante dabblers. Uber continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save Uber from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Uber is dead.

Re: So...

[lgw]

Now can you explain the point you were trying to make?

Bans on gay marriage and abortion were "the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do". The conservative position is that these regulations should be preserved, with the burden of proof on the person wanting to change them In neither case did liberal advocates ever even address the arguments of conservatives, just ignore them and gain the popular vote.

Uber has largely done the same. They haven't addresses any of the reasons for the regulations, but they are popular. Should that be enough? Democracy would say so.

Re: So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom from discrimination based on sex or gender is a basic human right. That's why restricting marriage to heterogendered couples is untenable and should be abolished without "addressing" any sexist superstitions people may have.

Re: So...

[buss_error]

Observe the mating call of the USian libtard in its natural habitat...

Liberals, or in your words "Iibtards" do not support monopolies. It takes a real special cuck to trigger on that and snowflake all over it, but you, sir, did it proud.
I am using your own special "code" because I know you won't understand a real discussion. You have to have Steve Bannon and other ultra right wing mental defectives to define your terms for you, else you are reduced to grunts and drool from your chin.

It's a real pity you can't muster an IQ over 40.

Re: So...

[lgw]

Sure, the majority now believe that, but it's not the tradition. Views on any and everything change over time. Uber is yet another change. Should we blindly accept change on the basis of popularity, or should there be another test. There are no absolutes here, after all, just the opinions of fallible humans.

Re: So...

[Uberbah]

You sound like one of those sheriffs who protests that he doesn't have quotas for his deputy's to write a certain number of tickets per month, he has "performance expectations." And then expects the listener to be impressed by his cleverness.