Court Orders UberPop Use To Be Banned In All of Italy 201
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.
Well there's the problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
"(taxi licenses in Italy are numbered, each can cost more than $ 100k to obtain)."
There's the problem. Piss off Italy...
Re:Well there's the problem... (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.
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's not the same crowd that rides Uber or taxis; and those people are happy that they get cheap transportation at all
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
What's not cheap about busses?
Re: (Score:2)
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 au
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Not same prices. Cheaper. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 bo
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
It is the same rule (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 pa
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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 o
Re: (Score:2)
Render city streets unnavigable? Where would the massive number of additional customers come from to support enough taxis to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
" 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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. We have a winner! Artificial limits on cabs serve nobody but the cab companies.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the best people to operate bus systems are the state.
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot something. Each taxi is on the road all day, a private auto is not.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Wrong comparison (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about New York, but in London, peak hours on the roads are between about 6am and 3am the following morning.
Re:Well there's the problem... (Score:4, 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. [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't require an overpriced toy to run a taxi, just basic labor laws and vehicle safety requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
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, r
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes "It's the law, so it MUST be right!"
You people are so cute.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 beco
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of big cities in the USA are like that, Chicago the medallion sale prices are $270,000 and up
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, it looks like you're the one throwing a tantrum with that post.
Re: (Score:2)
"(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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial restraints on trade to protect a calcified, outdated mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, shape up with that attitude or we'll put Amanda Knox on trial again!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, until we get the verdict we want!
Re: (Score:2)
"(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... [nytimes.com]
$100k License (Score:3)
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.
Good luck with that - it's Italy (Score:2)
The Western European champion for having the largest part of GDP as undeclared "underground" economy.
https://www.atkearney.com/fina... [atkearney.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [doingbusiness.org], Italy is below Mexico and Colombia, and only a few notches above Russia.
Unfair competition? (Score:3)
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 [michigan.gov]. This isn't a guarantee of safety, but neither is the $100k medallion system.
Good luck for now but ... Self driving cars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good.
Re: (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 main
Re:Holy hell (Score:4, 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'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The cab drivers... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.