[_joe]

Being from Italy, let me point out a few things:

Frist of all: unfair competition can mean, for instance, a mega-multinational subsiding its riders costs to wipe out competition. That is dumping, a practice that is illegal in most advanced economies, and that Uber has been known to practice.

If you don't have a taxi license, Italian law restricts the ways you can offer transportation. If you step outside of those boundaries, you are creating an unfair competition to taxi drivers that have e.g. to pay for the license or non-taxi services that operate within the boundaries of the law.

Also: Uber was probably aware of the situation, to the point that some MPs tried to sneak in a "save Uber" amendment to an otherwise unrelated law, causing protests through the country from taxi drivers.

I see people commenting that have clearly no information or any idea of how Italian economy works, and just go around throwing approximative judgements based on hearsay and prejudice.

So let me state it out for you: Italian economy is surely burdened by anti-competitive practices and too many absurd regulations, but blocking a US multinational to repeatedly break the law and finance its services by price fixing is not an instance of that.

And finally: in Italy it's impossible for a company to own taxi licences, so they are all privately-owned by the taxi driver. So Uber is, if you remove the price jacking, practically a way to siphon money from individual drivers to a large company.

[register]

Just to add a little bit more context. In Italy there were already Uber like services before Uber came: they are called "Radio Taxi". These services are mostly based on traditional call centers but , at least in the last two years in Milan and Rome, you can order and pay a ride also with a mobile app. And guess what? These are not breaking the Italian law and can operate without any trouble.

[angry-hacker]

It's true for many countries, I understand Uber became useful because it was difficult to get taxi in U.S but they are trying to solve problem ma that don't exist in other countries. The only thing they offer is how to avoid legislation, paying taxes, etc.

[tw04]

The other thing that Uber has offered (in general) is more polite drivers. Likely because of the rating system. Taxi drivers, at least in the US, always acted like you should be grateful they even stopped to let you pay for a ride.

[lrem]

In many places in Europe there are apps to hail legal taxis, with the rating system as well. To make it even funnier, in some of these places the taxis hailed by an app are significantly cheaper than Uber. The only reason anyone would ever use Uber in e.g. Dublin is being unaware of Hailo.

[listentojohan]

The problem with rating systems for traditional taxi-services is that they are most often without effect. There is no penalty or change if a driver is rated badly.

[lrem]

Actually it's not the case. Not only drivers have to have a good rating to get rides off-peak, the app operator also serves as an effective complaint outlet. I've heard of cases of people complaining to Hailo about a bad ride and getting their money back. I guess the taxi drivers accept to pay back, because it's still better than losing all these future rides.

[walterstucco]

> always acted like you should be grateful they even stopped to let you pay for a ride.

You have my upvote for saying it.

I usually don't use taxi in Italy because of the inability of the driver to shut the f*ck up when they are driving. Last time I took one to go back home with my girlfriend and this driver talked to us for half an hour of a conspiracy theory about the Fukushima accident being the result of Japan not allowing some US investment fund to enter their market...

And I have to pay to listen to this shit?

[orf]

Is your comment saying this is because they are Italian, whereas Uber is not?

If so that comparison isn't apt. Those apps would summon licensed drivers and the payments would be set by the driver based on the meter or the pre-arranged price. Like a card machine.

[RobertoG]

It's not all the point that those apps operate inside the Italian law and Uber don't?

It seems to me, that if Uber operated inside the parameters of the law they would not be so profitable. That is really the point.

[samsonradu]

Well they are not profitable anyway are they?

[disordinary]

He's saying that they operate like Taxis and therefore aren't breaking the law.

[samsonradu]

Uber is breaking the anti-dumping laws there. Fixing price to be cheaper than local taxis and burning money. That's unfair.

[thevalermor]

I think the situation about taxi services in Italy is absolutely peculiar.

Facts:

- Licenses are granted by the government and in theory they could not be sold. There are some loopholes in the legislation that make this possible. No government has never tried to fix this. In fact, a license in a big city like Rome is normally sold at around 200k Euros.

- By acquiring a licence, a driver can easily make in big cities between 3-4k euros net (I know people who own taxi licenses). Average salary in Italy is around 1700 Euros/month. - Various time (2006, 2012) in the last years governments have tried to increase the number of licences and reform the market. The results was riots in all big cities, traffic paralized for weeks.

- 20000 licenses represents a lot of votes. At time of election, license-holders and their families represent a large amount of votes. In cities like Rome (6k licenses), they can change the results of an election.

All this to say that at the moment, this represent an un-reformable matter and I see no way a country like Italy can be open up to any type of modernization brought by technology. Uber is trying to work around the laws for their own benefit. But as an Italian (living abroad) I would be very happy to see how city transportation would change with the advent of new players.

Now it is true the judge is only applying the laws. But the matter here is rather if the negotiations between taxi drivers and government of last month should have produced some results like a reasonable reform of the market where I personally see there is room for more then one winner, including users.

Notice that Airbnb, who has also entered the market of house rentals, has found so far much less difficulties: no lobbies to fight against, real-estate generally benefitting from this type of business.

[pmontra]

Bla Bla Car. They don't compete against taxis but I think drivers shouldn't be able to get paid without a licence. I might be wrong. Anyway, they compete against trains and flight companies which don't care about Bla Bla Car yet.

[Vik1ng]

Bla Bla Car is actual ride sharing / car pooling at least as far as I can tell. Basically you already know you want to go from A to B and are just asking others to join. At least that's how it works in Germany and how I can travel across half the country for less than 50€, because I'm not paying the driver but rather helping them pay for their gas bill.

[RobertoG]

"20000 licenses represents a lot of votes"

A lot but surely a minority of votes yet.

If this is a so big problem for the users of those services they could vote to somebody that change the system. That's how it works, isn’t?

[walterstucco]

but they are violent. 500 hundreds of them are like having a small army of 10.000 soldiers. Most of the more active and noisy are also fascist and act the same way the mob does. I'm from Rome but also lived for a long time in Milan, and I've seen with my eyes taxi drivers crash the uber app presentation and start firing tear bombs in the crowd (there were kids it was a tech fest in a city park) or read about the physical aggressions towards uber drivers (including women, three taxi drivers one night blocked and threatened a woman driving for uber and destroyed her car). Recently there's been a taxi driver's strike and those that were against the strike said they disagreed but were not going to work as well because of the threats they received. this is the real situation: mob and fascists together. uber model. sucks, gig economy sucks, but Italian taxi drivers suck a lot more.

[thevalermor]

This is how it would work in any other country maybe. 20000 licenses means a lot more than 20000 votes. And this is only one of the many lobbies.

[Heliosmaster]

One thing: technically you don't pay for licenses, they are given for free from the municipality. They have a fixed number, so if you want to get into the system you have to get a license from someone else, hence the payment.

[sneak]

The government made artificial scarcity and now there is a market where you have to pay to get a license. Technically you do pay for licenses, just not the government.

[walterstucco]

government made them scarce because every time it tried to raise the number of licenses, taxi drivers basically have put up a riot .

they are mob criminals, there is no other world to describe their lobby.

[Heliosmaster]

But only because the government allows it. Licenses could be made non-transferable...

[Arkaad]

Same issue in France. How is that even allowed? It's almost similar to ticket scalping.

[mk89]

It's a bit sad that things need to end up this way.

Eventually things will change. However, things could have been handled differently, let's say with a proposal to these new companies to offer rides and adapt with the taxi-system in the country. Meaning:

- taxi drivers need to have the highest priority and be sponsored as such (most of them paid for their license, and they MUST exist by law, because it's an essential service)

- all drivers need to pass some screenings and keep it up-to-date (police, etc.)

- all drivers need to pay taxes (because what they are doing right now is simply black-work)

- security on Uber needs really to improve if you want to offer a public service, because as it is now, people can impersonate drivers (there are stories about this)

[Normal_gaussian]

Things could have been handled differently you are right. But let us be clear - it is Uber that should have handled it differently.

[zuzun]

This is how it's done in Germany. German law has the concept of "rental car with driver". This sounds super fancy but it's essentially a light version of a taxi. You call one, it arrives 5 minutes later, you pay something like €7 for a ride, all good. Drivers need a concession, don't have to follow taxi rules, but also don't get benefits like being allowed to wait for passengers in public places.

[pmontra]

Same in Italy. That's a different license than taxi. Those drivers should go back to their base, possibly very far away from the end of the previous drive, and wait for another call. Taxi drivers complain that the ones working for Uber don't but I don't know the details of the fights of the last months. I use car sharing services and getting a taxi here is easier than installing an app (call a phone number, somebody answers), so I never used Uber and I wasn't that interested in this drama. I expect Uber drivers to go on strike and block streets like taxis did weeks ago. Obviously cheaper taxis would be a great outcome.

[mk89]

And how do you handle taxes? Isn't this "black" money?

[mantas]

I'm not sure how exactly it's done in Germany, but in Lithuania "black cars" main difference from "taxi" is "black car" have to agree on price before the ride while "taxi" works out the price after the ride.

Uber is currently enjoying third way there thanks to political support (which may or may not be related to Uber IT operations located in town). But overall it (and it's local competitors) are gravitating towards taxi side of things. Taxi license is dirt cheap though. The only issue is yearly (vs bi-yearly) car inspection and more expensive insurance.

[zuzun]

I don't know, that's the job of the tax authorities. They use company cars, they always drive back to their office, it's probably easy to check their books and see if their spendings on fuel match the declared rides.

[rorykoehler]

Only if the driver doesn't pay the required MwSt (sales) and income tax surely?

[bwb]

I once bought a sandwich in Italy, it required 3 lines... one to buy a token for the sandwich, the next line to use that token to order the sandwich, and the 3rd line to pick up the sandwich.

Italy is not a place for innovation or efficiency.

I am not a huge Uber fan, but some of the points here neglect to mention how broken the country of Italy is.

[endisukaj]

> I am not a huge Uber fan, but some of the points here neglect to mention how broken the country of Italy is.

You deduced that from your extensive experience in buying a sandwich?

[RodericDay]

I've had the exact same experience at La Taqueria in San Francisco.

[jwilk]

s/damping/dumping/?

[_joe]

heh, yes, just wrote this too early in the morning. Editing, thanks!

[ThomPete]

This is completely missing the point though.

There shouldn't be any taxi licenses anymore and any modern country should get rid of this monopolizing practice. The Taxi licenses were important when the technology was not there today most of the reasons why a taxi license is requires isn't necessary.

Furthermore uber drivers are freelancers they are the ones who need to pay their taxes by italian law. Italy like many other countries speculate in giving the kind of tax benefits that companies like uber is using. They do so to get jobs which can then be taxed fairly simple through income tax. Ubers model destroy this relationship and politicians who want to score political points have decided to outlaw uber.

There is nothing in what you say which couldn't have been fixed with a better legislation.

Context Denmark went through same exercise recently. Same claims about it being illegal was made.

There are plenty of things to critique about uber, your critique really should be a critique about how your own politicians didn't manage to modernize in proper time. Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot.

Edit: Instead of just down voting me because you disagree try and at least have the courtesy to forumalte an argument against what I am saying that way we all could learn something. I am more than happy in being corrected and correct something if I am wrong, down voting me doesn't help

[RobertoG]

"There shouldnt be any taxi licenses anymore and any modern country should get rid of this monopolizing practice."

Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions.

"Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot."

Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber.

[ThomPete]

You don't have elections about how taxi regulation should be handled. Neither did italian voters vote for the current taxi regulation. So lets stop the sherrade for a moment here shall we?

There are many many areas which are left to politicians to deal with. Not even Switzerland votes on everything.

Italy, Denmark and other countries allow companies to use them as tax loopholes all the time because it creates jobs in their countries and thats one of the most valuable political currencies.

The Uber model destroys that by contracting freelancers instead and subsidizing the rides allowing them to compete with the existing taxi industry with it's existing political powers and lobbied politicians.

There is nothing noble about banning Uber it's purely a political move to ensure a protected industry can continue and thus it's political powers be used and controlled.

[RobertoG]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Only one remark: not banning Uber also would be a political move. We can't escape politics.

[ThomPete]

My point is that Uber wasn't banned because it was illegal but because it was politically problematic. There are plenty of companies who do exactly like Uber tax-wise but doesn't get banned simply because they create jobs.

Furthermore your claim that it's somehow an expression of the italian voter is simply flat out wrong.

[RobertoG]

I think that your point is wrong.

The article says:

"Italy's taxi associations succeeded in winning the ruling after they brought a lawsuit against Uber to court."

It sounds like it was illegal. Why it was illegal? Because the Italian legislative branch decided so. To who the legislative answer? To the Italian voters.

Is this system a democracy? yes. Could be the system be more democratic? Sure.

[nawitus]

"Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions."

It's possibly to advocate for a position and also believe in democracy. In fact, advocacy is part of the democratic process.

"Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber."

Yes, so far they have decided incorrectly.

[RobertoG]

"It's possibly to advocate for a position and also believe in democracy. In fact, advocacy is part of the democratic process."

Absolutely, but, lately, with the current Zeitgeist and all,I feel like it's not going overboard to remember it from time to time.

"Yes, so far they have decided incorrectly."

As it's their right (just remembering it again, only in case).

[mantas]

So democracy is good as long as it decides correctly? And what gives you authority to decide what is and what is not correct?

[Eridrus]

Do you think Italy's citizens are actually in favor of in maintaining the taxi monopoly?

There are reasonable reasons to require registration when cabs had to find people on the street, but mobile apps have significantly changed how drivers can operate and should result in rethinking the laws rather than blindly supporting the existing special interests.

Allegations of predatory pricing can be investigated separately if that's an actual concern.

[RobertoG]

"Do you think Italy's citizens are actually in favor of in maintaining the taxi monopoly?"

I have not idea. I suppose we should ask them, using the democratic established channels. Meanwhile, Uber should follow the law.

[JoeAltmaier]

At some point, its moot. Uber is an app. Is the app banned? How? Some national firewall?

This brave new world and such marvels in it. Reminds me of when a nation (Thailand?) 'banned' bitcoin. What on earth could that even mean?

[maxerickson]

In the case of a service app, one thing a country can do is make it hard to bank. Will people drive for Uber without getting paid? Probably not.

Same with bitcoin actually. A pretty big majority of people aren't going to use it if it is cut off from most of their local economy.

[pmontra]

Uber is a company and it moves money. I bet the app still works in Italy. Uber could block it or not. What it should not do is keep operating in Italy: not routing requests to drivers is the first important step.

[muninn_]

Most likely there wasn't any "democratic" decision to establish a limitation on the number of taxi licenses. It's just bureaucracy. I don't really see the economic argument for them, Uber competition or not.

[RobertoG]

"I don't really see the economic argument for them"

It's a price control measure. They decided that the people doing this job should be able to make a living doing it.

Of course, this goes against laissez faire ideology, but, it's their prerogative to choose that.

[muninn_]

Yes but what is the economic argument for doing so? Does this make Italians better off? How does it affect the cost of living? Why not double the limit? Why not half it? Should people even be employed to do this? What about when self-driving cars can operate as taxis?

Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?

My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.

[RobertoG]

"Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?"

I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply.

Are Italians better off?

No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.

[ThomPete]

This has nothing to do with laissez faire ideology and you are actually the one showing your ideological stance here.

Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be.

Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.

[RobertoG]

I was only answering the parent question: they limit the supply in order to control the price. That goes against laissez faire ideology for sure.

In my opinion, the most important point is that the Italians have the right to do so if they choose. Or to change their minds in the future.

" I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again." OK, good for them, in that case.

[disordinary]

We have no taxi licenses only a class P passenger license and local knowledge test is required. There are now way too many taxis in our cities as well as Uber. This may have driven down prices but in reality it has driven down quality as well.

Taxis clog up the carparks because the taxi stands are full and they congest the roads.

I would happily take a restriction if it meant a higher standard of taxi and service.

[ThomPete]

Local knowledge test is a good example. It's not needed with GPS. Furthermore Uber allow for throwing out the bad drivers and it wont clog up anything as it has a much better ability to cater for demand.

[disordinary]

What you find here is that Uber drivers are often also Taxi drivers for the smaller taxi companies, an Uber call comes in and they put their signage in their boot, in between Uber jobs they put the signage back on and sit at a taxi stand.

Local knowledge is important though, roads change more frequently than maps are updated, and here at least a lot of street names and suburbs are not in English - someone who is not from the city would struggle to enter in the names of streets and suburbs and might end up on the other side of town before they know it.

[ThomPete]

I have never had any problems finding my way around italy with a GPS and I have been there a lot and it's been a while. I can only imagine that the GPS apps are getting even better.

So I don't buy that argument.

[marklyon]

One of Uber's key problems is that they create insufficient opportunities for graft and corruption.

[ThomPete]

?