
Uber banned in all of Italy - thewhitetulip
http://mashable.com/2017/04/07/uber-blocked-italy/
======
_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.

~~~
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)

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

------
register
I see a great degree of superficiality in all comments. Uber has been banned
for breaking the italian law, period. That the law for taxi and similar
services might be too much restrictive and could be improved in favour of the
market is a completely different matter. In Italy there are precise rules
regarding where and how you can pick up passengers and Uber is violating them.
This is why it was banned. The sentence even states this explicitly: that the
duty of the magister is to apply the current law and not the enter in the
merits of how it could be improved for the benefit of the market. Did anybody
read the sentence before commenting?

Uber has been also banned in Berlin and Amburg and I haven't seen any similar
comment here. I would be very curios to understand why.

~~~
Dylan16807
> In Italy there are precise rules regarding where and how you can pick up
> passengers and Uber is violating them.

Do those rules make _any_ sense? If they broke a nonsense law, then it's not
as simple as "broke the law, period". Maybe there should be outrage against
the people that put the law into place. But that's only an 'if'.

~~~
mk89
I could claim the same about medicine. Why can't you sell medicine? Why do you
need to have a license for that?

If there is a law, you can't simply break it and claim that the country is too
old and full of lobbies (both may be true, still you are not entitled to enter
a country and break the rules just because you are "cool" and "the new"). This
is not how this world works.

~~~
icebraining
Define "entitled". Legally entitled? No, but that's irrelevant, since by
definition you are never legally entitled to break the law. Ethically
entitled? That's arguable. Personally, I have no problem with people and
companies openly breaking laws in ways that only harm people in the long run.
And I have no problem with the authorities punishing them for it. It's a kind
of stress test of the political system. Lots of bad laws remain due to
complacency and inertia, so there's value in forcing a decision when
conditions change.

~~~
mk89
Oh that's relevant. I don't understand why Netflix has to deal with Warner &
co. to buy rights for streaming, while Uber is above the law. All this just
because it's "the new".

It's easy to become rich and powerful when you play with different rules.

~~~
icebraining
How is that a reply to what I wrote?

~~~
mk89
Because I think this is how this world works. There are laws, and some of them
are old, yet, they are there for a reason.

All companies have to adapt, you (the company owner) find the way out and then
complain a country is "behind".

You see this as a stress test, and while I agree with you because as I wrote
above things could have been done differently, it's also true that there are
many companies innovating without breaking laws (see the iphone, etc), meaning
that you don't necessarily have to break the law to do something good. There
are other more peaceful ways to propose your ideas, but the reality is that
they wouldn't bring innovation "right now, the way I want it". At least,
that's my opinion. Sometimes things take time. We are talking about a whole
category of people that you want to replace just because you think they are
out of date.

Do you really think Netflix wants to pay warner? Do you think that they want
to set geographical limitations?

~~~
icebraining
Sure, I agree with all that. And if the authorities believe that the laws
shouldn't be changed right now, then can and should punish companies for it -
like Italy is doing.

But the test, the confrontation itself is still valuable, and I think Uber is
ethically entitled to try.

------
tici_88
The law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how 'cool' you are
considered to be.

If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for
certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government
regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should
be expected to do the same. Uber does not pay or require their drivers to pay
the licenses and comply with the regulations, hence the ruling.

~~~
rahimnathwani
"The law should apply equally to everyone"

In this case, the law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Holders of existing
taxi licenses actively lobby to restrict the issuance of additional licenses.
This isn't new:
[https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articl...](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articles/milan-
taxi-drivers-protest-against-increase-in-licences)

~~~
_joe
The solution to that is to allow more licences, and maybe to use those new
licences to compensate current drivers for the loss of value of the licence
they bought.

Allowing a corporation to just ignore existing regulations while everyone else
is respecting them is a completely different story.

Let me add: I have very little sympathy for the taxi drivers guild and their
practices, but I don't think that's a good reason to allow Uber to operate
outside of the law.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Yup

------
tluyben2
While I understand and support that Uber must comply with local laws and that
it is unfair to taxi drivers who paid 200k or whatever for a license (which is
the case in most EU countries), I do would like to see Uber push for
modernization because that will not happen with those local cab drivers. In
countries where Uber is allowed, I can pick between a nice, clean car with a
friendly driver or an old crappy vehicle with a grumpy, smelly driver. In Hong
Kong UberX are mostly new Teslas driven by people who speak some English,
while the local cabs are so old and decrapped I do not understand how they
even are allowed on the road. And those are not exceptions. In Spain, where
Uber is no more, I get in to cars, the drivers swear in Spanish (they do not
speak English mostly) that the drive is too short, burps and then drives off.
Again no exception: it happens only to us already a lot and we are polite
people (maybe we should not be?).

After that experience you have no recoarse to complain: with Uber you tap in
the app and even get some or all money back. And drivers under a certain score
drop off. With regular taxis it is fuck you very much for your money.

So banning Uber is nice and all and logical but then the gov should at least
demand of taxis to offer the same level: hell their prices are much higher
than Uber as well in almost all instances, so even if we do not mention that
all the rest should be at the same level. I know they cannot and that is why
Uber breaking the law is needed; that is a sad thing. The client is king and
that has been lost by traditional cabbies in Europe a long time ago.

~~~
Markoff
apparently you never heard of taxi apps which provide pretty much same
experience as Uber while working with licensed taxi drivers

BTW not sure why should taxi driver in Spain speak English

~~~
tluyben2
I have but they work not at all like the Uber app: the ones I tried, in Spain
anyway, are awful and buggy. Which one(s) are you talking about?

>not sure why should taxi driver in Spain speak English

for many reasons I would find obvious (economic etc) but besides that: given
the choice between someone with and without multiple languages the better
service is multiple, so sure, does not have to but overall it helps.

~~~
RobertoG
Well.. maybe you should learn some Spanish, after all, you are in Spain.

Do a lot of Uber drivers in your city speak Spanish or Chinese?

~~~
tluyben2
I speak Spanish, lived there for 10 years. That's again not the point; it is
extra service. And most Spanish people I meet agree people need to learn
English by the way; you do not? It would not be too weird to ask for a basic
grasp of English in a 'united Europe'. Or pick a language; German, French,
Spanish, but something we all 'speak'. It would help, but that's another
discussion.

~~~
RobertoG
Sure, it would be wonderful if we all speak Esperanto, but this is not the
case.

It would be useful to me that wherever I travel people talk some common
language with me, but I don't feel like they have to.

It seems to me that if you choose to visit a foreign country you should expect
some inconveniences and adapt to the local population.

~~~
tluyben2
Yes, but that is economically probably not a smart thing to do. In Spain where
I live I see people who speak English consistently do better. Things are just
easier to get. Let alone when someone speaks 'niche' languages like German.

~~~
RobertoG
So, why learn only English and drive a taxi then?

Maybe they should get PHd in Nuclear Physics and make some real money.

------
notlambda
Italian here, according to the driver of the taxi i'm in right now Uber is
unfair because their drivers don't have to buy taxi licenses(over 200k Euros
each in major cities). The Italian economy is in a bad state and the
government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.

~~~
beezischillin
I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when
it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take
money out of a country.

That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're
being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or
leave).

I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up
that much.

Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and
pay their taxes, I'd wager.

I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber,
where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out
of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.

I'd also say that money that doesn't end up taxed and back in the economy and
instead magically appears in a tax paradise to be held there as a bargaining
chip for exemption from US tax laws should probably anger Americans too. It
was utterly frustrating to see both presidential candidates bow down and be
ready to give huge tax cuts on the repatriation of multinationals' profits
just so they could at least see some of that trickle down into actual projects
like infrastructure. Reading about it really felt like global-scale a ransom-
situation.

~~~
qeternity
> I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy
> when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to
> take money out of a country.

You do realize that tax dodging is practically national sport in Italy and the
Mediterranean in general?

~~~
polotics
Oh? Like Starbucks using the Dutch sandwich? What an ignorant slur!

~~~
briandear
Is the Dutch sandwich illegal? If not, then blame your government. Starbucks
follows the law. That's what many people here say about Uber "Uber doesn't
follow the law -- so they should be banned; don't like the laws, then change
them."

Yet Starbucks follows the law -- they have a huge legal and tax team for that
purpose. So how can we complain about Uber not following the law and Starbucks
following the law and be intellectually consistent at all?

There is no such thing as a loophole. The law either is or it isn't.

~~~
exDM69
> Is the Dutch sandwich illegal? If not, then blame your government

I can't blame _my_ government for it because the Dutch Sandwich is based on
loopholes in several other countries' laws.

I do blame the EU for not cracking down on it more efficiently but the recent
injunction against Ireland and Apple is a good start.

It's very difficult to compete on a level playing field when the
multinationals don't pay taxes. Google, Apple, Facebook, Ikea, McD, Amazon
should all be slapped a proper fine.

But I don't have high hopes as long as Juncker from Luxembourg is running the
show.

------
ndr
Italy's law is quite specific on the matter, to offer transportation as a
business you're either a taxi or a rent-with-driver (Noleggio Con Conduncente
or NCC in Italian).

Taxi have their own finite licensing problem but NCC are easier to get. You
still need a permit from the local Comune[0] and to abide to the rules. In
exchange NCC vehicles can use the same fast lanes taxi can use.

The most contested rule is that NCC are hired only for specific rides (eg form
A to B, or for N hours) and they need to go back to the garage between rides.
They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before
accepting a ride, and the garage to be in the same Comune that gave the NCC
permission.

This clearly doesn't work well for Uber as it doesn't have any garage, nor
it's willing to accept the suboptimal usage the go-back-to-garage is going to
cause.

Disclaimer: INAL, but I've talked to some Italian lawyers about this.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune)

edit: formatting

~~~
awqrre
>They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before
accepting a ride

In Italy, do you also to print an e-bill before paying it online? That may be
a bad analogy but it just seems wasteful to me.

------
squarefoot
What they call "unfair competition" is nothing more than not having to pay for
a taxi service license that should not be sold that high in the first place
because they're assigned from local municipalities after the driver passes an
exam to get the appropriate driving license and other stuff. Unfortunately
taxi licenses are assigned very scarcely and the resulting huge disproportion
between demand and offer creates a market in which old drivers when retiring
sell their ones at absurd prices, that is, even over $200K. Of course license
scarcity and the lack of competition means higher fares for customers and
higher profits for drivers. That is ultimately the only one reason why they
acted against Uber like they did against other services such as the NCC (rent
with driver) which is a workaround to trick the law and get a taxi service
disguised as a car rent.

~~~
onion2k
_Unfortunately taxi licenses are assigned very scarcely and the resulting huge
disproportion between demand and offer creates a market in which old drivers
when retiring sell their ones at absurd prices, that is, even over $200K._

That makes it sound like the license acts as a proxy for a pension. If so,
$200K is really not absurd at all. That's a very small pension, and Uber's
disruption of the market is going to mean a lot of Italian taxi drivers have a
horrible time living in poverty in their old age. That's obviously not Uber's
fault, but it's understandable that the taxi drivers and the government would
be very much against a sudden change to the status quo.

~~~
_joe
Yes. Also, license costs in Italy sunk in the last 15 years anyways, as more
of them were granted. Add to that that the license is individual, and you can
surely sell it, but just to another person; corporations can't own them and
ask for a daily ransom from taxi drivers.

------
sidcool
Uber is super convenient for customers. But it indulges in illegal and
spurious activities. And most customers will not care about the law of the
taxi drivers if something's convenient to them. On the flip side taxi drivers
won't improve their service.

~~~
Markoff
how is Uber more convenient than any other taxi app? oh yeah, showing lower
misleading price for ride than real (got fine for that in my country already)
and peak hour nonsense is very convenient for customer, no thanks, you can
keep that stuff in US

~~~
briandear
Why is the surge pricing "nonsense?"

It's basic supply and demand and it prevents shortages. If it's peak hour and
I must get to a meeting and someone else is just going shopping, I would be
willing to pay more so I am not late. I think the shopper is willing to pay
less to go on the trip at a different time.

Supply and demand. Impossible to ignore. Either high demand leads to high
prices or high demand leads to shortages if prices were constrained.

Since you said "you can keep that stuff in US," I have to ask: does supply and
demand work differently in your country? It would seem, based of the state of
many European economies (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, as examples,) that
perhaps they need more of that free market competition "stuff" and much less
government and taxes.

~~~
Markoff
we have fixed prices for taxi, so i know how much i will pay and ride cost
much less than Uber with surge pricing which is reason nobody really cares
about Uber, you can conveniently order taxi through the app, pay online and
leave review, not sure why would i need Uber for this, they are rarely cheaper
than legal taxi so no thanks i support law abiding companies

~~~
icebraining
If nobody cares about Uber, why should it be banned? Why are the taxi drivers
against it? Nobody will use it, and it'll go away by itself like every
unprofitable company.

~~~
zouhair
If you let them, people would have slaves.

~~~
icebraining
How is that in any way related to what I wrote?

The argument "Uber has low prices because it pays badly, therefore it should
be banned" is good. The argument "Uber is actually not cheaper and nobody
cares about it, therefore it should be banned" is not.

------
rodionos
> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi
> associations.

This is going to replay in many other countries. It may look like a clash of
the Anglo-Saxon model of unbridled capitalism with the European model built on
top of cross-subsidies and tighter regulations to support all kinds of safety
nets. But it's not. To me it looks like a shift away from capital assets (e.g.
annual licenses) toward per-per-use economics. If you think about it, there is
nothing that prevents the Italian authorities to levy mileage-based fees on
Uber to level the paying field.

------
SCdF
I try to use Uber as little as possible.

Ironically, the only time I was forced to use it was in Italy, because it
turned out it was a public holiday, so no public transport (including taxis)
were running.

------
nkkollaw
I'm from Italy.

This is really bad news.

Uber's entrance into the market was a great opportunity to either change
another awful law/system that's in place, or create a precedent by ruling to
not apply the current law. Of course, they didn't do it.

Currently, in order to be a taxi driver you have to pay a license, which costs
up to €200,000 (from what I know). Since it would take too long, taxi drivers
aren't obliged to give you a receipt. If you ask for one for tax purposes,
they give you a piece of paper so that you can write off the expense, but they
still don't have to report that to the government. How do they pay taxes? The
association itself sets an estimate of how much they're supposed to make each
month, that they then pay taxes on. This is many times less than what they
actually make. It's a joke, unheard of for any other category (that I know
of).

Most importantly, taxis provide a horrible, horrible service. They're super-
expensive, to the point of being ridiculous, and known to scam people by
overcharging them many times the usual fare (tourists in particular, but not
only tourists, I can speak of that).

Public transportation in many cities is inadequate.

Luckily, in many cities (including mine, Florence) they're now offering great
car sharing services, where you can select a car near you from the app, and
use it for ~€0.25/min. There are 3 different companies doing it, so the market
is very healthy. I use it regularly, buses will take me to x in 45' for €1.20,
using the car sharing service I can get there in 15' for €4. For comparison, a
taxi ride would cost me €15-20.

One thing I don't understand is that in Dublin, I had the impression that most
Uber rides were taxi drivers—whom used both the taxi company dispatch system
and Uber—and they said they'd make more money with Uber because their share
was less than the taxi company's. Although I don't know much about this, I
wonder if the same thing would be true in Italy.

If you want to be a taxi driver, Uber would remove having to spend €200,000 to
get started (which by the way sounds like a horrible investment to me, since
after that you're stuck being a taxi driver). Of course, this isn't fair to
those who paid that, but I wouldn't oppose the government buying those back
(perhaps with tax credits?) and then change the law. Honestly, I wouldn't
oppose those people just losing the money, since they don't seem to refund
restaurateurs that close down because they open a McDonald's next door, small
shops when a supermarket gets open next door, programmers that make less money
because of outsourcing to India, factory workers whose factory closes down and
moves to Poland.

Mainly, this situation is not fair. Why not add a limited-number restaurant
license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to
protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST
produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to
protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published
MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an
ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet? What's
so special about taxi drivers? Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a
random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a
client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS, as
I'm legally required to do?

------
zouhair
Good. They should be banned wherever they don't pay taxes.

------
maverick_iceman
As usual, politicians kill a cheap, customer-friendly service to save an
entrenched monopoly. If the horse cart owners were this smart, we never would
have had the automobile revolution.

~~~
zouhair
If Uber is what counts as progress, to hell with this progress.

------
TwoBit
Banned due to unfair competition.

I think a more accurate reason would be: banned due to competition.

------
Pyxl101
What aspect of the law did they break? I can't find any meaningful details in
the articles. They all just say that Uber was banned for "unfair competition".
The primary source of the English articles seems to be a Reuters wire with
scant details. Anyone know more or have a link? (Including to something in
Italian?)

Are Italian court transcripts generally available online? If this was in the
US, I'd normally try to find and read the court docket.

~~~
pjmlp
The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be
transported should work, meaning how people are picked up, drivers certified,
security in the cars and so on.

Not following the local laws that everyone else follows, makes it unfair.

~~~
Pyxl101
My question is, what aspect of the law did they break? I'd like to know the
details. The articles in English have few real details about what happened.

~~~
yabatopia
You're not looking for details, you're asking for details. Did you try Google
Italy or Google Translate to translate Italian articles into English?

------
hitr
Banned for unfair competition!!.So that means taxi operators could not compete
for price and may be convenience offered by Uber. isn't that bad for the
consumers? May be someone from Italy can comment?

~~~
Markoff
no, that means that taxi companies must pay plenty of fees to meet law
requirements which in the end affect price for customer

Uber is ignoring laws and don't pay these fees and taxes and SOMETIMES is able
to offer cheaper ride than taxi, while in rush hour it cost more than taxi

i can easily day from comments here who is American without clue about Europe
and who is European pissed about some American corporation which is ignoring
any laws and pretending they are bringing some progress, like we don't have
taxi woods without them, F Uber

~~~
Markoff
...easily see...

...taxi apps...

------
itsmemattchung
Although I no longer ride Uber, I'm shocked that the service is banned from
the entire country: on one hand, I'm glad Uber is being reprimanded for
constantly side stepping laws, but I'm worried that other services (i.e. Lyft)
will be banned too; in this instance, Uber was banned (it appears) due to fear
of competition, not for breaking laws.

~~~
pjmlp
The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be
transported should work, if Über wants to operate in Italy, it just has to
follow the local laws like everyone.

I am fed up of corporations that think otherwise.

~~~
Markoff
i am in same position my fellow European

it's funny how are Americans here defending Uber breaking laws in Europe,
where most people agree with regulating it so they won't break laws and have
unfair advantage over taxi, any idiot can drive illegally car and charge less
than company which need surcharge taxi insurance, taxi license, car of
specific color and standard,etc.

now i am not big fan of taxi (public transport FTW) and still think most of
the taxi drivers are thieves if given opportunity, but thanks to taxi apps I
don't need to worries about it, not sure where some completely illegal service
like Uber fit here

------
lend000
Appalling. Hating on Uber is popular right now for good reasons, but don't let
it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched
industry (which goes beyond Uber). Is there any information as to whether this
affects Lyft?

> after a judge ruled Friday that it created "unfair competition"

And in the linked Reuter's article:

> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi
> associations.

Italy's economic troubles should come as no surprise.

~~~
pyrale
> but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt
> an entrenched industry

In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Taxis are therefore
mostly a comodity for affluent people : most never use them. Uber is neither
important nor a progress in terms of mass transportation.

~~~
handedness
> In Europe, we actually have working public transportation.

Not in Italy, you don't. In no developed nation have I ever found public
transportation as unreliable as I have in Italy, and in that I'm including
northern Italy.

~~~
rekshaw
Surface transport maybe, metro is very reliable (Milan)

~~~
handedness
Not, for example, when they decide to run all of the trains in one direction
only, yet neglect to update the schedules displayed on screen in the stations,
so anyone looking to head the other direction is stranded for an indeterminate
of time. (If the surface transportation was any good, that wouldn't have been
such a big problem.)

Milan has as many problems as anywhere else in Italy, and it's not immune from
their insane strikes, either.

