Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Regulation is no panacea and can be a plague. Many regulations cure a non-existent problem. Some regulations are viewed by the regulated industry as a barrier to entry, and that keeps their competition low. And there's always the problem of regulatory capture.
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
That's one of the largest barriers to entry. When licenses are less a certification that the industry meets minimum requirements and more an arbitrary limit to the number of competitors then the value of the license goes really high, and the competitors are able to keep prices artificially high.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
See also: regulatory capture.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
How do you explain the fact that the entrenched players are the ones who are fighting Uber, rather than people who have been injured by Uber's failings?
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry.
...and the people who want to hire them. Don't forget about them.
They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
It appears to me that it's possible for an entity to be both, simultaneously. Someone could be fighting the good fight and at the same time be a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
Fanciful comparisons aside, maybe Uber is right. You have certainly not refuted their arguments in your post.
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
Do you hold any opinions on scheduling companies?
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
Well, I think I'm not a cab company. And I begin to suspect you are one. Whatever--let me say this; one man's hoodwink is another man's political activism.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Ooooh! So close you nearly convince me.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
You know--when I went to Uni I gave my roommate rides from his home to the campus. I charged him half the cost of petrol. I suppose I should have paid USD100.000 for a shield.