9 ms·

Uber to suspend operations in Hungary due to govt legislation

53 points by vezycash 10y ago

brudgers 10y ago
A more detailed report: http://www.portfolio.hu/en/economy/uber_set_to_pull_out_of_hungary_portal.31571.html http://www.portfolio.hu/en/economy/uber_set_to_pull_out_of_h... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086041
vkou 10y ago
Article is light on what it would take for Uber to be compliant as a legal dispatcher service.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  This article has the usual pro-Uber slant that allows them to complain that it's "impossible" to do business in a place because of regulations that apparently don't hinder any of the other players, so we're unlikely to get any details on what in particular made servicing Hungary "impossible." I have to assume this is just more of their petulance, given local events involving them. Uber and Lyft claimed that servicing Austin would be "impossible" given the horrific demands that their drivers submit to finger-printing and left, claiming all over the place that they were "kicked out." We have several ride-hailing services that are somehow able to bear these truly onerous and unbearable regulations, and that's without 100 billion in SV funding. So I would guess that Hungary didn't want to serve themselves up on a silver plate and Uber threw the usual fit.
  - hughw 10y ago
    Yup. They clearly have an agenda that's more than just doing business. If all they wanted to do is make money for shareholders, they'd just comply with local regulations. They must be thinking for the verrrry long term, if they are planning on changing the structure of democracies to allow them to operate as they please. Edit: To wit, appealing to the Texas legislature to overrule Austin's popular referendum.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Not sure about their long-term planning. It seems to me they're doing "just" business pretty well. Their strategy seems to be universally to burn money on lawyers so that local authorities can't ban them until they get to stay due to popular demand. It seems to be evidence of audacity, not necessarily of a long-term strategy.
    - jhayward 10y ago
      I agree there is a deeper agenda to create a Libertarian structure so that government can't interfere in their operations. This is made clear by the idea that a $60 billion dollar silicon valley company finds it "impossible" to create a seamless, frictionless method of obtaining fingerprints from drivers as part of their on-boarding process. It's ludicrous on its face. I'd be happy to do the project for just what they spent on the failed referendum in Austin. Having predictable and uniform standards for Texas state-wide seems to make sense to me. Uber should be careful what they wish for, though, because the last quote I heard from one of the legislative committee chairman controlling such a bill was "as long as we get fingerprints I think it's a good thing."
      - hughw 10y ago
        The $9M they spent in Austin on the referendum would have funded 30,000 completed license applications, with fingerprints.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  > Article is light on what it would take for Uber to be compliant as a legal dispatcher service. Typically the problems are: a) surge pricing b) rates that do not follow the government set rates c) refusing service to certain customers d) no mandatory insurances e) do not accept cash payments in cars.
  - vkou 10y ago
    If that's the case, I don't see why compliance with these laws for a taxi-dispatch-by-app is impossible
    - pgeorgi 10y ago
      That's why there are taxi dispatch apps around the world (these days). Uber still thinks it needs to "fix" them (ie. make sure rent money flows to them instead of anybody else).
  - greyman 10y ago
    Or, their drivers needs to be licensed taxi drivers, and they are not. For example in Slovakia, the law states quite clearly, that if you provide road transportation for other people as a business, then if your car has more than 9 seats, you are operating a bus service, and if it has 9 or less, you are operating a taxi, and must follow all regulations applied to taxi drivers. But Uber says they are not a taxi, despite operating almost exactly like one. :-) For example, we have other popular taxi service, which also has a smartphone app working very similarly to Uber, with the one exception, that they only accept professional taxi drivers as their drivers. So if they wanted, Uber could do the same and be perfectly legal, but they apparently don't want to.
    - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
      > Or, their drivers needs to be licensed taxi drivers, and they are not. I can't talk about Hungary but in Austria an uber driver could not be a licensed taxi driver or at least, it does not matter. However for sure an uber cannot be a taxi because uber has no chance to follow those regulations and restrictions without giving up their business model. > For example in Slovakia, the law states quite clearly, that if you provide road transportation for other people as a business, then if your car has more than 9 seats, you are operating a bus service, and if it has 9 or less, you are operating a taxi, and must follow all regulations applied to taxi drivers. That's not how it works in Austria and I'm sure that's not how it works in Hungary. In Austria there are two regulations: taxis and personal drivers. The latter is what uber currently follows. It's a car with a driver that cannot pick up customers from the street who are hailing and it must not be equipped with a taximeter. > For example, we have other popular taxi service, which also has a smartphone app working very similarly to Uber, with the one exception, that they only accept professional taxi drivers as their drivers. Uber is not just great because of the app but also because the drivers are rated, the customers are rated and with the surge pricing there is a chance to get a taxi when it's needed. Try getting a taxi in Vienna at rush hour. You can't, because nobody cares extra since you get just as much money there as you do normally but you are stuck in traffic, so there are fewer taxis on the road.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
roschdal 10y ago
Uber is also illegal in Norway, but somehow Uber keeps on doing the illegal business continuing to break the law.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Because they have the money and lawyers, so they can break the law. They like to call it Disruptive Innovation or some other fancy term. The problem with Uber is they think every country is the same and welcomes them. I under that might be the case with U.S, but it doesn't mean taxi system in every country is broken and they are welcomed to "fix it".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - hueving 10y ago
    If the taxi system is not crap there, why are there citizens using Uber there? Uber wouldn't be operating if people weren't using it.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      Subsidized rides (aka market share acquisition aka dumping)
    - nisa 10y ago
      It's cheaper because it socializes the costs - usually Taxi drivers have to make a licence that involves knowledge of the area and likely other aptitude tests, as well as maintenance of the cars and insurance. Then there are laws that prevent working below a certain minimum income rate in Europe that also affect Taxi drivers as most of them don't operate on their own. Uber moves all these responsibilities to the owner of the car, now you are your own business man you face the majority of risks and Uber still gets a big chunk of profit. Uber doesn't care about your maintenance costs. Sometimes it works, often this encourages dangerous behavior to still have profits e.g. skipping maintenance, safe working times, vacation... Uber doesn't care that much about this. A lot of people work almost full time without enough compensation to warrant the stress. Besides that European countries - at least the bigger cities - have often excellent public transport that is inexpensive and mostly works. Taxis supplement that and Uber is trying to compete on price there, something that abuses the drivers in the long run. I hope Uber is kept out of Europe or is regulated to protect the drivers and users.
jokoon 10y ago
Sometimes my former socialist self whispers to me that the US is annexing the whole world through its companies. Then I realize that's a simple thought that is hard to dispel.
joering2 10y ago
I wonder when US gov will take a deeper look at Uber. It is not only taxi and public transportation laws around the country they "disturb"; I still receive spammy emails they continue to send, and even Sendgrid is fully in bed with them. I forwarded spam to Sendgrid and they said they will follow up with Uber (so apparently they are Uber's customer support at this point - great!) The spamming practice never changed or stopped despite Sendgrid telling me they will send my email to them (!!) to unsubscribe me from their list, when I didn't even subscribe in the first place. As I received more Uber spam I kept updating Sendgrid ticked (zendesk). Eventually some 2 weeks later they closed it as "resolved" and never replied to my emails again. I still get Uber Spam from Sendgrid. Stay away from them as long as you can (both Uber and Sendgrid) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davidf18 10y ago
Uber and Lyft are also effectively banned in the 3rd world country of Austin, Texas, USA. Uber/Lyft/Gett are very useful. Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them.
- TheBolivianNavy 10y ago
  They aren't banned in Austin. They left rather than comply with the law. Other companies still operate. You can debate whether or not the law is a good law but they certainly weren't forced to leave.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them. Because they operate in violation of local laws.
- yladiz 10y ago
  They didn't get banned in Austin, they didn't want to fingerprint their drivers and pushed for legislation that specifically excluded them from a law. The city of Austin even tried to work with them, offering to front the cost, set up mobile fingerprinting stations, but they rejected this stating it would be too high of a barrier for their drivers, and when the vote came in against Uber/Lyft on Proposition 1 they decided to leave. In other words, in the specific case of Austin, they acted like spoiled children when they didn't get their way and made it so no one can benefit from their services in the city.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    I said effectively banned and what I meant was because of the unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers when other cities such as NYC (where I live and which is far more dangerous than Austin) has no such requirement, nor apparently, does any other major US city since I've taken Uber/Lyft in a number of them.
    - yladiz 10y ago
      > unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers Maybe it is unusual because it's not common in other cities, but let's not pretend it's onerous. Austin really tried to work with Uber/Lyft on this, such as offering to pay for the fingerprinting or have mobile fingerprinting stations, and Uber/Lyft still didn't like the idea because it would likely mean that other cities would see it as an example. And it's also not fair to say that it's even effectively banned because it's a law that's not difficult to work within.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I used Uber recently for the first time recently in San Francisco and San Diego (I was at the Decentralized Web and NAACL 2016 conferences) and I thought Uber was a nice service. Each of the 8 times I used Uber I sat in the front seat to talk with the driver. All 8 drivers were fairly upbeat about being able to earn extra money whenever they had some free time. A few said that it was their full time job. I had a mild argument with my son about Uber (he is a fireman and a union guy). He thinks that Uber is really unfair to union taxi drivers who jump through some hoops to get licensed, etc. Besides wanting good service, I rate businesses like these on how much profit is captured by the person doing the work vs. the company that they work with. I don't have any data on this, so I am judging Uber based on the low cost of shared ride service and the general friendlyness of the drivers.
- bsder 10y ago
  > I had a mild argument with my son about Uber (he is a fireman and a union guy). He thinks that Uber is really unfair to union taxi drivers who jump through some hoops to get licensed, etc. I have multiple problems with ridesharing services: 1) They foist the risk off onto the contractors while keeping all the profit themselves. They could have been a well-run national taxi company that serviced suburbs (and would have had STAUNCH defenders), but that won't get you unicorn valuations. 2) Most of them are using VC money to subsidize the ride costs. This is fine--until they run out of money. Then the cities will be left to pick up the pieces when suddenly there aren't enough taxi drivers anymore to service the demand. Uber and Lyft actually tried to use this as leverage in Austin to get their way politically. So, the threat is not theoretical. These companies are not trying to service the customer; they are trying to become the taxi monopoly. 3) Uber/Lyft/etc. drivers often don't comply with local laws surrounding carriage services. This includes licensing and insurance but also includes simple things like "Where in the airport am I allowed to pick someone up?" I have had a not-insignificant fraction of drivers who simply don't know where they are going--especially if "surge pricing" pulled them in from an area outside their usual haunts. 4) I have a problem with Uber, specifically. It seems like it's run by a bunch of nasty, rich, party boys and their treatment of people they regard as beneath them is absolutely disgusting. I like the fact that the ridesharing services have forced most cities to start issuing more taxi permits. I like the fact that the ridesharing services function in the suburbs where taxis won't go(mostly--I have had some misses). I like the ridesharing services when they lobby for laws attempting to break the taxi monopolies. So, my verdict is still out. (Edited: I can haz English. Sheesh, my grammar is starting to suck.)

53 points by vezycash 10y ago

A more detailed report: http://www.portfolio.hu/en/economy/uber_set_to_pull_out_of_hungary_portal.31571.html http://www.portfolio.hu/en/economy/uber_set_to_pull_out_of_h... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086041

vkou 10y ago

Article is light on what it would take for Uber to be compliant as a legal dispatcher service.

wavefunction 10y ago
This article has the usual pro-Uber slant that allows them to complain that it's "impossible" to do business in a place because of regulations that apparently don't hinder any of the other players, so we're unlikely to get any details on what in particular made servicing Hungary "impossible." I have to assume this is just more of their petulance, given local events involving them. Uber and Lyft claimed that servicing Austin would be "impossible" given the horrific demands that their drivers submit to finger-printing and left, claiming all over the place that they were "kicked out." We have several ride-hailing services that are somehow able to bear these truly onerous and unbearable regulations, and that's without 100 billion in SV funding. So I would guess that Hungary didn't want to serve themselves up on a silver plate and Uber threw the usual fit.
- hughw 10y ago
  Yup. They clearly have an agenda that's more than just doing business. If all they wanted to do is make money for shareholders, they'd just comply with local regulations. They must be thinking for the verrrry long term, if they are planning on changing the structure of democracies to allow them to operate as they please. Edit: To wit, appealing to the Texas legislature to overrule Austin's popular referendum.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Not sure about their long-term planning. It seems to me they're doing "just" business pretty well. Their strategy seems to be universally to burn money on lawyers so that local authorities can't ban them until they get to stay due to popular demand. It seems to be evidence of audacity, not necessarily of a long-term strategy.
  - jhayward 10y ago
    I agree there is a deeper agenda to create a Libertarian structure so that government can't interfere in their operations. This is made clear by the idea that a $60 billion dollar silicon valley company finds it "impossible" to create a seamless, frictionless method of obtaining fingerprints from drivers as part of their on-boarding process. It's ludicrous on its face. I'd be happy to do the project for just what they spent on the failed referendum in Austin. Having predictable and uniform standards for Texas state-wide seems to make sense to me. Uber should be careful what they wish for, though, because the last quote I heard from one of the legislative committee chairman controlling such a bill was "as long as we get fingerprints I think it's a good thing."
    - hughw 10y ago
      The $9M they spent in Austin on the referendum would have funded 30,000 completed license applications, with fingerprints.
the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
> Article is light on what it would take for Uber to be compliant as a legal dispatcher service. Typically the problems are: a) surge pricing b) rates that do not follow the government set rates c) refusing service to certain customers d) no mandatory insurances e) do not accept cash payments in cars.
- vkou 10y ago
  If that's the case, I don't see why compliance with these laws for a taxi-dispatch-by-app is impossible
  - pgeorgi 10y ago
    That's why there are taxi dispatch apps around the world (these days). Uber still thinks it needs to "fix" them (ie. make sure rent money flows to them instead of anybody else).
- greyman 10y ago
  Or, their drivers needs to be licensed taxi drivers, and they are not. For example in Slovakia, the law states quite clearly, that if you provide road transportation for other people as a business, then if your car has more than 9 seats, you are operating a bus service, and if it has 9 or less, you are operating a taxi, and must follow all regulations applied to taxi drivers. But Uber says they are not a taxi, despite operating almost exactly like one. :-) For example, we have other popular taxi service, which also has a smartphone app working very similarly to Uber, with the one exception, that they only accept professional taxi drivers as their drivers. So if they wanted, Uber could do the same and be perfectly legal, but they apparently don't want to.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    > Or, their drivers needs to be licensed taxi drivers, and they are not. I can't talk about Hungary but in Austria an uber driver could not be a licensed taxi driver or at least, it does not matter. However for sure an uber cannot be a taxi because uber has no chance to follow those regulations and restrictions without giving up their business model. > For example in Slovakia, the law states quite clearly, that if you provide road transportation for other people as a business, then if your car has more than 9 seats, you are operating a bus service, and if it has 9 or less, you are operating a taxi, and must follow all regulations applied to taxi drivers. That's not how it works in Austria and I'm sure that's not how it works in Hungary. In Austria there are two regulations: taxis and personal drivers. The latter is what uber currently follows. It's a car with a driver that cannot pick up customers from the street who are hailing and it must not be equipped with a taximeter. > For example, we have other popular taxi service, which also has a smartphone app working very similarly to Uber, with the one exception, that they only accept professional taxi drivers as their drivers. Uber is not just great because of the app but also because the drivers are rated, the customers are rated and with the surge pricing there is a chance to get a taxi when it's needed. Try getting a taxi in Vienna at rush hour. You can't, because nobody cares extra since you get just as much money there as you do normally but you are stuck in traffic, so there are fewer taxis on the road.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

roschdal 10y ago

Uber is also illegal in Norway, but somehow Uber keeps on doing the illegal business continuing to break the law.

angry-hacker 10y ago
Because they have the money and lawyers, so they can break the law. They like to call it Disruptive Innovation or some other fancy term. The problem with Uber is they think every country is the same and welcomes them. I under that might be the case with U.S, but it doesn't mean taxi system in every country is broken and they are welcomed to "fix it".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hueving 10y ago
  If the taxi system is not crap there, why are there citizens using Uber there? Uber wouldn't be operating if people weren't using it.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    Subsidized rides (aka market share acquisition aka dumping)
  - nisa 10y ago
    It's cheaper because it socializes the costs - usually Taxi drivers have to make a licence that involves knowledge of the area and likely other aptitude tests, as well as maintenance of the cars and insurance. Then there are laws that prevent working below a certain minimum income rate in Europe that also affect Taxi drivers as most of them don't operate on their own. Uber moves all these responsibilities to the owner of the car, now you are your own business man you face the majority of risks and Uber still gets a big chunk of profit. Uber doesn't care about your maintenance costs. Sometimes it works, often this encourages dangerous behavior to still have profits e.g. skipping maintenance, safe working times, vacation... Uber doesn't care that much about this. A lot of people work almost full time without enough compensation to warrant the stress. Besides that European countries - at least the bigger cities - have often excellent public transport that is inexpensive and mostly works. Taxis supplement that and Uber is trying to compete on price there, something that abuses the drivers in the long run. I hope Uber is kept out of Europe or is regulated to protect the drivers and users.

jokoon 10y ago

Sometimes my former socialist self whispers to me that the US is annexing the whole world through its companies. Then I realize that's a simple thought that is hard to dispel.

joering2 10y ago

I wonder when US gov will take a deeper look at Uber. It is not only taxi and public transportation laws around the country they "disturb"; I still receive spammy emails they continue to send, and even Sendgrid is fully in bed with them. I forwarded spam to Sendgrid and they said they will follow up with Uber (so apparently they are Uber's customer support at this point - great!) The spamming practice never changed or stopped despite Sendgrid telling me they will send my email to them (!!) to unsubscribe me from their list, when I didn't even subscribe in the first place. As I received more Uber spam I kept updating Sendgrid ticked (zendesk). Eventually some 2 weeks later they closed it as "resolved" and never replied to my emails again. I still get Uber Spam from Sendgrid. Stay away from them as long as you can (both Uber and Sendgrid) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davidf18 10y ago

Uber and Lyft are also effectively banned in the 3rd world country of Austin, Texas, USA. Uber/Lyft/Gett are very useful. Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them.

TheBolivianNavy 10y ago
They aren't banned in Austin. They left rather than comply with the law. Other companies still operate. You can debate whether or not the law is a good law but they certainly weren't forced to leave.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them. Because they operate in violation of local laws.
yladiz 10y ago
They didn't get banned in Austin, they didn't want to fingerprint their drivers and pushed for legislation that specifically excluded them from a law. The city of Austin even tried to work with them, offering to front the cost, set up mobile fingerprinting stations, but they rejected this stating it would be too high of a barrier for their drivers, and when the vote came in against Uber/Lyft on Proposition 1 they decided to leave. In other words, in the specific case of Austin, they acted like spoiled children when they didn't get their way and made it so no one can benefit from their services in the city.
- davidf18 10y ago
  I said effectively banned and what I meant was because of the unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers when other cities such as NYC (where I live and which is far more dangerous than Austin) has no such requirement, nor apparently, does any other major US city since I've taken Uber/Lyft in a number of them.
  - yladiz 10y ago
    > unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers Maybe it is unusual because it's not common in other cities, but let's not pretend it's onerous. Austin really tried to work with Uber/Lyft on this, such as offering to pay for the fingerprinting or have mobile fingerprinting stations, and Uber/Lyft still didn't like the idea because it would likely mean that other cities would see it as an example. And it's also not fair to say that it's even effectively banned because it's a law that's not difficult to work within.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

I used Uber recently for the first time recently in San Francisco and San Diego (I was at the Decentralized Web and NAACL 2016 conferences) and I thought Uber was a nice service. Each of the 8 times I used Uber I sat in the front seat to talk with the driver. All 8 drivers were fairly upbeat about being able to earn extra money whenever they had some free time. A few said that it was their full time job. I had a mild argument with my son about Uber (he is a fireman and a union guy). He thinks that Uber is really unfair to union taxi drivers who jump through some hoops to get licensed, etc. Besides wanting good service, I rate businesses like these on how much profit is captured by the person doing the work vs. the company that they work with. I don't have any data on this, so I am judging Uber based on the low cost of shared ride service and the general friendlyness of the drivers.

bsder 10y ago
> I had a mild argument with my son about Uber (he is a fireman and a union guy). He thinks that Uber is really unfair to union taxi drivers who jump through some hoops to get licensed, etc. I have multiple problems with ridesharing services: 1) They foist the risk off onto the contractors while keeping all the profit themselves. They could have been a well-run national taxi company that serviced suburbs (and would have had STAUNCH defenders), but that won't get you unicorn valuations. 2) Most of them are using VC money to subsidize the ride costs. This is fine--until they run out of money. Then the cities will be left to pick up the pieces when suddenly there aren't enough taxi drivers anymore to service the demand. Uber and Lyft actually tried to use this as leverage in Austin to get their way politically. So, the threat is not theoretical. These companies are not trying to service the customer; they are trying to become the taxi monopoly. 3) Uber/Lyft/etc. drivers often don't comply with local laws surrounding carriage services. This includes licensing and insurance but also includes simple things like "Where in the airport am I allowed to pick someone up?" I have had a not-insignificant fraction of drivers who simply don't know where they are going--especially if "surge pricing" pulled them in from an area outside their usual haunts. 4) I have a problem with Uber, specifically. It seems like it's run by a bunch of nasty, rich, party boys and their treatment of people they regard as beneath them is absolutely disgusting. I like the fact that the ridesharing services have forced most cities to start issuing more taxi permits. I like the fact that the ridesharing services function in the suburbs where taxis won't go(mostly--I have had some misses). I like the ridesharing services when they lobby for laws attempting to break the taxi monopolies. So, my verdict is still out. (Edited: I can haz English. Sheesh, my grammar is starting to suck.)