The question seems to assume that the only reason for business licensing and regulation by local governments is because of monopolistic cronyism.
Many of the licensing requirements for taxi companies is for the benefit of the local citizens (many require that they act certain ways in procuring business at airports, that they offer services to certain areas, that they offer services specifically for the disabled, etc). These requirements to do business in those regulated categories incur costs to the companies being regulated. The cities also generate revenue from the licensing (another cost to the companies).
So, the established businesses have incurred significant costs and met regulatory standards, often for decades, and that is often a reason why they are not in favor a competitor coming in who does not have to meet those same expensive requirements that they did/do in order to compete in that marketplace.
It's not that the companies lobby to lock Uber out (might not be against it, per se), though that might be the net effect. They lobby to demand that the same standards that are imposed upon them be imposed on the new competitor.