Obsolete IOS

You cannot fully utilize or appreciate what is available in the modern world if you are still using or operating within an obsolete operating system. The sad part is if you don’t even realize this fact or it only dawns upon you after much grief and loss of opportunities.

I realized this first hand when I visited Japan and tried making phone calls and I couldn’t. Because I had rented a pocket Wi-Fi I also tried Googling information on products I was considering on buying but that did not work either. During the whole time, my daughter Hannah was the only one in our trio of travelling Beltrans whose phone seemed to function in spite of the fact that she had a base model Android. By the time I reached Manila I was so annoyed by my inability to communicate, surf or use my phone that I went out and contrary to my nature, bought the biggest, baddest, newest iPhone on the market.

Puzzled by my “useless” phone, my daughter asked for my old unit and proceeded to transform it for her music. That was when she discovered that her Papa’s phone was still programed with IOS-5 (Internal Operating System) and that was why I was incompatible with the very modern Japan system. I never updated my IOS because of all the talk about reduced memory, shorter battery life, bugs etc. While the world was already on IOS 10 then, I was half a universe behind. Ever since I updated my IOS I have been able to communicate and operate in more ways than I ever did and most of these are for free, saving me thousands of pesos in overseas calls etc.

I share this story because it somehow reflects many aspects of the Philippine government, especially regulatory and investment related agencies. They are in effect still on IOS 1950s operating in a system designed half a century ago, if not more. While government has managed to function it has not done so with excellence and cannot claim to be current or up to date. Regulators are still operating on laws and rules made for “landlines with party lines,” vehicles that are mostly reconfigured or leftovers from a post World War II system, and no one has been assigned or in-charge of updating or upgrading policies and programs based on technology developments, international competition and opportunities that would enhance governance and quality of life and business environment. One classic example is our “Transport System.” In terms of technology and regulatory practices, the Philippines still operates based on jeepneys, taxis, buses and locomotive. The LRT and MRT are nothing more than trains operating above ground but no longer qualifies as legitimate mass transit systems. The distances they run and the number of people they carry are so small they are merely small town – small time transports. Foreigners or foreign governments are the ones introducing us to concepts and proposals for BRT or Bus Rapid Transit Systems as well as fast trains and distances never before imagined. Uber and Grab cabs are also foreign influences resulting from technology. So from conceptualization, shouting out for bid offers and negotiations, the rulebook is antiquated and does not adjust for global competition, removal of protectionist provisions or obstacles and red tape.

Take for instance transport concepts such as Uber and Grab taxi. The concept defies “tradition” or what I call here obsolete government IOS.

These services feature private vehicle owners – driving personal vehicles – for part-time services, or what the system refers to as “ride-sharing.” (You don’t actually share the ride with another passenger. The owner is merely “sharing the use of his personal car.”) This actually makes them entrepreneurs, single proprietors, self-employed individuals. They are a business unto themselves and companies like Uber and Grab are merely Apps or Internet based coordinators. Uber and Grab are “a service” but the entrepreneur – single proprietor and his or her vehicle is the business. The distinction between Uber and Grab is that Grab caters to both single proprietors and Taxi operators, which is probably the reason they are not being attacked or under fire.

The problem that crops up is when the government regulators such as the LTFRB “try to fit a square peg into a round hole” by imposing the same rules or IOS they have used in the last 50 years on two business models that evolved in the last two to five years. Regulation can’t work because the business model does not fit in. Franchises on taxis were copied from the US or Hong Kong where they were dealing with fleets or several vehicles under one company or owner. These services were regular, by-the-clock operations, hiring employees and established themselves as companies.

I have always said in several columns that what needs to be done is to focus on the driver in terms of requiring them to have a special license to own or operate a cab or share-a-ride like Uber and Grab. This would solve all issues concerning taxation, identity, competence, insurance etc. As single proprietors and entrepreneurs, the driver owners know they need to comply. The LTFRB and the special lobby group for taxi owners and operators have been barking up the wrong tree all this time. That is why the LTFRB in the past failed miserably to block Uber and Grab because they don’t own the vehicles, they are not operators, they are technically just a coordinating center for passengers and drivers. They are the on line “terminal” so to speak. Neither can the LTFRB arrest or ground 2,000 to 10,000 independent entrepreneurs!

This is probably the reason why the oppositionists and lawyer lobbyists have actually avoided taking Uber and Grab to court because the case might get thrown out for suing the wrong party on the wrong grounds or the wrong claim, because again the IOS is obsolete. Given there is a new team of officials in the LTFRB who sound and seem to be levelheaded and objective, the only way I can see things working out is if they worked together with people from Uber and Grab and develop a new IOS. If something is wrongFix it, if it can’t be fixed change it!