Uber and Grab no more? LTFRB needs brains

**CVT** · July 19th, 2017 08:24 AM

Kung maayos lang sana ang mga taxi at sistema nila rito, okay lang- ....

Kaso nga hindi hindi at hindi nga e...

Monopoly na kasi ng taxi na palpak ang mga units at serbisyo e.... at mahal pa ang pasahe sa kanila....

Dapat ang ruling ay kung saan panalo ang mga consumers.....

"The measure of a man is what he does with power" LJIOHF!

33.1K _/_/_/_/_/

_/_/_/_/_/

**Yatta** · July 19th, 2017 08:37 AM

From a certain Jaime Garchitorena via FB:

So i guess the short story is that
1) Uber is a disruptive technology that
2) addressed an urgent transportation need that was apparently unaddressed by a government office which ironically
3) was addressed by the govt office by issuing a TNC which turned Uber into a a public conveyance but
4) the privilege was allegedly abused by the local Uber office (master franchise holder) by
5) not monitoring the true nature of the concept of ride sharing ( 2 car limit)
6) and was collecting fees and issuing usage rights to the platform without
7) properly informing the individual franchisees of the limitations without proper govt license making them violative of laws and is now
8) going to rely on the public's grown reliant (public pressure) on the service to
7) justify its apparent abuse of privilege and it looks like many
8) people are willing to look the other way just because
9) there is a real personal benefit.

**dr. d** · July 19th, 2017 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Yatta

From a certain Jaime Garchitorena via FB:

So i guess the short story is that
1) Uber is a disruptive technology that
2) addressed an urgent transportation need that was apparently unaddressed by a government office which ironically
3) was addressed by the govt office by issuing a TNC which turned Uber into a a public conveyance but
4) the privilege was allegedly abused by the local Uber office (master franchise holder) by
5) not monitoring the true nature of the concept of ride sharing ( 2 car limit)
6) and was collecting fees and issuing usage rights to the platform without
7) properly informing the individual franchisees of the limitations without proper govt license making them violative of laws and is now
8) going to rely on the public's grown reliant (public pressure) on the service to
7) justify its apparent abuse of privilege and it looks like many
8) people are willing to look the other way just because
9) there is a real personal benefit.

lackadaisical involvement from government, and greed from the operator.

**Lew_Alcindor** · July 19th, 2017 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Yatta

From a certain Jaime Garchitorena via FB:

So i guess the short story is that
1) Uber is a disruptive technology that
2) addressed an urgent transportation need that was apparently unaddressed by a government office which ironically
3) was addressed by the govt office by issuing a TNC which turned Uber into a a public conveyance but
4) the privilege was allegedly abused by the local Uber office (master franchise holder) by
5) not monitoring the true nature of the concept of ride sharing ( 2 car limit)
6) and was collecting fees and issuing usage rights to the platform without
7) properly informing the individual franchisees of the limitations without proper govt license making them violative of laws and is now
8) going to rely on the public's grown reliant (public pressure) on the service to
7) justify its apparent abuse of privilege and it looks like many
8) people are willing to look the other way just because
9) there is a real personal benefit.

Jaime Gachitorena - 80s 90s singer

Anyway, his post has some logic. There clearly is some abuse on part of Uber and some of its vehicle fleet. So if we go by the strict implementation of the law, talo talaga sila. But that is only one side of the story.

The other side is the commuters who found the services of Uber and Grab a lot better than an ordinary taxi. The ordinary taxi that deteriorated under the nose of the LTFRB.

I am person outside looking in here. Taga probinsya ako at bihira ako mag-taxi pag lumuluwas ako. Pero for me, the government should ALWAYS look after the welfare of the people. San ba mas safe at mas convenient ang mga tao?

**unmarked** · July 19th, 2017 09:58 AM

^^looks like a good summary to me.

sana ganito ka strict ang LTFRB dun sa mga taxi. Namimili ng pasahero, kontrata instead of metro, pandaraya sa metro, malinis at hindi reckless mag maneho etc

**dr. d** · July 19th, 2017 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by unmarked

^^looks like a good summary to me.

sana ganito ka strict ang LTFRB dun sa mga taxi. Namimili ng pasahero, kontrata instead of metro, pandaraya sa metro, malinis at hindi reckless mag maneho etc

well, it's never too late to start.
so is ltfrb now wielding its axe against erring taxis?

**_Qwerty_** · July 19th, 2017 10:34 AM

I heard sa radio, since last year daw madami na nag a apply nang franchise sa LTFRB, mga over 32T na daw.. ang problema only 4T were given franchise kasi yung iba hindi daw umaattend nang hearing kaya na deny yung application (over 28T denied).

**uls** · July 19th, 2017 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Yatta

From a certain Jaime Garchitorena via FB:

So i guess the short story is that
1) Uber is a disruptive technology that
2) addressed an urgent transportation need that was apparently unaddressed by a government office which ironically
3) was addressed by the govt office by issuing a TNC which turned Uber into a a public conveyance but
4) the privilege was allegedly abused by the local Uber office (master franchise holder) by
5) not monitoring the true nature of the concept of ride sharing ( 2 car limit)
6) and was collecting fees and issuing usage rights to the platform without
7) properly informing the individual franchisees of the limitations without proper govt license making them violative of laws and is now
8) going to rely on the public's grown reliant (public pressure) on the service to
7) justify its apparent abuse of privilege and it looks like many
8) people are willing to look the other way just because
9) there is a real personal benefit.

that's part of Uber's strategy

go into a city and break the rules

rule breaking gives them explosive growth

resulting in a large number of people who become reliant on the service

when regulators catch up

Uber relies on public opinion/public pressure to get the govt off its back

**niky** · July 19th, 2017 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Lew_Alcindor

Jaime Gachitorena - 80s 90s singer

Tsikot member. "jaime_garch" He's built/commissioned a few custom cars.

He's also in the government. Credit systems and/or microfinancing if I recall.

Good page to follow. Politically neutral, sharp wit, good insights into what's going on from someone who knows how government works.

**Yatta** · July 19th, 2017 11:22 AM

I was listening this morning to Atty. Lizada of LTFRB and she has some valid points. Huwag naman daw magalit sa LTFRB. And it seems Grab is complying naman. Itong Uber daw ang nag-mamalaki. When they told Uber to comply with the directive to immediately stop accepting applications for "franchise", Uber allegedly said, "they will do it tomorrow".