I know I speak for everyone in our batch when I say that as MIS graduates in Ateneo, our line of work, our ideal for performing our tasks of providing systems for clients is providing solutions. In fact, that has been the first step in the approval of a project, to find a client, assess their problem, and propose a just solution. What then if the problem is providing solutions, should we just stop? This is the issue of LTRFB on certain transportation- and carpool-monitoring Software, Tripid and Uber.
Source: http://www.interaksyon.com/motoring/stop-ltfrb-not-happy-about-latest-transport-apps-craze-uber-and-tripid/
Tripid is an application which enables people going in the same routes or destination to pool in the same car by reserving seats in private vehicles. This is a very convenient app for those who commute, specially during the rush hours, even more specially for those who sardinefy themselves in the MRT. Believe me, what people go through when riding the MRT peak times is worthy of its own adjective. With this application, not only will people have a better, more convenient alternative for commuting, they also can help lessen carbon footprint for those who travel on their own cars alone. Ultimately, this will also lead to a less congested traffic via EDSA which one and all will benefit from. Payment for the ride is demanded by the car owner, and riders are free to choose which arrangements they want to reserve,
Uber on the otherhand is an application which connects you to partner company vehicles to arrange a ride. While it may be of the same line of service as that of Tripid, the cars utilized in Uber are from direct partners with direct relations to the company. With that, the benefits of this app is also the same.
There is a problem, however, as LTFRB which stands for Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board issued a show-cause order for the two companies. The issue is that with the kind of service they are providing, there is allegedly a breach of law, in that proper consultation and legal arrangements should've been made first with the office before implementing the applications. According to LTFRB Chair Ginez, “They are a public service and they have to secure a franchise. What they are doing is a criminal violation of the public service law,”. First of all, I have an issue here with the definition of public. When one is considered public, this means that every one is free and has equal opportunity to make use of this space and property. A public space for example can be freely utilized by anyone, and no one can deny them from using it. In contrast, a private space is owned and use of this space, or property for that matter, completely depends on the wishes of this owner. Categorizing the mode of transportation tapped by Tripid and Uber, we can easily identify them as being private vehicles, not a public one just as what LTFRB claims.
I find that there is a difference in understanding the use of IT from the LTFRB. In the cases of these applications, their purpose is merely one of support, and not of business. Why do I say that? It's because the service they offer is one which, with or without these apps, happens anyway. As a support function, they just made this service easier to arrange, communicate, and execute. Then again, Ginez countered this by saying that "they are providing a system for someone to violate the law". Since was carpooling ever considered illegal; on that same note, neither is it considered public service before the apps came out. So, what then could LTRFB's motives be for illegalizing them.
The point is, there is an ongoing problem with the traffic and environment in the country which need to be addressed. Why hinder a possible solution to these problems?
