What's the GPS issue?

May 21, 2002

Dear Sir,

There seems to have been a lot of unrest among taxi drivers recently on the subject of GPS, and I'm at a loss to figure out why this should be. What exactly is the problem? I work for a local courier company which uses GPS quite extensively, and I personally think it's an absolutely brilliant idea. For example, if one of our couriers is looking for 46 Point Finger Road in Paget, the dispatcher simply locates his vehicle on the GPS map, finds the relevant house, and says something like: "Go past the hospital towards South Road: 44 is on your right, and is the last house by the roadside before you reach South Road: 46 is set back off the road, and is down the driveway immediately past 44."

I'm assuming that the taxi dispatchers would also be able to find houses in this way, and they would also be able to see where each and every cab is that's out on the road. As a typical example, why bother to send Car 23 from Flatts to the Swizzle Inn, when they can see on the screen that Car 26 has just dropped a fare off at the Airport and is heading back towards Hamilton?

Having given the matter some thought, I get the impression that the various gripes about GPS are as follows:

1) It's too expensive. Well, that may be, but surely the BTOC (or whoever is the power behind the throne in the taxi world these days) could come to some agreement whereby the various taxis get GPS installed, and the owners pay back the cost in instalments over a set period.

2) It's too complicated. With all due respect, that's rubbish. The system itself may be complicated, but the driver doesn't have to DO anything at all. No switching on or off, no knobs to twiddle, no dials to set: once he's in his cab, the system does everything automatically.

3) Why should everyone know where I am? For the simple reason that you, Joe Cabbie, depend on the public for your living. If the dispatchers know where you are, they can send you to more jobs: the more jobs you do, the more money you earn: the more money you earn, the quicker you can pay off your GPS: the quicker you pay off your GPS, the more money you'll have to do what YOU want to do. It's really a win-win situation if you think sensibly about it: the customer gets better and quicker service, while the cabbies get more efficiently dispatched to more jobs and therefore earn more money. So just who loses by this GPS deal, anyway?

4) Why should some Government Minister, who runs around in a too-big fancy GP car anyway, be able to tell me how I should do what I've been doing for years? Now that is something I'm afraid I can't answer (well, I could, but you wouldn't see it in print!), but, knowing that the issue of GPS would likely be a sensitive one, my way of handling it would have been to say to the cabbies: "I've heard very good reports from some of the companies who are already using GPS, and I think it's worth considering. I'd like you all to come to a meeting on the subject, and I'll have some people there who will be happy to answer any questions you may have on anything GPS-related. After everyone's had their say on the subject, we'll go on from there."

I would definitely not be so dictatorial as to say: "Right, you're getting GPS: it'll cost so much each: and that's it." But then, I'm not a policitian!

DAVIE KERR

St. George's

US should look at taxes

May 16, 2002

Dear Sir,

From reading the recent articles recently concerning the so-called US Patriot Tax, it seems that once again politicians are looking only at the short-term, trying to jump on the vote catching bandwagon with congressional elections being just around the corner.

The fact is that the US government and any government should only expect to and rightly so tax the profits of business undertaken in that country. Extraterritorial taxation is practised by only a very few countries, for example the Philippines and Australia, in addition to the US.

The US government should perhaps look at its own convoluted tax code before seeking to impose its own peculiar system on other countries, especially those with economies much smaller. Dare I say it, but this is international bullying; it would not attempt to impose such legislation on a major European or Asian country.

The US companies re-domiciling here are not evading taxes, they will still pay taxes on their profits on their US business - it is just that their profits on non-US business will not be subject to US taxes. These businesses will therefore be able to compete more effectively internationally without the millstone of extra-territorial taxation around their corporate necks, enhancing corporate profitability and enabling them to pay increased dividends to their US shareholders, as well as maintain employment at their US plants, which will mean additional tax revenues to the US government. More money in the hands of the shareholders, who are in fact the owners of the company, will mean higher domestic spending and even more tax revenues.

Why is it that many governments consider that they are entitled to an ever increasing share of the results of corporate endeavour. Companies that cannot compete effectively will find themselves out of business, resulting in government expenditure for unemployment benefits, welfare payments etc. and fewer employment opportunities for those trying to pull themselves up the economic ladder. And if not out of business, relying more and more on government subsidies.

Some countries such as Bermuda, manage their affairs so that they do not need to impose harsh taxes on corporations, although some people might consider the level of taxation here to be just that. Why then should we here be required to change our system to one which encourages individuals and corporations to spend inordinate amounts of money looking for way to avoid being taxed!

But this is a warning also to the Government here - arbitrary and capricious taxation whether corporate or personal stifles initiative, especially where the redistribution of wealth is undertaken by those who have not participated in the wealth creation process and see the development of an entitlement culture as being the ultimate goal of social engineering.

BUSINESSMAN

Hamilton

Get it right

May 17, 2002

Dear Sir,

This letter is directed to "Family Planning" (May 16). Clearly, your reading comprehension is off. If you paid attention, you'd know my issues with the BHC have nothing to do with an inability to afford to house my children. FYI - "The state" does not pay for me or my children. Neither have I knocked on your door for a hand-out.

Due to the outrageous rents being charged today, there's no wonder many struggle to adequately house their families. This is not necessarily attributed to a lack of family planning. When the majority of the population is paying well over one-third of their income on rent - something is wrong! There is a serious imbalance, so it's inevitable people will struggle on some level. Since the people's welfare should be of paramount importance to a government, they should see their people are fed, housed, and educated....especially in the wake of this housing crisis. By all means, the government SHOULD be responsible to provide for contingencies to counteract social and economic problems that arise from a social imbalance. You may not be affected by this imbalance. That is wonderful....but I hope you do not suggest those of us who are affected have no right to a family.

BHC gets governmental assistance to help provide housing that's more affordable than the outrageous market value. By no means is this free. As a Bermudian citizen, I have every right to take advantage of this opportunity - no matter my age, if I have an unplanned child, or ten planned ones. Furthermore, if you question the right for my children to exist - take that up with the Almighty - He planned my family. My children are here and they are my business. In fact, what you half-read in the paper was about me taking care of my business.

You don't know me from Adam. If you did, you would know most of my life centres around my children's needs....education taking a top priority. I make sacrifices as any parent would. I resent your implication I am a young mother whose motivation for loving my children is superficial and limited to the "cute puppy" years. I don't know - maybe YOU were one of your so-called "trophy children"....but my children are not.

While we are still judging those we do not know, I might assume you are a snooty, narrow-minded person who talks to hear themself speak. This may be an adequate assumption - based on your unfounded comments. While you live your "perfect" life and look down your nose through "perfect" eyes, please realise all young parents do not fall in line with your confined and condescending view.

In conclusion, we all have an opinion. If we must publicly point fingers, we should know where we point, what we speak of, and be unafraid to stand by our words. Consequently, there will be less ghostwriters who talk trash while hiding behind pen names. Lets just sign our name with no shame.

WINNAE WALES LUGO

Another phone company

May 17, 2002

Dear Sir,

Have you ever carefully looked at your telephone bill and noticed the number of additional calls (over calls)?

Do you ignore it or wonder why there are so many calls but continue to pay your bill without questioning it? YES....& I have done the same thing. But do you realise that each paying customer who ignores this is being ripped off by The Bermuda Telephone Company.

Let me explain how I found this out. I have a telephone number that is not physically connected for use but has voice-mail service. Today, I received my bill which read 45 additional local calls. I telephone BTC and spoke to a customer service representative, who informed me that I was being billed each time a call was received to voice-mail and each time my voice-mail messages were retrieved. Not only do you get charged for the voice-mail service per month but also access to it and retrieval of the messages. Not to mention the person making the call gets charged also. This is not only double jeopardy it is over excessively jeopardy.

Our hands are so tied here in our country and it is against human rights that our voices are never heard or simply ignored!

It's a great shame that BTC has the monopoly for a service that is certainly not provided. Dialling Directory Assistance (411) is 60 cents per call and the majority of time the information is not provided. Just another over rated service.'

Should there ever be an alternative telephone company...I would be the first customer to apply for service.

To the Telecommunications Minister, please investigate this matter and stop allowing residents of Bermuda to be so used and ripped off.

TOTALLY DISGUSTED BERMUDIAN

Pembroke