One Year Later: How Driving for Rideshares Really Works


Customers love Rideshare, especially since 2015 when Uber dropped its rates by half to 85 cents/mile.

Now, some drivers enthusiastic with the old rates traded in their old cars for new ones. With monthly payments and higher insurance, they either had to drive more hours or have their cars repossessed.

So, there is your driver bending over backwards to get that 5-Star rating (below 4.6 and he gets fired), but how much is he really making?

Using figures from September, 2017 (Uber only became ‘legal’ in New Mexico March of 2016), I drove about 60 hours and was paid $1264.36. Uber didn’t add a tipping option until August, but I make a little more than most drivers as I can accept Uber XL requests, which pays 3X that of Uber X. However, they are only a small fraction of requests.

Correcting the four pay periods for 4.4 weeks, let’s call it $1389, or $23/hour.

Subtract $362 in gas, and I am down to $17/hour.

However, what about ‘real’ deductions such as mileage depreciation, brakes, tires, oil, and ‘gap’ insurance (Uber’s insurance has holes in it, and your personal auto insurer requires a supplemental Commercial policy, for me about $66/month.)

That is $1389-$362 and in addition minus $414 for average maintenance costs and 7 cents/mile depreciation in resale. Now I am at $10/hour, or about minimum wage.

An Uber X driver proudly showed off his $1100 paycheck from Uber, which he made over 87 hours. However, once applying deductions . . . his depreciation at 5 cents/mile, he only made $6.60/mile.  That is way less than minimum wage.

How about using the Federal Standard Mileage Deduction on your 1040?

In my case, for the month of September, I show a loss of $97. My estimate for 2017 is a net profit of $2000, or $2.75/hour . . . but that includes tips and some really big XL runs that paid out $1.43/mile compared to Uber X’s 63 cents.

$2.75 per hour . . . luckily, thanks to low maintenance costs and having a vehicle that holds resale value (top-of-the-line Ford Expedition) I actually made about minimum wage . . . and tips were less than 5% of the total fares . . . tips would really make a big difference, but from its beginning, Uber discouraged tipping.

In fact, they hid the ‘tipping option’ on the Rating Page. Only 1 in 4 passengers bother to take the time to ‘rate’ the driver, so . . . about 1 in 20 Uber customers bother to tip.

Why should they? With about 200 drivers using the Uber app, they will probably never see that driver again.

What about Lyft? Lyft ‘fired’ me for refusing calls so far away I had to burn a gallon of gas just to make the pickup. At an average income of $7/ride, the $2/gallon expense didn’t make economic sense . . . and most riders don’t tip, which would really help with the gas folks . . .

Lyft ordered me to pick up the rides, even if I lost money doing it. I refused, so they ‘deactivated’ me.

What do you think about that?


Call-A-Cab is now UBERIZED


Uber In Luxury for X or XL, Lyft and Lyft Plus

NO MORE TAXIS — It was four years ago Call-A-Cab cobbled together its website with travel information and, most importantly, a GPS map tracking available taxis and your location. You just clicked on the closest cab and the map autodialed the cabbie.

The logic of this was obvious; that the closest cab would give the fastest service, and talking directly to the cab driver cut out the dispatcher and confirmed pickup instructions.

Obvious, yes, to customers who tried it; but not the cab companies.

May 2014, a year after Call-A-Cab was launched, Uber and Lyft entered the Albuquerque market and their app was lauded by the press and welcomed by the Mayor. (The Albuquerque Journal refused to write a story about Call-A-Cab!)

Fall of 2015 Uber reduced its fares from $1.60 to 85 cents a mile. Their fleet of drivers quickly surpassed Call-A-Cab, and the taxi companies supplying cabbies lost half their drivers. Call-A-Cab had almost kept up with Uber’s numbers, but suddenly dropped to only four tracked drivers.

Still, the cab companies refuse to adapt to ‘proximity’ logistics, using inefficient ‘zones’ and relying solely on phone operators, not peer-to-peer instant communication.

So, after years of work and over ten thousand dollars invested, Call-A-Cab is closing its doors. (Call-A-Cab’s LLC was officially Dissolved August of 2017, almost exactly four years after launch. One luxury SUV is available through Its aids to travelers will continue. You can find the fare calculator, Gill’s Thrilling Restaurant Reviews, public transportation schedules, and tourist links and points-of-interest. But, no more taxis.

Those who find Call-A-Cab are directed to visit the website and try the GPS map, or download the Lyft app with a $10 credit towards their first two rides.

In fact, I quit cab driving over a year ago and this month became an Uber driver.

Riders love my Expedition Limited, and my twenty-years of cab driving in Albuquerque allows me to advise and give good transportation to visitors and residents alike.

I will also be associated with Prestige Limousine Tours featuring Luigi’s Breaking Bad Tours, and Tours of Santa Fe and Acoma. You can set up tours by contacting me at the TAXIABQ website.

Tourist Information and New Mexico Tours

How a Class E License and the Supremacy Clause can Bring Uber Back under Motor Carrier Act Regulation


A New Mexico Class ‘E’ Chauffeur’s License will Solve Uber Safety Issues

The Transportation Network Services Act is Preempted by the Supremacy Clause

Predatory Pricing and Vertically Integrated Monopoly

Uber Contractors Operating Without Insurance


The 2016 NM Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] is only six-months old, but is fatally flawed.

It is in direct conflict with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] regulations and definitions, and its insurance ‘scheme’ has gaps of non-coverage.

Especially as the Uber app facilitates interstate transportation, it is subject to federal laws the TNSA purports Uber exempt. Therefore, New Mexico’s TNSA is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

New Mexico’s legislature was pressured into accommodating Uber, however, the Uber phenomenon is not a ‘new’ technology requiring special treatment. Uber did not invent GPS or first associate Smartphone GPS with a tracking app. Uber did, however, use Disruptive Marketing to take over local taxi business, forcing its way in while hiding from regulators in the ‘ether’ of the Internet, openly challenging state enforcement of regulations, business taxes; and while violating antitrust law.

In comparison, nine months prior to Uber, Call-A-Cab® launched a GPS taxi logistics ‘peer-to-peer’ website perfect for Smartphones, but also accessible by PC, tablet, and landlines. And Call-A-Cab did it legally.

The following analysis of the 2016 NM TNSA is not intended to put Uber out of business. Uber is a very popular Smartphone app. However, the State of New Mexico must modernize its Motor Carrier and MVD statutes in order to promote its legitimate interest in public safety, and end Uber’s monopolistic practices of predatory pricing and blocking competition.

The current Uber business model, as described in the TNSA, unfairly exploits its contractors and their vehicles, perpetuates monopolistic practices, and at times leaves drivers and passengers completely uninsured.

On the other hand, if the measures suggested in this analysis are adopted, Uber can continue doing business, its contract drivers will have more opportunities earn a fair income, and taxi companies and their drivers can participate as well.

In 2011, the first 4G LTE Broadband Smartphones were introduced (3G was not fast enough to handle streaming GPS data) and in 2013 Albuquerque taxi driver, Leonard Daneman, launched the Call-A-Cab® GPS Taxi Logistics website. He also designed a GPS tracking website called GPS ON TIME.

Uber and Lyft entered the Albuquerque market illegally in 2014 and in 2015 their Predatory Pricing practices decimated local taxi fleets. Call-A-Cab® was in striking distance of competing head-to-head with Uber, but Uber dropped their rates from $2.25 to 85 cents per mile. Call-A-Cab went from thirty subscribed drivers (our target for optimal logistics was fifty) to only four.

While Call-A-Cab’s website redirects about $10,000 in taxi customers to three cab companies, no cab company will adopt Call-A-Cab’s GPS logistics to its dispatch office. Yellow Cab liked Call-A-Cab and eventually computerized its dispatch office, but at that time did not appreciate the value of Call-A-Cab’s peer-to-peer website; which is unfortunate because it would have put Yellow Cab a year ahead of Uber and Lyft.

Why A Class E License

UBER can be subjected to state and federal Motor Carrier safety regulations simply by adopting the Class E Chauffeur’s License into New Mexico law.

IN ADDITION, once Uber is brought into compliance, existing taxi companies and drivers can participate and profit while providing superior services to the public, not just smartphone users.

Uber has fatal flaws. Its insurance scheme at times leaves Uber drivers uninsured. In addition, Call-A-Cab’s GPS website does what Uber can’t: it can distribute calls both through taxi dispatch and directly to drivers from business landlines, accept cash fares, and its interactive GPS Logistics Map can specify types of vehicles and passenger capacity.

The Class E Chauffeur’s License

A good model to follow is the law used by the state of Missouri. They force Uber into the federal definition of ‘for hire,’ require ‘taxi’ license plates, and also control proof of commercial insurance. Some states require periodic vehicle inspections. Commercial vehicle inspections can be monitored by taxi companies who are already organized to facilitate Motor Carrier Act compliance.

Taxi Companies Will Not Just Survive, But Profit

Taxi companies not only lease taxicabs, but micromanage Motor Carrier Act compliance. The state Class E license application would take over the initial driver tests, checks, and inspections; the taxi companies would then take over compliance oversight charging a monthly fee to both Uber and taxi drivers using personal cars for commercial passenger transport.

Uber created the Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] to avoid taxes and obstruct regulation under federal and state Motor Carrier laws, however, that in itself may be its undoing:         

Question:       Is New Mexico’s 2016 Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA]?

Answer:          Yes. A state statute must not conflict with, contradict, or obstruct enforcement of federal law. Under public policy and legitimate state interest, commercial interstate transportation of passengers is subject to federal and state safety regulations.

Conclusion:    A New Mexico Class E license would facilitate ‘for hire’ drivers meeting New Mexico Motor Carrier Act, FMCSA safety, and commercial insurance regulations.

Discussion:     Generally speaking, a state statute is preempted by the Supremacy Clause if it violates, contradicts or obstructs enforcement of federal law. Azar vs Prudential Insurance Company, 68 P.3d 909 (2003) 133 N.M. 669 2003-NMCA-062[1]

The New Mexico Motor Carrier Act regulates commercial transportation as public policy; the state having legitimate interest in the safety and welfare of citizens using ‘for hire,’ or commercial cars and taxis. State Motor Carrier regulations follow FMCSA guidelines.

These regulations, from which Uber declares itself exempt, apply to Uber even more considering Uber operates not only locally but as an Interstate Carrier. Just set your Uber app’s destination from Albuquerque to Denver or El Paso, and you will see for yourself.

The following section of Uber’s 2016 Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] is in conflict with Federal law:

SECTION 3. NOT OTHER CARRIERS.–Transportation network companies and transportation network company drivers shall not be subject to the Motor Carrier Act or deemed[2] to provide any transportation service as defined in the Motor Carrier Act. A transportation network company driver shall not be required to register a personal vehicle as a commercial vehicle or vehicle for hire.[3]

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General

  • 390.5: Definitions. Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle. . . . For-hire motor carrier means a person engaged in the transportation of goods or passengers for compensation;

 As followed by the Missouri Class E License:

Individuals who may need to obtain a Class E license include:

  • Daycare employees.
  • Uber or Lyft drivers.
  • Limo drivers.
  • Taxi drivers.

Uber’s Predatory Pricing and Monopolistic Insurance Scheme

Uber’s proprietary app and insurance are essentially ‘non-compete’ conditions in their driver contract creating a Vertically Integrated Monopoly. There is no reasonable non-fleet commercial insurance available for other business models and Uber drivers aren’t insured if they stray from the Uber app.

The insurance scheme approved for the Transportation Network Services Act is not standard commercial insurance, but an electronically controlled scheme tied directly to the Uber app. Unless they have their own commercial insurance, Uber drivers have limited or no insurance under some circumstances while in Part A and B.

In addition, if an Uber driver takes a ‘personal’ call, they are operating with ZERO liability insurance. These are serious ‘gaps’ in Uber insurance and underwriters in some states are scrambling to create ‘gap insurance.’ But, that is not good enough.

Also in violation of Antitrust law is Uber’s past year of dropping their rates from $2.25 to 85 cents per mile. Not only is this incredibly exploitive of Uber drivers and cars, it is Predatory Pricing according to both state and federal Antitrust law.

Predatory Pricing is a foreign corporation using below cost prices with the intent[4] to take over a local market (predation), knowing that increasing prices without competition will recover their losses (recoupment).[5]

A pricing scheme secondary to Uber’s predation is their refusal to collect gross receipts taxes from fares collected through the app, or pay gross receipts on commissions paid out to drivers.[6] Uber evaded taxes from their inception, but legalized their tax fraud scheme in the vague language of the 2016 TNSA, Section 18:


  1. No municipality or other local entity may impose a tax on or require a license for a transportation network company, a transportation network company driver or a vehicle used by a transportation network company driver where a tax or license relates to providing prearranged rides or subjects a transportation network company to the municipality’s or other local entity’s rate, tax, license, entry, operational or other requirements, except for generally applicable business licenses or taxes.

This is unfortunate and unfair to legal taxi companies, and Call-A-Cab. The only way to correct this inequity is to preempt and or repeal the TNSA through the Supremacy Clause. 

Added: November 13, 2016–Desoto Cab Company of San Francisco agrees with my year of complaints against Uber’s Predatory Pricing and on November 2, 2016 filed Desoto vs. Uber in Federal Court. See Desoto Cab Co vs Uber Technologies

Summary of a Statutory Solution:

  1. Class E License — Uber drivers fall under the federal definition of ‘for hire’ and must apply for a Class E Chauffeur’s License. That would resolve the federal and state safety issues now ignored by Uber. Federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause would void Uber’s TNSA exemptions.
  2. With a Class E License and reasonable non-fleet (half the operational hours) ‘for hire’ commercial insurance, GPS ‘peer-to-peer’ logistics will be available to all citizens including hospitals, hotels, bars, restaurants, and anyone using just a landline.
  3. It is known nationwide that Uber’s commercial insurance has holes in coverage. Many states are scrambling to create ‘gap’ insurance.[7] Once the Class E license is law, the insurance companies must provide an appropriate commercial insurance policy (not a ‘gap’ patch) for ‘personal’ cars used for-hire. At about half the rate of fleet taxis leased ‘24/7,’ this insurance will be affordable as a fixed business cost for all but the most ‘part-time’ drivers.
  4. These solutions will permit both Uber and Taxi drivers to accept calls through Call-A-Cab’s GPS Logistics, or any other competing dispatch services for independent contract carriers.

I would appreciate your interest in my years of research and building Call-A-Cab. The next step, with your support and approval, is scheduling a presentation before the NMPRC.


[1] {30} Federal law may preempt state law under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, by “express provision, by implication, or by a conflict between federal and state law.” New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 654, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995); Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 6, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. “The purpose of the preemption doctrine is to allow Congress to promulgate a uniform federal policy without states frustrating it through either legislation or judicial interpretation.” Largo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2002-NMCA-021, ¶ 6, 131 N.M. 621, 41 P.3d 347. Courts, however, apply a strong presumption against preemption, particularly in areas of law that are traditionally left to state regulation. Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 8, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683; Montoya v. Mentor Corp., 1996-NMCA-067, ¶ 7, 122 N.M. 2, 919 P.2d 410. {31} “Whether federal law preempts state law is generally a question of congressional intent.” Srader v. Verant, 1998-NMSC-025, ¶ 7, 125 N.M. 521, 964 P.2d 82. “`When Congress has considered the issue of preemption and has included in the 921*921 legislation a provision expressly addressing the issue,’ we need only identify the domain expressly preempted by the federal statute and may infer that matters beyond that domain are not preempted.” Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 6, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (quoting Montoya, 1996-NMCA-067, ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 2, 919 P.2d 410).

[2] Deem, vb. 1. To treat (something) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it has qualities that it doesn’t have . . . Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed. 1999

[3] See also TNSA §§ 2, B. (2) and 2, C.

[4] Uber CEO Kalanick made it publicly known he was out to destroy ‘big taxi.’

[5] Below-cost pricing intended to eliminate specific competitors and reduce overall competition is known as predatory pricing. Section 2 disallows this conduct. In Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 509 U.S. 209 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court devised a two-part test to determine if predatory pricing had occurred. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s production costs surpass the market price charged for the item. Second, the plaintiff must establish that a “dangerous probability” exists that the defendant will recover the investment in above-cost inputs. In Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc. (05-381) (2007), the Supreme Court said that this test also applies when determining if a predatory bidding scheme exists.

[6] New Mexico Taxation and Revenue could find no gross receipts tax filings for Hinter-NM, LLC, Uber’s registered business name in New Mexico. See Connie L. Dayton, CPS, CFE, CFF, Forensic Tax Auditor, 505-841-6687


Call-A-Cab is Two Years Old Today


Today, August 6, 2015, is Call-A-Cab’s two-year anniversary.

Yes, it was launched in 2013 almost a year before Lyft and Uber hit town.

Call-A-Cab was created to dissolve the backup in dispatch phone lines, allowing customers searching Google for ‘taxi’ service to open a website and click to the GPS Map; that map showing real-time locations of cabbies, just a click away from calling and talking to . . . no Dispatcher.

So, while some customers stayed on hold for 5 to 10 minutes waiting for a dispatcher, those who clicked on the GPS Map had a taxi confirmed and on the way in 10 seconds.

That’s it folks. Now, why more cabbies aren’t subscribing to Call-A-Cab GPS tracking and taxi companies aren’t advertising the hell out of Call-A-Cab . . . I don’t know . . . maybe they want UBER to win.

Call-A-Cab at is a Limited Liability Company and Federally Trademarked. Its GPS tracking system is through GPSONTIME at

newbutton CLOMPASSwTEXT copy

How Call-A-Cab Killed Lyft and Uber


Before the 2015 legislative sessions, I spoke before the Transportation Committee and upon a request by Yellow Cab management wrote this letter to Sen. Wirth and Sen. McSorley.

Shortly after the TNC Act bill was killed in the Senate, Senator Cisco McSorley called me, inviting me to lunch. He said it was this letter that changed his position on the Transportation Network Company Act, and to filibuster it.

That’s why it died in the Senate and did not become law.


There is another ‘Street Fight’ coming, and you can be a part of it. Subscribe to Call-A-Cab and become part of its Internet saturation of ads and listings.

Download the tracking apps at and call me.




Six weeks ago I filed a response to Hinter-NM’s (Uber) motion to the NMPRC for a rehearing on rule changes.

Basically, I informed the PRC that Uber’s GPS logistical advantage was not based on an advanced technological platform (innovation), but an organized saturation of a territory with illegal ‘gypsy’ taxis.

You see, that is Uber’s legal argument, based on a Supreme Court decision back in the 1800’s, that innovation supersedes government franchise.

So, does Uber deserve to have its illegal taxis legitimized by changing the law?

I proposed Uber’s argument was rendered invalid; my ‘proof’ being Call-A-Cab’s GPS platform had equal logistics plus superior access essential for true public conveyance, but relied on legal taxis. Two years of field testing and customer response proves this is true.

The filing also included former Director of Transportation Division Ryan Jerman’s memo that under existing law, taxi companies could incorporate driver-owned luxury vehicles.

Therefore, there is no need for rule changes downgrading Motor Carrier Act safety regulations just to accommodate one company who couldn’t figure out how to do it legally; and, especially for a company organized to monopolize that category of transportation business to the detriment of taxi service in Albuquerque.

Call-A-Cab can do what Uber does, and legally. However, if we don’t DEMONSTRATE this in real time, the argument above is merely academic. That is why Call-A-Cab is free to drivers, free tracking and being part of all the advertising, free. We need to demonstrate Call-A-Cab can equal if not exceed Uber’s logistics.

However, the number of drivers on the GPS map is CRITICAL because if we don’t have enough drivers to handle increased demand from ramped up advertising and promotion, customers accessing the GPS map won’t find any available taxis, which is only acceptable, briefly, during occasional peak demand periods.


Call-A-Cab was launched August 6, 2013. Nine months later, Lyft and Uber entered the Albuquerque market. We had the advantage, and still do, but that window is about to be shut and the door barred.

There has been a continuing orchestrated media attack against taxis opening the way for Lyft and Uber to become popular alternative to ordering a taxi. Hell, we saw a new one in the Albuquerque Journal just last week.

The battle has also been going on through lobbyists and lawyers. However we, as legal taxi drivers, have lost almost every step of the way.

We lost when three PRC commissioners decided to ignore the law and ‘table enforcement.’

Just last March we lost unanimously in the NM House, and if it wasn’t for a letter I wrote to a state senator who taught my Business Organization class back in 2004, the TNC Act would have passed in the Senate too and Lyft and Uber would now be legal entities.

The battle is not won but is continuing; in the streets, the newspapers, and the courts. Uber ramped up its Albuquerque operations, openly advertising for more drivers in order to saturate their market penetration, illegally, with the plan to become so entrenched lawmakers would be forced to ‘legalize’ them.

Uber has filed in the NM Supreme Court and the NMPRC for reconsideration of PRC rule changes outside the Motor Carrier Act, rules making their current business model legal . . . and . . . making local competition with them next to impossible.

I predict the NM Supreme Court will order the NMPRC to schedule a Rehearing for Rule Changes; and the current NMPRC is even more supportive of Uber.

So, we have one last chance to kill Uber. But, we have to work together as an unofficial Association of Independent Contract Taxi Drivers.


Call-A-Cab works. Customers say we come up first in Google Search, and some say they call us second or third after trying other numbers, pleased not to be put on hold. Some even are attracted directly to the GPS map and call the closest cab. Yes, it does happen and I know because I keep one smartphone line dedicated to calls from the map, and map only.

Free Advertising for You

Call-A-Cab is at the top of Google AdWords, Map Results, and often takes up half the ‘organic’ listings on Page One. And that includes being #1 in, and being the company AAA calls when a traveler breaks down one hundred miles from Albuquerque.


However, we need one final push to make Call-A-Cab a ‘brand,’ just as Uber has done. But I don’t dare do that until enough drivers have signed up for being tracked on the map to handle that kind of demand.

I need a dozen day drivers, and at least eighteen night drivers to start. With the breakup of the cab companies when the Motor Carrier Act was revised in 2013, no one cab company can provide that number of drivers. So, Call-A-Cab wants to represent all the best Independent Contract drivers in Albuquerque, no matter what company you work for.

And that is a good thing, being able to separate ourselves from the ‘old taxi’ business model and embrace the new . . . and, by the way, Call-A-Cab when used as designed can be faster and easier to use than Uber.

Once the right number of drivers are subscribed (free) and train themselves to use the simple ‘in/out’ button, I can go to the Albuquerque Journal and KKOB-AM and respond to the Uber controversy, saying that ‘We did it First and Can Do it Better.’

If this ‘last chance’ campaign is successful, the Rule Changing Hearings in the NMPRC stand a good chance of failing.


If we have enough drivers, yes.

When I first started Call-A-Cab, about a dozen drivers signed up and about October, before Thanksgiving, the Albuquerque Journal sent a reporter to write an article. She was resistant and commented, ‘I only see six taxis on the map. Anyway, I don’t take taxis.’ And she killed the article. And that was before Lyft and Uber exploded into the market May of 2014.

So, the Albuquerque Journal editors know about Call-A-Cab.

Last year, the Journal published the Guest Opinion, ‘Street Fight,’ which included my article they titled, ‘Need a lift? Call a Cab not a Lyft.’ In the adjoining column, they printed the opposing opinion written by two ‘Startup Community Facilitators’ representing Lyft and Uber, explaining how Uber was a boost for the public and the economy.


Albuquerque Journal Guest Opinion Page

Again, the Albuquerque Journal knows about Call-A-Cab and talk radio is always looking for the latest controversy to fill air time.

Download the Call-A-Cab tracking app at:

Apple iPhones won’t accept the program as it conflicts with iOS battery saving power management. I recommend Apple users to wait, or get a cheap Android as a second tracking/business line. Many drivers already use two lines for a variety of good reasons.