3 ms·

The price isn't that important, as long as it's not so high that it excludes people from using the mail system (when's the last time you tried to send a letter

by rwl 16y ago

The price isn't that important, as long as it's not so high that it excludes people from using the mail system (when's the last time you tried to send a letter via Fedex? I bet it didn't cost $0.20). The important thing is that we have a public system, accessible to everyone, for distributing important communications -- things like absentee ballots, jury summons, tax forms, etc. Any citizen with a stable physical location should be reachable with this system, and it should be controlled by a public entity, not a private one that can decide not to deliver mail if it's not profitable.

grandalf 16y ago
Actually, any important letter I have to send is sent with FedEx. They provide fast, predictable delivery, tracking numbers, signature requirement, saturday delivery, etc. Letters don't cost $0.20 to send via the USPS either, unless you're a bulk marketer who is offered a huge discount to send people garbage. I have tried to opt out of all the unsolicited mail (coupons, flyers, magazines, etc.) and they keep sending it. It all (thankfully) gets recycled but it's a huge waste. I also don't buy the argument that rural route customers should pay the same price for mail as anyone else. If you live in a rural area you get some benefits (cheaper land) and you should have to pay extra for infrastructure that is not efficiently offered when houses are 3 miles apart.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  What's with the frequent anti-rural sentiment on HN? Rural residents depend on the mail far more than anyone else, as they are less likely to have access to alternate services. Extremely isolated locations don't have to-the-door delivery of mail, but a row of mailboxes on the road for all the houses in the area. I doubt it's as unprofitable as you seem to think. Flat-rate delivery of mail is a necessary social equalizer. It would be entirely unfair to deny rural residents access to communication. In many cases they are the ones growing the food we eat, mining the coal that powers our PCs, etc. In exchange for providing valuable services in places we don't want to live, we should isolate them further?
  - grandalf 16y ago
    It's not anti-rural sentiment. I understand the case for subsidizing infrastructure for underserved populations, but I think the postal service does this at too great a cost. For example: Every day my mailbox is filled with paper that goes directly into the recycle bin. USPS representatives sell direct marketing services to businesses who send all this junk mail because it's so inexpensive to send. Imagine if your ISP was affiliated with a spammer. This is effectively what the USPS does and it wastes lots of time, paper, and other resources. The reason the USPS supports paper spam is simply to help fund its egalitarian mission of delivering mail in spite of too-low prices. The USPS does not pay the cost of recycling the paper or the cost of emptying everyone's mailbox of it every day. These are significant negative externalities. Instead, why not simply subsidize rural mail by giving residents of rural areas some free stamps every month? It seems that making the rest of us deal with removing unwanted garbage from our mailboxes every day is a horribly inefficient way to achieve the egalitarian objective you cite.

by rwl 16y ago

grandalf 16y ago

Actually, any important letter I have to send is sent with FedEx. They provide fast, predictable delivery, tracking numbers, signature requirement, saturday delivery, etc. Letters don't cost $0.20 to send via the USPS either, unless you're a bulk marketer who is offered a huge discount to send people garbage. I have tried to opt out of all the unsolicited mail (coupons, flyers, magazines, etc.) and they keep sending it. It all (thankfully) gets recycled but it's a huge waste. I also don't buy the argument that rural route customers should pay the same price for mail as anyone else. If you live in a rural area you get some benefits (cheaper land) and you should have to pay extra for infrastructure that is not efficiently offered when houses are 3 miles apart.

nitrogen 16y ago
What's with the frequent anti-rural sentiment on HN? Rural residents depend on the mail far more than anyone else, as they are less likely to have access to alternate services. Extremely isolated locations don't have to-the-door delivery of mail, but a row of mailboxes on the road for all the houses in the area. I doubt it's as unprofitable as you seem to think. Flat-rate delivery of mail is a necessary social equalizer. It would be entirely unfair to deny rural residents access to communication. In many cases they are the ones growing the food we eat, mining the coal that powers our PCs, etc. In exchange for providing valuable services in places we don't want to live, we should isolate them further?
- grandalf 16y ago
  It's not anti-rural sentiment. I understand the case for subsidizing infrastructure for underserved populations, but I think the postal service does this at too great a cost. For example: Every day my mailbox is filled with paper that goes directly into the recycle bin. USPS representatives sell direct marketing services to businesses who send all this junk mail because it's so inexpensive to send. Imagine if your ISP was affiliated with a spammer. This is effectively what the USPS does and it wastes lots of time, paper, and other resources. The reason the USPS supports paper spam is simply to help fund its egalitarian mission of delivering mail in spite of too-low prices. The USPS does not pay the cost of recycling the paper or the cost of emptying everyone's mailbox of it every day. These are significant negative externalities. Instead, why not simply subsidize rural mail by giving residents of rural areas some free stamps every month? It seems that making the rest of us deal with removing unwanted garbage from our mailboxes every day is a horribly inefficient way to achieve the egalitarian objective you cite.