7 ms·
The fact that the USPS has a postal mail monopoly has always confused me. Other countries like Sweden have a plethora of competing mail delivery firms (includin
by kalleboo 7y ago
The fact that the USPS has a postal mail monopoly has always confused me. Other countries like Sweden have a plethora of competing mail delivery firms (including dedicated "junk mail" firms that only deliver junk mail. Delivering junk mail is a popular job for teens to do on the weekend)
- true_religion 7y agoTalking about junk mail has just convinced me that the postal monopoly is totally worth it. I would hate to have multiple companies completing to efficiently deliver ever larger piles of junk mail.
- kalleboo 7y agoAt least in Sweden there's an industry consensus to not deliver junk mail to anyone with a "no advertising please" sticker on their mailbox.
- robjan 7y agoWhen there is a monopoly, more densely populated areas cross subsidise more sparsely populated areas. If there isn't a monopoly then companies are incentivised to pick and choose whos mail to carry making it more expensive for everyone else.
- ailideex 7y agoI would think there are ways to achieve the same thing without having a monopoly.
- ghaff 7y agoYou don't need a monopoly. But if the government/quasi-government entity is effectively letter delivery of last resort while private companies pick off the more lucrative routes, they're going to either need subsidies or price delivery at a level that it may be untenable. ADDED: IOW, you could have an external taxpayer-supported "rural mail delivery" department that has a charter to deliver a letter for a quarter anywhere in the country rather than providing a subsidy within the system. It's mostly academic at this point. (And the reality is most private package delivery is fairly universal because there are business advantages to having a fairly complete delivery network even if it's not necessarily the most efficient decision at the micro level.)
- BurningFrog 7y agoThat's a mildly persuasive theoretical argument. I don't think empirical data are especially kind to it. It also ignores the fact that monopolies have no incentive to produce high quality and ever improving product. They tend to get focused on maximize staff comfort over customer satisfaction.
- Symbiote 7y agoIt happens in the UK, where the private companies won't deliver to remote islands and parts of the mountains in Scotland, or charge an additional fee.
- gerikson 7y agoSweden had a "letter monopoly" up until 1993 - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postlagen https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postlagen
- kalleboo 7y agoYeah, nearly 30 years ago, around the same time they allowed commercial, non-state-controlled television
- protomyth 7y agoThe post office is in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 saying "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads". This has lead to rulings and decisions that give some monopoly situations.
- knolax 7y agoIt makes me wonder, if the Second Amendment can be expanded to include modern weaponry, could the Eighth be expanded to include modern forms of communication, eg. make access to internet a Constitutional issue.
- protomyth 7y agoUhm, I'm not sure how Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. would do that. If you mean this article, then it is rather specific where the 1st and 2nd amendments are general principles and rights that are regarded as timeless.
- Rebelgecko 7y agoI think the courts have been pretty consistent in saying that the 1st Amendment applies to speech and press on the internet (although there is some interesting crossover with the 2nd Amendment, a la https://codeisfreespeech.com https://codeisfreespeech.com) Some things are a bit muddled when you have things like cloud providers and crossing borders, but the 4th Amendment certainly covers at least a subset of digital communications.
- alistairSH 7y agoFedEx, UPS, Amazon, and private couriers are all active in the letter and package delivery business. The USPS doesn't have a monopoly, at least not in the strict text-book sense of the word. USPS just delivers letter mail at much lower rates than the others. And does so at a fixed rate to any address within the US, whether that's a neighbor across the street or a family member in a tiny town in the mountains.
- elicash 7y agoI'm very pro-USPS and anti-privatization, but in fairness, sole use of even private mailboxes is monopolistic. https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/ilo-report.pdf https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/ilo-report.p... (PDF)
- alistairSH 7y agoFair enough, though I'm not convinced that's much of an advantage. Personally, most of the mail I receive from USPS is garbage. And my mailbox is located at the end of the block, clustered for the whole neighborhood. Due to both those facts, I rarely check the mail - it's often overflowing by the time I bother. The mail I receive at my door (non-USPS) is 99% not junk. I don't have to go out of my way to retrieve it. And it's more likely to be dry (because the screen door never gets overfull of mail like the postbox). Just an anecdote, not meant as anything more.
- elicash 7y ago> I'm not convinced that's much of an advantage. Their competitors certainly claim it gives the USPS a significant advantage, if you check the info I provided. They also give reasons for their view. Are there any particular reasons you think they're wrong?
- alistairSH 7y agoJust my personal experience that the vast majority of "letter mail" is junk that I don't want at all. It's actually a hassle to have USPS deliver junk and have to walk down the block to retrieve it, to turn right around and drop it in the trash. If I could forgo USPS delivery and just get stuff dropped in my front door (like UPS and FedEx do), I'd be better off.