4 ms·

If the usps is losing money every package..why don't it stop delivering those packages? Or deliver less of those packages? Like. Do some QOS?

jariel 6y ago
It's a very reasonable question, and the answer is the USPS should not do this. The Postal Union predates the UN by at least 50 years, the notion that each nation would honour each other's mail predates commerce as we understand it and doesn't make sense. This program should have been abolished decades ago.
- buran77 6y ago
  > the notion that each nation would honour each other's mail predates commerce as we understand it and doesn't make sense Is this that much different from net neutrality, phone call routing, email routing, etc? Should an ISP have to carry data belonging to other services? Should a mobile operator just refuse to route calls coming from another operator or country? Should Google refuse emails from another email provider or country? I pay to get my mail delivered to a foreign country and both source and destination postal systems get a cut. Honoring the deliveries works in the favor of all sides. If the implementation is bad fix that, don't drop the system.
  - jariel 6y ago
    I see what you're saying but it's not quite the analogy you're looking for in Net Neutrality. In shipping, they have to charge you a different rate for packages than they do mail (i.e weight) or else it won't work. With data, it'd be nary impossible to clear prices for such services. With mail, it's entirely possible. There is basically no reason that China Post can't charge their customers a rate to get something to the US, and then another rate by the US Post to get to final destination. Because shipping involves real labour and money, it's like any other service, it should be priced normally. If the postal union was not borne 150 years ago with this odd kind of arrangement, nobody would suggest it today. It needs to go.

jariel 6y ago

It's a very reasonable question, and the answer is the USPS should not do this. The Postal Union predates the UN by at least 50 years, the notion that each nation would honour each other's mail predates commerce as we understand it and doesn't make sense. This program should have been abolished decades ago.

buran77 6y ago
> the notion that each nation would honour each other's mail predates commerce as we understand it and doesn't make sense Is this that much different from net neutrality, phone call routing, email routing, etc? Should an ISP have to carry data belonging to other services? Should a mobile operator just refuse to route calls coming from another operator or country? Should Google refuse emails from another email provider or country? I pay to get my mail delivered to a foreign country and both source and destination postal systems get a cut. Honoring the deliveries works in the favor of all sides. If the implementation is bad fix that, don't drop the system.
- jariel 6y ago
  I see what you're saying but it's not quite the analogy you're looking for in Net Neutrality. In shipping, they have to charge you a different rate for packages than they do mail (i.e weight) or else it won't work. With data, it'd be nary impossible to clear prices for such services. With mail, it's entirely possible. There is basically no reason that China Post can't charge their customers a rate to get something to the US, and then another rate by the US Post to get to final destination. Because shipping involves real labour and money, it's like any other service, it should be priced normally. If the postal union was not borne 150 years ago with this odd kind of arrangement, nobody would suggest it today. It needs to go.