3 ms·

There's no incentive for public companies to serve rural areas.

reaperducer 6y ago
You're being downvoted because most people believe it when FedEx or Amazon or UPS say they serve 100% of Americans. There's no way they would do so if they had to have the same footprint as the USPS. Is Amazon going to run ships around the Great Lakes to deliver mail to vessels moving between ports? Is FedEx going to send a truck an a four-hour round-trip to deliver a single letter to someone on an indian reservation for 50¢? Is UPS going to charter bush planes to deliver mail to remote outposts in Alaska, Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands? There are post offices so far out in the middle of nowhere that while they have a concrete pad for handicapped parking because it's required by the ADA, no customers ever arrive by car, so there's also hitching posts for people's horses, which is the primary mode of transportation. I don't see Amazon doing that. It'll just say, "Wait 20 years for your mail while we work the bugs out of our super-cool drone delivery service!"
- bhupy 6y ago
  These are all excellent arguments in favor of keeping the US Postal Service, but insufficient/inadequate arguments in favor of maintaining the USPS's legal monopoly on first class mail.
  - djur 6y ago
    The problem is that the political factions in the US who are in favor of eliminating USPS monopolies are also almost universally opposed to the government subsidizing USPS.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Okay, we can agree that those political factions are wrong / bad. I'm just trying to have a nuanced discussion on the merits of a public postal service vs a public monopoly on paper mail. It's possible to half agree with those political factions while still wanting to keep government subsidized public mail.
      - djur 6y ago
        It's not a matter of _keeping_ government subsidized public mail, because that does not really exist right now. I read "let's keep USPS state owned / public" as suggesting that the existing relationship between the USPS and the US government (a largely self-funding independent agency) should be kept as-is, but that the postal monopoly should be broken up.
      - runako 6y ago
        I think it's fair to have the discussion, but it would make sense that any company that wanted the same privileges as the USPS would have similar obligations. Essentially, if we were to allow competition, we want all entrants to be fully self-sufficient and not dependent on USPS. For example, if they want access to consumer mailboxes in an area, they need to cover 100% of the addresses USPS covers without routing packages through USPS. That way, they don't have the ability to surgically cherry-pick the most lucrative aspects and leave USPS with the crappy bits due to its mandates. Given that USPS and FedEx are roughly $10 for a 3-day letter, I don't know which carriers would even want to deliver paper mail.
        bhupy 6y ago
        > For example, if they want access to consumer mailboxes in an area, they need to cover 100% of the addresses USPS covers without routing packages through USPS. That way, they don't have the ability to surgically cherry-pick the most lucrative aspects and leave USPS with the crappy bits due to its mandates. That strikes me as unreasonable. We don't impose that kind of a requirement on package delivery on one's porch...why should we impose that requirement on paper mail delivery in one's mailbox? In no communication enterprise do we ever require 100% coverage. Markets finds some equilibrium with global, national, and local players coexisting. The same can be true for state-run enterprises.
        runako 6y ago
        I should have been clearer, I didn't mean 100% national coverage, I meant at whatever service area they choose, they need to cover 100% of what USPS covers now. For example, if they choose to cover a given ZIP code, they don't get to decide certain cul-de-sacs in that ZIP code are outside their coverage area. And we absolutely do place similar requirements on new entrants in monopoly enterprises. I'm thinking about things like 911 service on cell phones/VOIP phones. Basically, we all need the "new mail" to work pretty much like the old mail it's replacing. It's in nobody's interest for an inferior system to eat all the profit and drive the existing system into collapse.
- sdinsn 6y ago
  > Is Amazon going to run ships around the Great Lakes to deliver mail to vessels moving between ports? No, because using planes to deliver to regional distribution centers is much more efficient. > Is FedEx going to send a truck an a four-hour round-trip to deliver a single letter to someone on an indian reservation for 50¢? The USPS does not deliver mail directly to the majority of reservation residents. Most have to fetch their mail at the closest office, which could be upwards of 1 hr away from them. This is because most reservation residences don't actually have an address (which also prevents them from registering to vote, which is another related issue). > Is UPS going to charter bush planes to deliver mail to remote outposts in Alaska, Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands? The USPS doesn't either. The USPS's Alaska Bypass has a minimum order weight of 1000 lbs, it's designed for retailers. The USPS does not serve normal consumers in very rural areas with standard mail features.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    No, because using planes to deliver to regional distribution centers is much more efficient. How do planes and distribution centers get mail to people at sea for months at a time? The USPS does not deliver mail directly to the majority of reservation residents You're not wrong. But there are plenty of people in remote places on the rez who do get mail hours from the nearest trading post. Just because they're not the "majority" of people doesn't mean they don't deserve to be served. The USPS does not serve normal consumers in very rural areas with standard mail features. Either you and I define "rural" differently, or you haven't spent as much time in rural places as I have.
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      Since they mentioned the Alaska bypass, they're probably talking about areas that are only accessible by air. There's a situation kinda similar to the epacket thing with China. USPS subsidizes package delivery in isolated areas to the point that it's cheaper for the sender than deliveries to urban areas
chrisseaton 6y ago
Why do you think the Royal Mail serves rural areas?
- djur 6y ago
  Because the Postal Services Act 2011 mandates it, as does the EU, and it has been a source of financial difficulty in any case. The UK is the size of the state of Oregon and about five times as densely populated. The UK also has a much more powerful central regulatory apparatus -- there is no US body that has as much power over private carriers as Ofcom has over Royal Mail.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Because the Postal Services Act 2011 mandates it Exactly. > there is no US body that has as much power over private carriers as Ofcom has over Royal Mail I thought regulating inter-state commerce and especially mail was something the US federal government has historically done? In fact isn't there even a federal law enforcement agency specifically for it?
    - djur 6y ago
      The US equivalent to Ofcom is the FCC, which is not as powerful in statutory authority nor as aggressive in practice. Ofcom, among other things, regulates rates and service days for Royal Mail. I do not believe FedEx or UPS would accept this degree of regulation in exchange for the liberty to deliver letters to mailboxes. What's also significant is that Royal Mail privatization is less than a decade old. From a policy perspective, it's still an experiment. It doesn't actually have any competition for letter delivery. That Royal Mail has survived despite the lack of a statutory monopoly does not mean that the same would be true of USPS.
missedthecue 6y ago
Uhh money? Why does UPS deliver packages to rural areas? I live in a rural area and the majority of my packages arrive by UPS or Fedex rather than the USPS.

You're being downvoted because most people believe it when FedEx or Amazon or UPS say they serve 100% of Americans. There's no way they would do so if they had to have the same footprint as the USPS. Is Amazon going to run ships around the Great Lakes to deliver mail to vessels moving between ports? Is FedEx going to send a truck an a four-hour round-trip to deliver a single letter to someone on an indian reservation for 50¢? Is UPS going to charter bush planes to deliver mail to remote outposts in Alaska, Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands? There are post offices so far out in the middle of nowhere that while they have a concrete pad for handicapped parking because it's required by the ADA, no customers ever arrive by car, so there's also hitching posts for people's horses, which is the primary mode of transportation. I don't see Amazon doing that. It'll just say, "Wait 20 years for your mail while we work the bugs out of our super-cool drone delivery service!"

bhupy 6y ago
These are all excellent arguments in favor of keeping the US Postal Service, but insufficient/inadequate arguments in favor of maintaining the USPS's legal monopoly on first class mail.
- djur 6y ago
  The problem is that the political factions in the US who are in favor of eliminating USPS monopolies are also almost universally opposed to the government subsidizing USPS.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Okay, we can agree that those political factions are wrong / bad. I'm just trying to have a nuanced discussion on the merits of a public postal service vs a public monopoly on paper mail. It's possible to half agree with those political factions while still wanting to keep government subsidized public mail.
    - djur 6y ago
      It's not a matter of _keeping_ government subsidized public mail, because that does not really exist right now. I read "let's keep USPS state owned / public" as suggesting that the existing relationship between the USPS and the US government (a largely self-funding independent agency) should be kept as-is, but that the postal monopoly should be broken up.
    - runako 6y ago
      I think it's fair to have the discussion, but it would make sense that any company that wanted the same privileges as the USPS would have similar obligations. Essentially, if we were to allow competition, we want all entrants to be fully self-sufficient and not dependent on USPS. For example, if they want access to consumer mailboxes in an area, they need to cover 100% of the addresses USPS covers without routing packages through USPS. That way, they don't have the ability to surgically cherry-pick the most lucrative aspects and leave USPS with the crappy bits due to its mandates. Given that USPS and FedEx are roughly $10 for a 3-day letter, I don't know which carriers would even want to deliver paper mail.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        > For example, if they want access to consumer mailboxes in an area, they need to cover 100% of the addresses USPS covers without routing packages through USPS. That way, they don't have the ability to surgically cherry-pick the most lucrative aspects and leave USPS with the crappy bits due to its mandates. That strikes me as unreasonable. We don't impose that kind of a requirement on package delivery on one's porch...why should we impose that requirement on paper mail delivery in one's mailbox? In no communication enterprise do we ever require 100% coverage. Markets finds some equilibrium with global, national, and local players coexisting. The same can be true for state-run enterprises.
        runako 6y ago
        I should have been clearer, I didn't mean 100% national coverage, I meant at whatever service area they choose, they need to cover 100% of what USPS covers now. For example, if they choose to cover a given ZIP code, they don't get to decide certain cul-de-sacs in that ZIP code are outside their coverage area. And we absolutely do place similar requirements on new entrants in monopoly enterprises. I'm thinking about things like 911 service on cell phones/VOIP phones. Basically, we all need the "new mail" to work pretty much like the old mail it's replacing. It's in nobody's interest for an inferior system to eat all the profit and drive the existing system into collapse.
sdinsn 6y ago
> Is Amazon going to run ships around the Great Lakes to deliver mail to vessels moving between ports? No, because using planes to deliver to regional distribution centers is much more efficient. > Is FedEx going to send a truck an a four-hour round-trip to deliver a single letter to someone on an indian reservation for 50¢? The USPS does not deliver mail directly to the majority of reservation residents. Most have to fetch their mail at the closest office, which could be upwards of 1 hr away from them. This is because most reservation residences don't actually have an address (which also prevents them from registering to vote, which is another related issue). > Is UPS going to charter bush planes to deliver mail to remote outposts in Alaska, Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands? The USPS doesn't either. The USPS's Alaska Bypass has a minimum order weight of 1000 lbs, it's designed for retailers. The USPS does not serve normal consumers in very rural areas with standard mail features.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  No, because using planes to deliver to regional distribution centers is much more efficient. How do planes and distribution centers get mail to people at sea for months at a time? The USPS does not deliver mail directly to the majority of reservation residents You're not wrong. But there are plenty of people in remote places on the rez who do get mail hours from the nearest trading post. Just because they're not the "majority" of people doesn't mean they don't deserve to be served. The USPS does not serve normal consumers in very rural areas with standard mail features. Either you and I define "rural" differently, or you haven't spent as much time in rural places as I have.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Since they mentioned the Alaska bypass, they're probably talking about areas that are only accessible by air. There's a situation kinda similar to the epacket thing with China. USPS subsidizes package delivery in isolated areas to the point that it's cheaper for the sender than deliveries to urban areas

chrisseaton 6y ago

Why do you think the Royal Mail serves rural areas?

djur 6y ago
Because the Postal Services Act 2011 mandates it, as does the EU, and it has been a source of financial difficulty in any case. The UK is the size of the state of Oregon and about five times as densely populated. The UK also has a much more powerful central regulatory apparatus -- there is no US body that has as much power over private carriers as Ofcom has over Royal Mail.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Because the Postal Services Act 2011 mandates it Exactly. > there is no US body that has as much power over private carriers as Ofcom has over Royal Mail I thought regulating inter-state commerce and especially mail was something the US federal government has historically done? In fact isn't there even a federal law enforcement agency specifically for it?
  - djur 6y ago
    The US equivalent to Ofcom is the FCC, which is not as powerful in statutory authority nor as aggressive in practice. Ofcom, among other things, regulates rates and service days for Royal Mail. I do not believe FedEx or UPS would accept this degree of regulation in exchange for the liberty to deliver letters to mailboxes. What's also significant is that Royal Mail privatization is less than a decade old. From a policy perspective, it's still an experiment. It doesn't actually have any competition for letter delivery. That Royal Mail has survived despite the lack of a statutory monopoly does not mean that the same would be true of USPS.

missedthecue 6y ago

Uhh money? Why does UPS deliver packages to rural areas? I live in a rural area and the majority of my packages arrive by UPS or Fedex rather than the USPS.