4 ms·

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 pub

by 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.
- djur 6y ago
  To support your last paragraph, no company has yet successfully entered competition with the UK Royal Mail on letter delivery.

by bhupy 6y ago

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.
djur 6y ago
To support your last paragraph, no company has yet successfully entered competition with the UK Royal Mail on letter delivery.