3 ms·

> On a related (and likely just as improbable) note, perhaps cities should start treating delivery as another municipal utility. Hmm, or maybe national governm

by gspr 5y ago

> On a related (and likely just as improbable) note, perhaps cities should start treating delivery as another municipal utility. Hmm, or maybe national governments should step in and provide this as a subsidized basic service to everyone. It could work for all kinds of post, not just packages. And we could go to great lengths to make it work also across borders! I suggest we call it something like a public postal service. :-)

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Haha, I know :). But here I was thinking about technology and logistics. In-city drone-based delivery promises features that neither public nor private delivery services can... deliver ( :) ). The package stream utility idea promises those same features and more, without the drawbacks of having fleets of lawnmower/brick hybrids zipping around everyone's heads.
xyzzyz 5y ago
Why would I want government to do it, when private companies like FedEx or Amazon can do it better, faster and cheaper?
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Private companies deliver network services "better, faster, and cheaper" by cherry-picking the economically-viable aspects of service, and leaving the noneconomic segments to either the public sector or to be unserved at all. Universal service --- whether telegraph, rail, telephone, air, postal service, or data networking --- doesn't have that option. It serves both the dense, high-margin zones and the low-density, low-value outlying regions, because it has the interest of the common weal as a whole, not merely profit. Worse, the private sector then attempts to change legislation and regulation to impose greater burdens on the public-sector services they compete with (as with USPS pension liability funding obligations). Government-run postal services are tremendously efficient, effective, fast, and reliable ... at least until they became actively sabotaged from within.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  > when private companies like FedEx or Amazon can do it better, faster and cheaper? Because they don't.

by gspr 5y ago

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Haha, I know :). But here I was thinking about technology and logistics. In-city drone-based delivery promises features that neither public nor private delivery services can... deliver ( :) ). The package stream utility idea promises those same features and more, without the drawbacks of having fleets of lawnmower/brick hybrids zipping around everyone's heads.

xyzzyz 5y ago

Why would I want government to do it, when private companies like FedEx or Amazon can do it better, faster and cheaper?

dredmorbius 5y ago
Private companies deliver network services "better, faster, and cheaper" by cherry-picking the economically-viable aspects of service, and leaving the noneconomic segments to either the public sector or to be unserved at all. Universal service --- whether telegraph, rail, telephone, air, postal service, or data networking --- doesn't have that option. It serves both the dense, high-margin zones and the low-density, low-value outlying regions, because it has the interest of the common weal as a whole, not merely profit. Worse, the private sector then attempts to change legislation and regulation to impose greater burdens on the public-sector services they compete with (as with USPS pension liability funding obligations). Government-run postal services are tremendously efficient, effective, fast, and reliable ... at least until they became actively sabotaged from within.
JohnFen 5y ago
> when private companies like FedEx or Amazon can do it better, faster and cheaper? Because they don't.