Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#31

Post by IgorPartola » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

io wrote: post #29

IgorPartola wrote: post #14

The most sensible suggestion I've heard recently was from a co-worker who said it would make sense to not sound out postal workers to every house, but instead to keep all the mail at the Post Office. If you want your mail delivered to your door, then you can pay extra. Otherwise pick it up yourself. This would greatly cut down on the USPS expenses. I also would love a premium service where I get one address (just lik…

You want me to pay extra for the privilege of having junk mail delivered? I can't see this being a very popular option. Sorting through the junk to make sure I catch the rare piece of important mail is a chore. I would pay extra to opt out of all mass mailings, and have the occasional piece of actual mail delivered. They'd probably only have to open my mailbox 5-6 times a month. Win-win.

The amount of junk mail will go down. Since nobody is willing to go and pick it up and then will actually discard junk immediately at the pickup location, the value derived from sending junk mail will go down. Thus there will be less of it sent out.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#32

Post by IgorPartola » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:31 PM UTC

alanh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand why you can’t address physical mail to an identity and let the USPS automatically route it to a physical address. Especially during and after college, I moved so much, I’m sure mail got lost en route. It would also help with privacy. You could have “throwaway addresses” given to certain businesses, possibly, or instruct the USPS to block mail from .

UPS provides this: http://www.theupsstore.com/products/pages/maiandpos.aspx

You just have to pay for both storage and forwarding.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#33

Post by smackfu » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:33 PM UTC

AndyKelley wrote: post #15

Why are we trying to save USPS? It offers worse service than any of the private companies, and according to this article, it currently has a net loss of 7 billion dollars. How about we delete it, then git commit -a -m "deleted unused stuff, should improve efficiency"

Because they deliver a letter for 44 cents anywhere in the country, in a few days.

Do any of the private companies get within a factor of 10 of that price?

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#34

Post by alanh » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:33 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #32

alanh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand why you can’t address physical mail to an identity and let the USPS automatically route it to a physical address. Especially during and after college, I moved so much, I’m sure mail got lost en route. It would also help with privacy. You could have “throwaway addresses” given to certain businesses, possibly, or instruct the USPS to block mail from .

UPS provides this: http://www.theupsstore.com/products/pages/maiandpos.aspx You just have to pay for both storage and forwarding.

I’m picturing this being something everyone can do, not a very niche offering. Interesting, though.

★ Edit in response: Only some of the same problems are being solved. If the USPS let everyone choose an ID, it wouldn’t be long before websites let (US) customers enter “tcollins12” instead of “Tom Collins, 145 Main St., Somewhere, ST 12345” during checkout… it wouldn’t be long before your public wishlist said “ship it to USPS address ‘alanh’” without giving away your residence… it’s not just an alias, it’s a paradigm shift. (With the UPS offering you linked, your address still takes the form of an address.)

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#35

Post by yrral » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:37 PM UTC

AndyKelley wrote: post #15

Why are we trying to save USPS? It offers worse service than any of the private companies, and according to this article, it currently has a net loss of 7 billion dollars. How about we delete it, then git commit -a -m "deleted unused stuff, should improve efficiency"

The USPS is obligated to deliver to any address in America for the same fee. If we had private carriers serve first class mail, it could cost pennies to deliver a letter to New York but hundreds of dollars to deliver to someone living in the middle of nowhere.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#36

Post by iandanforth » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:41 PM UTC

I wouldn't mind getting mail once a week. The question is, would this work for everyone?

Are there items that are time critical (need less than two weeks round trip) AND must be sent physically AND would be prohibitively expensive to send through private mail services?

Considering the items I have in my mail pile right now I can't think of any.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#37

Post by harshpotatoes » Fri, May 06, 2011, 9:43 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #17

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would just shift cost from delivery to storage. Might be a net gain (or a net loss), but would also have deployment costs. USPS does offer that, NCOA.

This is assuming that the amount of mail goes down. Would also naturally cut down on the amount of junk mail, since most people won't bother to go check their mail if it's always just junk.

As with the rest of the modern world, junk mail (advertisers) are the backbone of the USPS. Cutting down the amount of junk mail might be bad for the post office.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#38

Post by naner » Fri, May 06, 2011, 10:25 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #14

The most sensible suggestion I've heard recently was from a co-worker who said it would make sense to not sound out postal workers to every house, but instead to keep all the mail at the Post Office. If you want your mail delivered to your door, then you can pay extra. Otherwise pick it up yourself. This would greatly cut down on the USPS expenses. I also would love a premium service where I get one address (just lik…

This would also result in the firing of a very large amount of postal workers. Now you and I don't really care, logically you would only keep a job around as long as it is needed, but politically this would be a massive problem.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#39

Post by IgorPartola » Fri, May 06, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

harshpotatoes wrote: post #37

IgorPartola wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming that the amount of mail goes down. Would also naturally cut down on the amount of junk mail, since most people won't bother to go check their mail if it's always just junk.

As with the rest of the modern world, junk mail (advertisers) are the backbone of the USPS. Cutting down the amount of junk mail might be bad for the post office.

I disagree. The post office depends on junk mail only so long as it has to make door to door deliveries. If the door to door delivery is paid for by the subscriber directly the USPS can ditch junk mail as the main source of income. My main point is that USPS relying on junk mail is not sustainable. Either it will go bankrupt, or it will get huge tax subsidies, or it will get a bit creative. It is going to lose some of its work force either way.

Re: Tech experts, including Google, to discuss future of the USPS

#40

Post by IgorPartola » Fri, May 06, 2011, 10:49 PM UTC

naner wrote: post #38

IgorPartola wrote: post #14

The most sensible suggestion I've heard recently was from a co-worker who said it would make sense to not sound out postal workers to every house, but instead to keep all the mail at the Post Office. If you want your mail delivered to your door, then you can pay extra. Otherwise pick it up yourself. This would greatly cut down on the USPS expenses. I also would love a premium service where I get one address (just lik…

This would also result in the firing of a very large amount of postal workers. Now you and I don't really care, logically you would only keep a job around as long as it is needed, but politically this would be a massive problem.

Agreed. But that goes into a very different discussion of how we are now so productive that having a job becomes a priviledge. I personally do not know if pure capitalism with unregulated markets scales well along the productivuty curve with a large population as a given.