Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

usps.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 179 posts

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#71

Post by Eliezer »

Perceval wrote: post #51
jzimdars wrote: post #31

This wouldn't be such an issue if the postal service operated like a business instead of an institution. Why not commercialize it more? Where are the Coke stamps and IBM Express Mail envelopes? Why isn't the mail truck wrapped with an American Idol promo? Seems like the USPS could be a huge advertising vehicle. Why is this sacred?

Because the Postal Service is provided for in the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause Can't have a Constitutionally-mandated service wrapped in third-party advertising.

Why not?

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#72

Post by orblivion »

jrockway wrote: post #34

Hopefully UPS and FedEx will make up the difference by delivering on Sunday. The only stuff I get in the mail these days is some envelope warning me that I will go to jail if I don't tell the government my phone number.

If the USPS would make it legal to deliver small pieces of mail.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#74

Post by dantheman »

anamax wrote: post #68
jonknee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to handle the spam, simply stop subsidizing it with a bulk mail discount. If they continue to send then the financial troubles are solved.

> No need to handle the spam, simply stop subsidizing it with a bulk mail discount. The USPS claims that bulk mail more than pays its way. In fact, there's a federal law requiring that. Yes, bulk mail does pay a lower rate. However, it must obey certain constraints which the USPS claims result in significantly lower costs. In other words, bulk mail is supposedly profitable even though they charge less for it. If you'…

I don't think anyone is saying they don't make money off of spam, just that they shouldn't be encouraging it. If spammers had to pay full price perhaps we'd see less of it, or if not then the postal service would make more money.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#75

Post by orblivion »

sachinag wrote: post #42
jasonlbaptiste wrote: post #39

Privatize the system and outsource it to UPS/FedEX,etc. (I know easier said than done). If I ever need to send snail mail, I just send it via those guys.

The problem is the mandatory requirements for full service in unprofitable areas. The USPS literally has a plane that goes weekly to the most isolated part of Idaho: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/30idaho.html There's no way a private contractor could/would do that.

In the long run I don't see that as a problem. People should pay a premium if their lifestyle takes up more resources like that.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#76

Post by roboneal »

tsally wrote: post #41
cwan wrote: post #2

While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like this, and it's a wonder that volumes haven't plummeted even faster: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-a...

Every time the US postal service comes up in discussion, someone invariably mentions how life would be so much better if the service was privatized. I think this argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of public services; the post office is perhaps the canonical example of an extremely important service that only can exist in the public sector. As others have mentioned already ( http://news.ycombinator.com…

With the dramatic drop in mail volumes, hasn't the market (businesses and citizens alike) "voted" that traditional first-class letter (USPS only monopoly) is not a "fundamental component" of our society?

If we haven't quite reached that point yet, can't you see we will?

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#78

Post by dpcan »

Why can't I get/pay for a USPS.com email address of my physical address?

123MainSt.MyCity.State.Zip@usps.com?

Anything that is emailed to this address must pay postage, but the message body or attachment can be printed, certified and delivered to my physical location?

Maybe this isn't the perfect idea, but if the USPS would just embrace technology and innovate a little, they could really increase their revenues.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#79

Post by argv_empty »

steveklabnik wrote: post #49
tsally wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time the US postal service comes up in discussion, someone invariably mentions how life would be so much better if the service was privatized. I think this argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of public services; the post office is perhaps the canonical example of an extremely important service that only can exist in the public sector. As others have mentioned already ( http://news.ycombinator.com…

Can only exist in the public sector? How do you explain FedEx and UPS? I can see both sides of this argument.

How do you explain FedEx and UPS?

I think GP's claim is not that private parcel services cannot exist, but rather that if they were to deliver first-class mail, they would charge more than $1 per letter.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#80

Post by leelin »

Isn't their logic confusing latency and throughput?

Not enough mail to deliver suggests less mail volume, so less need for throughput, therefore we can hire fewer postal workers per post office.

Cutting out one day of deliveries reduces throughput and increases latency. For example, Netflix becomes a worse deal. A power user could once cycle 2 roundtrips of DVDs in one week and is now down to 1.5.

Post reply on HN