Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    as deb pointed out in a conversation we had regarding this, is the
    post office looking to be just a provider (where one can choose someone
    other than the usps) or are they looking to be able to monitor it
    (e-mail)???
    
    
    if they are looking for monitoring priviledges, i say no way.  they
    (the government) already have enough to say about what we do behind our
    closed (private) doors...
    
    

	one can almost sense mr. bill champing at the bit.

    What about Auntie Sluggo?

    Wonder what the electronic Elvis stamp will look like.....
    

    I'd like to point out that the proposal does not require email users to
    get their messages "stamped."  It offers an authentication service,
    nothing more and nothing less.
    
    However, secure authentication is already available through the use of
    the freeware PGP system, whose author is currently being prosecuted by
    the US gummint for exporting military technology without the proper
    blessing.  (Encryption software is considered military technology.)
    
    Hence, the USPS is a day late and, as ever, a dollar short.

    I'm with Binder on this deal.  Going out of my way to NOT be 
    paranoid, I think the USPS has a legit reason to provide this
    service.
    
    We (should) have the ability to use it, or NOT.  Personal choice, 
    freedom...  you know.
    
    Reread genes message and notice the "using a stamp PROTECTS someone
    from..."  see, privilege has strings attached.  Use a stamp and they're
    entitled to make sure everythings on the up&up.  Use zipcode and
    you admit your in a federal zone (per IRS code, not postal regulations).
    Ah... Ahhhhh....
    
    set mode=madmike
    The USPS and the federal government will work very hard to make sure
    this (transmission medium) is monopolized and controlled by the usps.  
    That way they score revenue they're loosing, big time, and they can 
    also keep tabs on the troops.
    
    Oh geezus... there I go again...
                       

    
    If they do for EMAIL what they've done with snail mail.....
    
    Something to consider, since the government started regulating 
    features of automobiles, cars have quadrupled in price. During
    that same time, the unregulated computer industry has driven 
    costs down, while producing a better/faster product.
    If they get involved in EMAIL, they will try to regulate it,
    if they regulate it, we'll pay for it.
    

>    If they do for EMAIL what they've done with snail mail.....

Far be it from me to defend the postal service, but what _have_ they done
with snail mail?
    
>    Something to consider, since the government started regulating 
>    features of automobiles, cars have quadrupled in price. During
>    that same time, the unregulated computer industry has driven 
>    costs down, while producing a better/faster product.

Apples and lemons.  Do you think that cars would have gone down in price
if there had been no government regulations?

    re:  <<< Note 384.8 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30
    DTN:381-2085" >>>
    
    >    If they do for EMAIL what they've done with snail mail.....
    
    Far be it from me to defend the postal service, but what _have_ they
    done with snail mail?
    
    Continued to raise rates, while providing less/slower services. When
    I was a kid we used to get mail delivery twice a day.  
    
    >    Something to consider, since the government started regulating
    >    features of automobiles, cars have quadrupled in price. During
    >    that same time, the unregulated computer industry has driven
    >    costs down, while producing a better/faster product.
    
    Apples and lemons.  Do you think that cars would have gone down in
    price if there had been no government regulations?
    
    Actually there may have been a chance, but we'll never know. 
    Road and Track did an article a few years back showing 
    what you paid for that was dictated by the feds....  It was astounding.
    For example, those 5MPH bumpers cost a lot, yet last I heard they
    were proven not to actually save money.  I for one do not want an
    air bag. I  used to race sports cars (SCCA), I now note with interest
    that while loaded with safety features, racing cars do not have
    airbags.  There is a reason.  I don't like the idea of forking over 
    pile of money for a "feature" I do not want. I gather they cost a few
    hundred.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

>    Continued to raise rates, while providing less/slower services. When
>    I was a kid we used to get mail delivery twice a day.  

Wow, you must be old!  I believe first class rates haven't exceeded inflation.
When I was a kid, the rate was 4� and candy bars were 5�.  How much are candy
bars now?  I'm not convinced that delivery times have really deteriorated.
    
>    Actually there may have been a chance, but we'll never know. 

Take a look at a country where cars aren't regulated.  They made Beetles
in Brazil long after they stopped making them in Europe.  Did they get
cheaper and cheaper?

	We used to get the mail only once a day, as I recall.  That horse was
	always sweatin' up a storm too.

    
    I wonder if the post office gets involved with e-mail if
    oneday some disgruntled worker will open fire on a bunch
    of servers and telecom equipment...
    

    
    
    	I hope I'm there with my video camera! It'll be like another
    shootzenfest.....;*)
    
    
    jim

    
    does this me I will not be able to download Penthouse mag pictures?
    
    I object!
    
    

    re:  Note 384.10 by NOTIME::SACKS 
    
    >Wow, you must be old!  I believe first class rates haven't exceeded 
    >inflation. When I was a kid, the rate was 4" and candy bars were 5".  
    >How much are candy bars now?  I'm not convinced that delivery times 
    >have really deteriorated.
    
    Only 42.  Think it was 4 cents as a kid.  Now 30 that's 750%
    (granted compounding makes it less).  Even at 5% inflation over
    say 30 years compounded, don't think that's 750%. As to the candy
    makers, they actually make healthy profit per bar, figure the markup.
    
    >Take a look at a country where cars aren't regulated.  They made Beetles
    >in Brazil long after they stopped making them in Europe.  Did they get
    >cheaper and cheaper?
        
    As to Brazil making bugs, that country is so rife with inflation
    no economic argument can be based on it.  But cars certainly
    would be cheaper without the government regulated costs.  $400
    for airbags, $500 for bumpers, $200 for automatic restraining
    devices, etc etc etc...
    
    It's just the general principle that regulation costs.  I don't want to
    pay the $400 for the airbag, or in this case for the postal service to
    provide a service I never even asked for in the first place.
    
                                                                  

    They should be able to provide this service, as long as it is run as a
    business, for profit, and not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars. The
    problem is that because these government entities do not have to make
    the effort to be competitive and supply a service that is worthwhile in
    the marketplace, this because the consumer is forced to use them,
    they soon become a failed business if not bailed out with tax money. A 
    normal business can't afford to give financial for life, without threat of
    layoff, and then let all of their employees retire after 20 years with
    lucrative retirement benefits, and stay in business for very long. As
    always happens with government agencies, the USPS will not be able to
    compete with real business, therefore they will either us laws that 
    force us to use them or to continually drain the tax dollars of citizens 
    in order to support their unnecessary, worthless, uncompetitive venture.
    
    IMHO of course!
    
    ...Tom

It's pretty simple to determine if the increase in first class postage has
exceeded the inflation rate in the last 40 years.  I leave it as an exercise
to the reader.  I wasn't claiming that candy bars track inflation.  It's just
that they're something I knew the price of when I was a kid.

>                                              But cars certainly
>    would be cheaper without the government regulated costs.

No question.  But you compared cars with computers, saying computers
are much faster and cheaper than they used to be due to the lack of
government regulation.  There's been no technological revolution in
cars to compare to the one in computers, so your comparison breaks down.

    
    re: <<< Note 384.17 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30
    DTN:381-2085" >>>
    
    >No question.  But you compared cars with computers, saying computers
    >are much faster and cheaper than they used to be due to the lack of
    >government regulation.  There's been no technological revolution in
    >cars to compare to the one in computers, so your comparison breaks
    >down.
    
    Actually, in the last few years both the design and manufacture of 
    cars has become much more automated. If you subtract out the several 
    thousands of dollars in government mandated equipment, you might find 
    the cost of cars has not kept up with inflation.  
    
    The reason for mentioning computers is that it's an example of what can
    happen if government does not regulate an industry.  What free market
    forces are capable of.  While it may not true to say lack of regulation 
    means lower cost, it is fair to say the presence of regulation leads to 
    higher costs in most cases.  
    
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
     

    .9
    
    > Far be it from me to defend the postal service, but what _have_ they
    > done with snail mail?
    
    > Continued to raise rates, while providing less/slower services. When
    > I was a kid we used to get mail delivery twice a day.  
    
    And you had to walk through 6-foot-deep snow to school.  Uphill.  Both
    ways.
    
    Consider for a moment the huge increase in mailed pieces over the past
    few years.  When I was a kid in the '40s and '50s, we'd see maybe two
    or three pieces a day (one delivery, not two), except at Christmas.  No
    junk mail, no local shopper newspapers, no merchandise samples, no
    color catalogs, none of that stuff.  Today it's a bare day when my take
    isn't at least eight or ten items, and usually there are more than a
    dozen, including two different weekly shopper newspapers.  This doesn't
    require more resources per customer than it used to?
    
    Consider the increase in mail delivery points due to the expansion of
    housing caused by our increasing population.  This doesn't require more
    resources per carrier than it used to?
    
    Consider the increase in labor and material costs.  When I was a kid,
    an RFD carrier's car cost $1,000.  Today it costs $10,000 or more. 
    When I was a kid, $10,000 a year was a decent wage.  Today it's not
    even close to the poverty line.  Getting a letter hand-delivered from
    my house to a house anywhere in the entire country within three days
    for 32 cents is, to my mind, a good deal.

    
    Uphill??  You too??
    

    
    >Consider for a moment the huge increase in mailed pieces over the past
    >few years...
    
    >Consider the increase in mail delivery points due to the expansion
    >of...
    
    >Consider the increase in labor and material costs...
    
    
    Consider the rise in ammo prices...
    
    -b

	Why is it some people feel it necessary to defend the government and
it's institutions at all points?  Companies like FED-X, UPS, etc.. have proven
they can deliver on time, if given the "right" to deliver private residential
mail, at a cost lower than the current $0.32 per.  This discussion has
degenerated into one trying to change the subject from should the USPS aka the
government  be given monopolistic control of electronic communications.  Whether
or not postal rates have kept up with the inflation rate is irrelevant fluff.  

Mikey

    Binder's right (as usual) in that the price is a good deal.  It's a
    great deal actually.  What do folks think it should cost to mail a 
    letter?  Free?  $0.10?  $0.25?  How do our rate compare to other
    countries?  If ours aren't the lowest per ounce, I'd bet they are very
    close.  
    
    Brian

    	The argument goes that USPS must have the monopoly to ensure
    	that all first class delivery to ALL U.S. locations (even
    	out-of-the-way places) remains at the same price.  If FED-ex
    	took all the "easy" routes, who would do the hard ones?
    
    	Well, I'd be willing to pay premium prices to get my occasional
    	out-of-the-way mail delivered to the outbacks of Kansas if it
    	meant that I would benefit from lower mail delivery prices to
    	all the other places.

    .22
    
    > Companies like FED-X, UPS, etc.. have proven
    > they can deliver on time, if given the "right" to deliver private
    > residential
    > mail, at a cost lower than the current $0.32 per.
    
    Horsepuckey.  These companies have demonstrated that they can deliver
    an occasional parcel to a small percentage of the houses in the
    country, at a rate no lower than a couple of dollars per.  You ain't
    seen NOTHIN' until you've seen a central post office's sorting system -
    as good as FedEx's and UPS's systems are, they would be absolutely
    SWAMPED by the need to deliver half a billion pieces of mail five or
    six days of the week.

>at a rate no lower than a couple of dollars per.	

How much more money would be pumped into the economy at "a couple of dollars
per", if business were permitted to use private carriers exclusively for just
their packages. My original question still stands.  What is there to recommend
the USPS, as the best there is, for our money?  

Mikey

    They are permitted to use private carriers for just their packages. 
    There is no "have to" whgen it comes to parcel post.  You can even send
    a letter UPS, FED-EX etc. but you would put yourself at an economic
    disadvantage compared to your competition.  
    
    Brian

    re: 384.19
    
    The math doesn't work.
    
    The more mail the more revenue the mail generates.
    The higher the population the higher the population density
        thus the higher the efficiency of the service.
    There is also the issue of automation, which should drive costs down.
    
    And yes when I was a kid we had better service...
    
    This really boils down to some folks want big govt, and some folks
    don't.  It's a shame those that want big govt, help pay for it with my
    money.
    
    
     
    

    .28
    
    > The more mail the more revenue the mail generates.
    
    If the charge to deliver a piece covered the costs of delivering that
    piece, you're right.  It doesn't, so you're wrong.
    
    > The higher the population the higher the population density
    > thus the higher the efficiency of the service.
    
    If the amount of time required to deliver to 10 houses were the same as
    that requried to deliver to 3 houses, you'd be right.  It doesn't, so
    you're wrong.  (If we'd all accept having our mail delivered to a kiosk
    at the end of the block and walking down to our boxes there, there
    would be increased efficiency.  Most of us won't accept that minor
    inconvenience.)
    
    > There is also the issue of automation, which should drive costs down.
    
    *Relative* costs are down.  *Total* cost is up, and the difference is
    not accounted for by increases in rates that haven't kept up with
    inflation.
    
    I don't want big gummint, but I'm not anything like convinced the
    existing private carriers can - and would - be better.

RE:.29	

>I'm not anything like convinced the existing private carriers can - and would -
be better.

Why is that please support your argument, with reasons/opinions.  
Also what can be done to improve the quality of the USPS?
How do you feel about the Postal Workers Union, and the effect it has on service?

Mikey

re .29:

>    > The more mail the more revenue the mail generates.
>    
>    If the charge to deliver a piece covered the costs of delivering that
>    piece, you're right.  It doesn't, so you're wrong.

Yup.    

>    > The higher the population the higher the population density
>    > thus the higher the efficiency of the service.
>    
>    If the amount of time required to deliver to 10 houses were the same as
>    that requried to deliver to 3 houses, you'd be right.  It doesn't, so
>    you're wrong.

Actually if the time to deliver to 10 houses is less than 3.33 times the
amount of time requried to deliver to 3 houses he'd be right.  And in many
cases that's true (it takes longer going between 2 farmhouses in a rural
area than it does between 2 houses after the same area has been developed
into a subdivision)

    re: 384.29
      
    >If the charge to deliver a piece covered the costs of delivering that
    >piece, you're right.  It doesn't, so you're wrong.
   
     not really true.  If each house recieves 1 piece of mail I have 
     a worse case scenario since my cost of delivery is the same. If I
     deliver 2 pieces to each house I double the revenue at roughly the
     same cost.  The cost of delivery to a given geographical area should 
     stay fairly constant if the population stay fairly constant.  If I 
     add few houses to the same area are I can use the same resources to 
     deliver more mail.   
    
    >If the amount of time required to deliver to 10 houses were the same as
    >that requried to deliver to 3 houses, you'd be right.  It doesn't, so
    >you're wrong.  (If we'd all accept having our mail delivered to a kiosk
    >at the end of the block and walking down to our boxes there, there
    >would be increased efficiency.  Most of us won't accept that minor
    >inconvenience.)
    
    There are more people living in apartment houses and townhouses than
    ever before, and this leads to higher efficiencies.  In rural areas
    more and more areas are being subdivided thus increasing density.
    And yes 10 house in the same acreage as 3 houses would take about 
    the same time to deliver.  But again the cost of delivery per letter 
    should go down.
    
    >*Relative* costs are down.  *Total* cost is up, and the difference is
    >not accounted for by increases in rates that haven't kept up with
    >inflation.
    
    You lost me on this - 
    
    Nobody was promoting privatizing the post office.  The issue raised in 
    .0 was that the USPS is looking into getting involved in EMAIL, perhaps 
    regulating it.  This kind of intervention, IMHO, based on their
    track record is the last thing we need. The only thing I appreciated 
    from the post office was when they formally declared Chris Kringle
    as Santa Claus. 
     
   

   More people have been shot in post offices than on the info superhiway and
   FED-X combined.



   Jim

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Soooooooooo True!
    
    ...Tom

The price for a domestic letter in Germany is DM 1.00.

At current exchange rates, that's about 78 cents.

/john

    
     re: .33
    
    yet another gun note...
    

re: Note 384.28 by PATE::CLAPP
        
>    This really boils down to some folks want big govt, and some folks
>    don't.  It's a shame those that want big govt, help pay for it with my
>    money.
    
    It boils down to choice.  Will the USPS MONOPOLIZE/REGULATE electronic
    messaging in such a way that they can get their meathooks on our
    bizness?
    
    I don't want the USPS minding my own business.
    
    I want the USPS to join the game of providing "mail" however it looks
    in the "90's" and beyond at a competitive price, efficiently and
    unsubsidized.  I don't want to be forced to use it, but they should
    provide it. Because if they don't they're going out of business, OR
    will have to be subsidized bigtime for their lack of vision in keeping
    up with the times.
    
    The issue is in the details.  The idea/concept is good.  How they
    do it, and what the implications of using it are the issues.  Many
    folks (including me) are highly suspicious of anything that comes from
    DC these days.  One problem I forsee with this is in order to
    use the system you'll need a social security #, or "national identity
    #".  Ya, and what if I ain't got one?  Can I still use the system
    to send mail?  Can I get some non-malicious number so I can use the
    system too?  I need to know the legalities of the deal. Understand
    the legalities of the USPS today and what it means when a mailman
    puts mail in your mailbox at your home vs. you having a box at the
    post office.  
    
    Watch them closely, that's all.  
         
     
    

    Some enterprising soul in the USPS will have to devise a way to mangle
    and misdeliver E-mail. 
    
    Algore is salivating at the prospect of yet more kontrol of the medium.
    

    A while ago, I was thinking what institutions would take it on the chin
    if we actually had a info highway system comparable to the interstate
    highway system.  It seemed to me that the USPS would be a reasonable
    entity to handle residential email, since they already keep track of
    who lives where.  You could send mail to "fred.whozit.03062-1234" or
    some such thing.

    
    Recent visit to post office to buy stamps, they had none OUT, ZIPPO,
    NONE, unless of course my envelope was big enough to take 32 one cent
    stamps! Marvelous planning on their part. I have since found out that
    this is the case at post offices throughout my region.
    
    Anniversary card sent by next door neighbor takes 6 days to arrive at
    my house and it was mailed in the Post office that services my route.
    
    Mail sent by reletives several states away never arrives. 
    
    At least two to three times a week I receive mail addressed to someone
    else, not necessarily a neighbor. 
    
    And the USPS wants to get it's hooks on E-Mail? As soon as I can get
    some stamps I am writing my congresscritters about this! 

    	I just can't relate to lists of USPS horror stories.
    
    	I figure that if they are really so common, I would have
    	experienced some of them myself.

    Good USPS story - mailed out watch to be repaired on 4/4.  Got home
    last night to find new watch waiting for me.
    
    Stopped at PO at lunch - plenty of stamps, nice people, and a fully
    stocked and working stamp vending machine.
    
    YMMV
    
    Dan

    
    If the USPS was any better what would all us "check's in the mail"
    types do! :-) :-)
    

    My USPS story.
    
    I bought a nice Christmas present for my mother that I sent priority USPS. 
    It arrived mangled (and not within two days, as promised)- the contents 
    inside the box destroyed.
    
    I guess they ignored the FRAGILE warnings I put all over the box, as
    well as the 'PLEASE handle with care' in bold letters by the FRAGILE
    warning.
    
    It was well packed with bubble wrap, and with crumpled newspaper and penuts
    for fill to keep the contents from rattling around.
    
    I was not a happy camper at all.
    
    
    
    As far as the argument goes, I have mixed feelings.  I don't so much
    mind the USPS supplying this service, but in my paranoia of government
    intrusiveness, I can't help but see a government monopoly happening in
    the future.  And if this happens, goodbye privacy.  Big brother is reading 
    your mail.
    
    This is certainly fodder for the conspiracy buffs, to be sure.
    
    I also find it interesting that the designer of PGP was arrested at the
    same time he was working on encryption for voice communications through
    PC's.  With the Federal Wire Tap Bill, and the ever increasing Big
    Brother mentality of federal organizations, I wonder if the timing of
    his arrest is coincidental.  Imagine, secure lines that the feds cannot
    easily listen in on.  Guess they didn't like that idea at all.
    
    
    -steve

    .44
    
    Re FRAGILE, here's what the CD says...
    
    	fragile  adj.  Formerly, an adjective meaning delicate or prone to
    	breakage.  Presently, an instruction to post office workers,
    	meaning "throw underhand."
    
    Sorry about your bad experience.

	Steve, did they replace it or give you the money you paid for it?

re .44:

>    My USPS story.
    
>    I bought a nice Christmas present for my mother that I sent priority USPS. 
>    It arrived mangled (and not within two days, as promised)- the contents 
>    inside the box destroyed.
    
>    I guess they ignored the FRAGILE warnings I put all over the box, as
>    well as the 'PLEASE handle with care' in bold letters by the FRAGILE
>    warning.

I have discovered the secret of quick service from the USPS.  A year ago I
had a package shipped from Georgia on a Saturday, it arrived in Mass. the
following Monday, and the intervening Sunday was Easter Sunday.

The secret?  The package was honeybees.  Live bees.  Not just a cardboard box
that buzzed, but a wood-and-window screen cage where you could see them all.
Approximately 12,000 of them.  No way they'd toss this, not even underhand. 

    re: .46
    
    No.

	Bummer Steve..... you would think they would be covered if they ruin
something.... oh yeah, you need to buy insurance to cover their mistakes...

    Yup, and I did not insure it (silly me).

    Information superhighway

    Anagram: I'm on a huge wispy rhino fart

    Bill