The future of USA broadband is bleak

[Thad Floryan]

Read 'em and weep:

<http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00600>

<http://www.newnetworks.com/yearend2012.pdf>

[Bhairitu]

That's what you get when you allow corporations to "own" broadband. In
some other countries the pipes are in the commons and the telecoms lease
access to them. There is real competition in those countries, high
speed broadband and low prices. Of course the resident NeoCons here will
say that you don't want government to be your broadband provider and the
last time I raised the issue everyone chimed in that the corporate
telecoms aren't exactly wonderful at it.

[John Slade]

As long as politicians are funded by private campaign
contributions, this is what you'll have in any utility or other
service. Comcast became the giant that it is through various
forms of bribery. In one particular case Comcast gave a job to a
politician's wife for his vote to make Comcast the local
provider. Congresswoman Maxine Waters claimed that Comcast
contacted her office and asked her what she wanted. She claims
it was an attempt at bribery.

John

[Jeff Sutter]

On Jan 1, 3:58 am, Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> That's what you get when you allow corporations to "own" broadband.  In
> some other countries the pipes are in the commons and the telecoms lease
> access to them.  There is real competition in those countries, high
> speed broadband and low prices. Of course the resident NeoCons here will
> say that you don't want government to be your broadband provider and the
> last time I raised the issue everyone chimed in that the corporate
> telecoms aren't exactly wonderful at it.

Well, I'll chime in, at the risk of being called names.

I don't want government to be my broadband provider. They haven't
proved themselves competent at running anything else in this town,
though they are always asking for, or taking without asking, more
money.

Meanwhile, our internet choices from for-profit entities improve
substantially every year, in pure price-performance terms. I'm not a
raving fan of the local corporate telecom's performance and antics,
but they seem to read the complaints I send to the board, and their
policies, procedures, and price/product offerings seem to reflect the
suggestions I seed with them. They seem to "hear" their customers,
and their service is fan-f-ingtastic in comparison to what it was in
the more regulated era.

If Dane can provide 18/1 UNE-P-based service with voice for $40/month,
and 100M symmetrical fiber for $70/month today, why would anyone want
their local bureaucrats trying their hand at it?

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Sutter" <lurk...@yahoo.com> wrote

> I don't want government to be my broadband provider. They haven't
> proved themselves competent at running anything else in this town,
> though they are always asking for, or taking without asking, more
> money.

I'd much rather have government provide utilities. They do a good job of
it. SF's Hetch Hetchy water is among the best in the world. The U.S.
Postal service ships packages at half the price of the for-profit carriers.
How often do you hear about the FAA causing mid-air collisions? Seldom if
ever.

And look at power. During the brownouts of the Gray Davis era, notice that
PG&E and Southern California Edision had brownouts, but not LA Dept of Water
and Power. They kept the lights on, as did Hetch Hetchy power, Alameda
power, etc.

The City of San Bruno provides Internet access as good or better than
Comcast. My customers who live there rave about how good the service is and
how they can always reach someone in customer service. Uh, AT&T anyone?

The City of Alameda provides power to its residents. No problems. Recently
they sold their Internet service to Comcast. Almost immediately people
began complaining about lousy service. I know because I have customers in
Alameda. I hear their complaints.

And then there's the profit motive. Government agencies don't have to tack
on extra charges in order to create profits, but commercial providers are
always trying to squeeze more and more money out of customers.

> If Dane can provide 18/1 UNE-P-based service with voice for $40/month,
> and 100M symmetrical fiber for $70/month today, why would anyone want
> their local bureaucrats trying their hand at it?

Dane is the exception that proves the rule. How many crappy Internet
providers are out there? When was the last time you talked with a real
human at AT&T or Comcast, Cox or Earthlink, or even Astound? And Astound is
supposedly run by "industry leaders".

[John Higdon]

In article
<956db6ca-3997-44b3...@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

Jeff Sutter <lurk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If Dane can provide 18/1 UNE-P-based service with voice for $40/month,
> and 100M symmetrical fiber for $70/month today, why would anyone want
> their local bureaucrats trying their hand at it?

Dane can provide it as long as AT&T does not feel threatened by it. AT&T
owns the cables and they could pull the plug at any time.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

[Roy]

On 12/31/2011 7:31 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>...

>
> And then there's the profit motive. Government agencies don't have to tack
> on extra charges in order to create profits, but commercial providers are
> always trying to squeeze more and more money out of customers.
>
>

>...

As anyone who has a private business can tell you, its hard to compare a
business to municipal one.

1. The municipal one doesn't pay taxes (income, property). Just look
at the DMV savings alone. How many millions of $ does AT&T and PGE pay
per year?

2. The municipal can borrow money at considerably lower costs because
the interest is tax free.

3. The municipal is exempt from many regulations. Even the PUC exempts
the municipal power companies from many of its rules either explicitly
or by saying "Utilities with fewer than 150,000 electric customers are
exempted from application of this standard."

[(null)]

In article <jdok24$u6v$1...@dont-email.me>,
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Sutter" <lurk...@yahoo.com> wrote

>The U.S.
>Postal service ships packages at half the price of the for-profit carriers.

They effectively serve different market segments. For example, it's cheaper
to send a <10lb package from SF to LA via USPS Priority than UPS Ground
but the opposite is true for packages >10lbs.

>How often do you hear about the FAA causing mid-air collisions? Seldom if
>ever.

FYI the FAA's official stance is that unless you're inside a cloud
it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid (this is regardless of
whether or not you're on an instrument flight plan).

[jcdill]

On 31/12/11 7:31 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> Postal service ships packages at half the price of the for-profit carriers.

Different level of service. When you match service levels (delivery
time frame, tracking, etc.) the USPS is not 50% of the other services.

jc

[Marcus Allen]

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:33:10 -0800, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Quite true. I recently had to ship 7 items across the country. FedEx
quoted me $16.95 each, while UPS quoted $18.10 each, both for their
Ground service. USPS Flat Rate was $5.00 each.

That's definitely not 50%. It's better.

[Roy]

I got a letter that I needed urgently. Since I was out of town, the
lady who picks up my mail when I am away took the letter and put it in a
prepared envelope of mine addressed to me on my trip. So it went from
one envelope and letter to two envelopes and one letter. It also now
had two first class stamps instead of one.

It arrived about three weeks later with a six cents postage due. Total
distance traveled about 800 miles. I had already gone home. Luckily I
was able to get a replacement letter but it screwed up accounting for
several months.

They call it snail mail for a reason.

Here's another one. A friend lives on a country road in Santa Clara
County. Its county maintained, has been there for 50 years and even has
a firehouse on it. Except for one small section, its dual lane. USPS
had now declared the road too "dangerous" to deliver mail. My friend
now has to drive four miles to get his mail. Fedex and UPS have no
problems delivering stuff to him.

[Steve Fenwick]

In article
<-oSdnRSAvqv6p5zS...@posted.southvalleyinternet>,

Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> On 1/1/2012 8:07 PM, Marcus Allen wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:33:10 -0800, jcdill<jcdill...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 31/12/11 7:31 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> >>> Postal service ships packages at half the price of the for-profit
> >>> carriers.
> >>
> >> Different level of service. When you match service levels (delivery
> >> time frame, tracking, etc.) the USPS is not 50% of the other services.
> >
> > Quite true. I recently had to ship 7 items across the country. FedEx
> > quoted me $16.95 each, while UPS quoted $18.10 each, both for their
> > Ground service. USPS Flat Rate was $5.00 each.
> >
> > That's definitely not 50%. It's better.
> >
>
> I got a letter that I needed urgently. Since I was out of town, the
> lady who picks up my mail when I am away took the letter and put it in a
> prepared envelope of mine addressed to me on my trip. So it went from
> one envelope and letter to two envelopes and one letter. It also now
> had two first class stamps instead of one.
>
> It arrived about three weeks later with a six cents postage due. Total
> distance traveled about 800 miles. I had already gone home. Luckily I
> was able to get a replacement letter but it screwed up accounting for
> several months.

Why was there postage due? Was the weight over the amount allowed by two
first class stamps? Or a problem with the thickness that caused the
sorters to reject it?

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[jcdill]

On 01/01/12 9:02 PM, Roy wrote:

> Here's another one. A friend lives on a country road in Santa Clara
> County. Its county maintained, has been there for 50 years and even has
> a firehouse on it. Except for one small section, its dual lane. USPS had
> now declared the road too "dangerous" to deliver mail. My friend now has
> to drive four miles to get his mail. Fedex and UPS have no problems
> delivering stuff to him.

Did they declare it "too dangerous" because of the 1-lane section, or
because of a dog problem? USPS will definitely stop delivering to a
home if you have a dog the mail carrier deems dangerous. Could it be
that there's a dangerous dog on this route that isn't kept confined in a
yard, and they have been unable to get the owner to confine the dog so
they have simply stopped driving on the road?

jc

[jcdill]

You are cherry picking your "results" with what were obviously heavy and
small items. Most shipments of heavy items don't qualify for the USPS
Flat Rate packages (the items are too large to fit into flat rate
boxes). Were you comparing with FedEx GROUND or with their more
expensive overnight or second-day shipping options?

And what USPS Flat Rate product is $5.00 (exactly)?

jc

[Roy]

The postmaster said the road was too dangerous and cut off delivery on
the whole road. Dogs tend to not run loose up there. There are
frequent observation of mountain lions.

[John Slade]

And the USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge. Try
that with UPS and FedEx. Also I never had the USPS just drop my
package in my yard like it was a sack of garbage. Actually I can
only blame this on FedEx, UPS delivers to the door and asks for
a signature. I think that's extra with FedEx.

John

[John Slade]

Not exactly. The law says that AT&T must share it's
cables with competitors. When the network goes to all fiber,
congress will force them to share those. There is no way AT&T
will be allowed to become the monopoly it once was. Right now
the FCC will not force big companies to share the new fiber
networks, but that will change before everything goes fiber.
They don't want to spook the biggies from laying fiber.

Right now the major wireless network companies like AT&T,
Sprint and Verizon are forced to share their service with
competitors.

John

[VR McGraw]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:15:10 -0800, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
wrote:

When I lived in Las Vegas back in the 80's, my neighbor had a 7-foot
Burmese python, (a relatively small one), that loved to coil on her
front step because of the direct access to the sun. The mail carrier
would bundle her mail with a rubber band and toss it over the fence,
into the yard. No idea what UPS or FedEx would have done.

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:16:35 -0800, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 01/01/12 8:07 PM, Marcus Allen wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:33:10 -0800, jcdill<jcdill...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/12/11 7:31 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>>>> Postal service ships packages at half the price of the for-profit carriers.
>>>
>>> Different level of service. When you match service levels (delivery
>>> time frame, tracking, etc.) the USPS is not 50% of the other services.
>>
>> Quite true. I recently had to ship 7 items across the country. FedEx
>> quoted me $16.95 each, while UPS quoted $18.10 each, both for their
>> Ground service. USPS Flat Rate was $5.00 each.
>>
>> That's definitely not 50%. It's better.
>
>You are cherry picking your "results" with what were obviously heavy and
>small items.

Maybe not so obvious. Package weights ranged from about a pound to as
much as 3.6 pounds.

>Most shipments of heavy items don't qualify for the USPS
>Flat Rate packages (the items are too large to fit into flat rate
>boxes). Were you comparing with FedEx GROUND or with their more
>expensive overnight or second-day shipping options?

As I stated above, I compared FedEx and UPS *GROUND* service to USPS
Flat Rate service. USPS Flat Rate service isn't a ground service so
you might expect it to be more expensive, but it was much less
expensive.

>And what USPS Flat Rate product is $5.00 (exactly)?

You could have checked the USPS web site, www.usps.com, to get that
answer. Click the link, click "Calculate a price", then on the next
screen select the Small Flat Rate box. It's marked $5.20 on that
screen, but if you use the web to print your postage and shipping
label it becomes an even $5.00. That's less than a third of the cost
of FedEx Ground or UPS Ground.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:59:28 -0800, John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

> And the USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge. Try
>that with UPS and FedEx. Also I never had the USPS just drop my
>package in my yard like it was a sack of garbage. Actually I can
>only blame this on FedEx, UPS delivers to the door and asks for
>a signature. I think that's extra with FedEx.

I have about 5 packages per week delivered to my palatial office
location in Santa Cruz. Mostly, eBay purchases. Since they're all
incoming, I don't have any control over shipping charges.

The USPS will attempt to deliver a package exactly once. There's a
sign on my mailslot door to leave the package at the neighboring
offices if I'm not in the office. Fedex and UPS do it correctly. USPS
ignores the note and leaves a form on the door for me to stand in line
for 30 minutes (yes, that's 30 minutes) at the downtown SCZ post
office to pickup the package. The parking meters at the USPS are
limited to 15 minutes resulting in frequent parking tickets. If I
make the mistake of arriving too early at the USPS, the package might
still be buried where the desk clerk can't find it. Occasionally, the
package is horribly delayed for reasons unknown. Since the USPS
offers only pickup and delivery confirmation, and not package
tracking, finding the package is impossible.

For outgoing mail, USPS, UPS, and Fedex are about equal for me. For
small packages and envelopes, USPS seems cheaper. For big and heavy,
I prefer UPS. If I want to make sure something actually arrives
without problems, I use Fedex.

Occasionally, something goes wrong with a delivery. Both UPS and
Fedex have efficient tracking and problem solving mechanism. Not so
with the USPS. I believe she may have retired, but the lady in charge
of customer service (or whatever it's called) for the USPS at the
downtown post office was my worst nightmare of a classic civil
servant. I wish I had recorded my attempt to get the USPS to leave
packages instead of having me stand in line. I had a considerably
better experience with the Ben Lomond post office, trying to untangle
why properly addressed letters were being returned to the sender.
Apparently the USPS reads addresses starting from the bottom line
(City ST ZIP) and will deliver to the FIRST address it sees, from the
bottom. If someone uses Zip+4, it goes to the Zip+4 destination, no
matter what address is specified. I don't have these problems with
Fedex and UPS.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[David Kaye]

"jcdill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote

> Did they declare it "too dangerous" because of the 1-lane section, or
> because of a dog problem? USPS will definitely stop delivering to a home
> if you have a dog the mail carrier deems dangerous.

And if it's too dangerous for the ubiquitous USPS to deliver, you can bet
that FedEx, DHL, and UPS aren't going to bother delivering there, either.

[David Kaye]

"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote

> And the USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge. Try that with
> UPS and FedEx. Also I never had the USPS just drop my package in my yard
> like it was a sack of garbage. Actually I can only blame this on FedEx,
> UPS delivers to the door and asks for a signature. I think that's extra
> with FedEx.

I have a housemate who orders audio equipment for delivery to our home.
He's switched to USPS because twice the commercial carriers apparently left
the boxes outside without signature and they were stolen or the delivery
guys stole them outright. He hasn't had any problem with USPS parcel
delivery since switching to them.

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:02:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:59:28 -0800, John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>> And the USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge. Try
>>that with UPS and FedEx. Also I never had the USPS just drop my
>>package in my yard like it was a sack of garbage. Actually I can
>>only blame this on FedEx, UPS delivers to the door and asks for
>>a signature. I think that's extra with FedEx.
>
>I have about 5 packages per week delivered to my palatial office
>location in Santa Cruz. Mostly, eBay purchases. Since they're all
>incoming, I don't have any control over shipping charges.
>
>The USPS will attempt to deliver a package exactly once. There's a
>sign on my mailslot door to leave the package at the neighboring
>offices if I'm not in the office. Fedex and UPS do it correctly. USPS
>ignores the note and leaves a form on the door for me to stand in line
>for 30 minutes (yes, that's 30 minutes) at the downtown SCZ post
>office to pickup the package. The parking meters at the USPS are
>limited to 15 minutes resulting in frequent parking tickets. If I
>make the mistake of arriving too early at the USPS, the package might
>still be buried where the desk clerk can't find it. Occasionally, the
>package is horribly delayed for reasons unknown. Since the USPS
>offers only pickup and delivery confirmation, and not package
>tracking, finding the package is impossible.

The USPS has been offering package tracking for years. In some cases,
it's an extra cost item. In other cases, it's included at no charge.
For the stuff I shipped just before the holidays, where I printed the
label and postage online, tracking was included at no extra charge.

>For outgoing mail, USPS, UPS, and Fedex are about equal for me. For
>small packages and envelopes, USPS seems cheaper. For big and heavy,
>I prefer UPS. If I want to make sure something actually arrives
>without problems, I use Fedex.
>
>Occasionally, something goes wrong with a delivery. Both UPS and
>Fedex have efficient tracking and problem solving mechanism. Not so
>with the USPS. I believe she may have retired, but the lady in charge
>of customer service (or whatever it's called) for the USPS at the
>downtown post office was my worst nightmare of a classic civil
>servant. I wish I had recorded my attempt to get the USPS to leave
>packages instead of having me stand in line. I had a considerably
>better experience with the Ben Lomond post office, trying to untangle
>why properly addressed letters were being returned to the sender.
>Apparently the USPS reads addresses starting from the bottom line
>(City ST ZIP) and will deliver to the FIRST address it sees, from the
>bottom. If someone uses Zip+4, it goes to the Zip+4 destination, no
>matter what address is specified. I don't have these problems with
>Fedex and UPS.

Hmmm, you mention "properly addressed letters" but then you make it
seem that the wrong Zip+4 address was used. Not so properly addressed,
I guess. But you're right, the USPS decodes addresses from the bottom
up. They always have.

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote

> The USPS will attempt to deliver a package exactly once. There's a
> sign on my mailslot door to leave the package at the neighboring
> offices if I'm not in the office. Fedex and UPS do it correctly. USPS
> ignores the note and leaves a form on the door for me to stand in line

> for 30 minutes [....]

And if the USPS leaves the package with someone other than you, the USPS is
liable if your neighbor steals the package. Oh, sure, you can say it never
happens, but my housemate has so far had two packages stolen that were
delivered by FedEx or UPS.

But once again, the commercial carriers can pick and choose where they want
to deliver. USPS is mandated by law to deliver to all addresses, even to
the point of contracting mail delivery to people who run mailboats, mail
planes, and dogsleds.

Once again, I'd much rather trust the government to do things right than to
trust private industry to do it because of (1) the extra money that must be
tacked on to the transaction to make the company's profit, and (2) the
incessant attempts by private companies to ding people for "service charges"
and otherwise squeeze every dollar they can out of people.

Can anybody say "Verizon"?

[David Kaye]

"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote

> Hmmm, you mention "properly addressed letters" but then you make it
> seem that the wrong Zip+4 address was used. Not so properly addressed,
> I guess. But you're right, the USPS decodes addresses from the bottom
> up. They always have.

Indeed. My dad was a mail carrier back in the 1950s and 60s, and they did
bottom-up sorting even back then. The Zip code is nothing foreign to
people. It's been around for 45 years. The USPS even offers a Zip+4 search
on their website.

There are so many people who want to blame the USPS for PERCEIVED injustices
that defy logic. The USPS delivers more mail than any other mail service in
the world, and at rates that are rock-bottom compared to every other modern
country of the world.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <FMydnddnePtiVJzS...@posted.sonicnet>,

You're giving Congress and AT&T too much credit. AT&T is upgrading
customer wiring to a different shitty product (U-verse) that doesn't
require sharing or offer anything worth sharing. There will never be
AT&T fiber to the home. The US government already tried to jumpstart
Internet service, even offering money for it, and the big telcos did
everything possible to make sure it wouldn't happen.

Hopefully the handful of networks providing fiber and Ethernet to the
home can slide under the radar until they're big enough to ward off
frivolous lawsuits by Comcast and AT&T.
--
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam

[David Kaye]

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmu...@pixelmemory.us> wrote

> The US government already tried to jumpstart
> Internet service, even offering money for it, and the big telcos did
> everything possible to make sure it wouldn't happen.

In other countries the government provides public utilities such as Internet
services. This may explain why most other countries of the civilized (and
even uncivilized) world are way ahead of us in Internet infrastructure.

> Hopefully the handful of networks providing fiber and Ethernet to the
> home can slide under the radar until they're big enough to ward off
> frivolous lawsuits by Comcast and AT&T.

I've always hated AT&T since the time when they sold their broadband
Internet (ATTBI) to Comcast, and then began whining about how they needed to
rape the landscape to intall lines and boxes for their current service.
Hello? Why didn't they keep ATTBI if they were so danged interested in
running broadband?

[poldy]

In article <jdstjo$cdl$1...@dont-email.me>,

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hopefully the handful of networks providing fiber and Ethernet to the
> > home can slide under the radar until they're big enough to ward off
> > frivolous lawsuits by Comcast and AT&T.
>
> I've always hated AT&T since the time when they sold their broadband
> Internet (ATTBI) to Comcast, and then began whining about how they needed to
> rape the landscape to intall lines and boxes for their current service.
> Hello? Why didn't they keep ATTBI if they were so danged interested in
> running broadband?

Was that the same AT&T though?

The current one was originally SouthWest Bell after the original breakup
and it kept acquiring the other RBOCs and eventually the right to the
old AT&T name.

Not sure AT&T which owned ATTBI was the same entity.

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:11:03 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>But once again, the commercial carriers can pick and choose where they want
>to deliver. USPS is mandated by law to deliver to all addresses, even to
>the point of contracting mail delivery to people who run mailboats, mail
>planes, and dogsleds.

In Kansas, where they recently had a bit of a snow storm, one older
female mail carrier delivered her route on horseback because the roads
weren't passable by car/truck. I have yet to see UPS and FedEx on
horseback. :-)

[John Slade]

I give them credit for being predictable only. U-Verse
uses the fiber and copper. They do provide FTTH now. AT&T knows
that they will eventually have to share the fiber they install.
U-Verse is AT&T's product that uses the FTTH or fiber to the
node network. It's not going to be shared.

> Hopefully the handful of networks providing fiber and Ethernet to the
> home can slide under the radar until they're big enough to ward off
> frivolous lawsuits by Comcast and AT&T.

If they do become big enough, they will be forced to share
their networks too. This is about net neutrality. Few people
want several private Internets where you can only access sites
on that private network. It would be silly and would only cause
more legislation to be passed forcing the big networks to allow
universal access.

John

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:15:25 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Marcus Allen" <mall...@none.invalid> wrote
>
>> Hmmm, you mention "properly addressed letters" but then you make it
>> seem that the wrong Zip+4 address was used. Not so properly addressed,
>> I guess. But you're right, the USPS decodes addresses from the bottom
>> up. They always have.
>
>Indeed. My dad was a mail carrier back in the 1950s and 60s, and they did
>bottom-up sorting even back then. The Zip code is nothing foreign to
>people. It's been around for 45 years. The USPS even offers a Zip+4 search
>on their website.

Likewise, my dad and one uncle were mail carriers from the late 50's
to the early 70's, with another uncle serving as Postmaster for an
even longer period. It being a very small town, I was sometimes
allowed to come in and help sort the mail. That's where I learned the
bottom-up procedure.

>There are so many people who want to blame the USPS for PERCEIVED injustices
>that defy logic. The USPS delivers more mail than any other mail service in
>the world, and at rates that are rock-bottom compared to every other modern
>country of the world.

I'm always somewhat mystified when I hear people say the USPS isn't
working and should be changed in some major way or even dismantled.
Private industry is in absolutely no position, and has no desire, to
step in and do what the USPS does. They operate at a loss, but look at
their fantastically low rates and the pension burden, for starters.

[John Slade]

On 1/2/2012 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:59:28 -0800, John Slade<hhit...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>> And the USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge. Try
>> that with UPS and FedEx. Also I never had the USPS just drop my
>> package in my yard like it was a sack of garbage. Actually I can
>> only blame this on FedEx, UPS delivers to the door and asks for
>> a signature. I think that's extra with FedEx.
>
> I have about 5 packages per week delivered to my palatial office
> location in Santa Cruz. Mostly, eBay purchases. Since they're all
> incoming, I don't have any control over shipping charges.
>
> The USPS will attempt to deliver a package exactly once. There's a
> sign on my mailslot door to leave the package at the neighboring
> offices if I'm not in the office. Fedex and UPS do it correctly.

Actually that's done for security reasons. I suggest next
time you just address the package to the neighboring office. One
thing about the USPS they have security procedures for packages
and when they see a note saying to deliver to an address that's
not on the box, it raises a red flag.

> USPS
> ignores the note and leaves a form on the door for me to stand in line
> for 30 minutes (yes, that's 30 minutes) at the downtown SCZ post
> office to pickup the package. The parking meters at the USPS are
> limited to 15 minutes resulting in frequent parking tickets. If I
> make the mistake of arriving too early at the USPS, the package might
> still be buried where the desk clerk can't find it. Occasionally, the
> package is horribly delayed for reasons unknown. Since the USPS
> offers only pickup and delivery confirmation, and not package
> tracking, finding the package is impossible.
>

USPS Priority Mail and Express Mail both offer tracking.
I have had lots of experience with ordering from USPS, UPS and
FedEx. I have had UPS lose a package. I've had FedEx just drop
an expensive package on my doorstep. A friend of mine had the
FedEx guy throw and expensive camera over her fence and into the
bushes. She raised holly hell because she thought her package
wasn't delivered. The vendor sent another package. Months later
she found the other camera when she was pruning her shrubs.

> For outgoing mail, USPS, UPS, and Fedex are about equal for me. For
> small packages and envelopes, USPS seems cheaper. For big and heavy,
> I prefer UPS. If I want to make sure something actually arrives
> without problems, I use Fedex.
>

I use them all and UPS and USPS are great. I try to stay
away from FedEx because I've had the worst experiences dealing
with Fedex. You probably haven't seen this recent video of a
FedEx employee delivering a package "the correct way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66nsrCMNu8

That kind of "professionalism" at FedEx is legendary.

> I had a considerably
> better experience with the Ben Lomond post office, trying to untangle
> why properly addressed letters were being returned to the sender.
> Apparently the USPS reads addresses starting from the bottom line
> (City ST ZIP) and will deliver to the FIRST address it sees, from the
> bottom. If someone uses Zip+4, it goes to the Zip+4 destination, no
> matter what address is specified. I don't have these problems with
> Fedex and UPS.

I get you, if someone puts the wrong zip+4 it goes to that
address because sometimes the +4 is an actual address. USPS, UPS
and FedEx all have their quirks, I've had the fewest problems
with UPS.

John

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:11:03 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> The USPS will attempt to deliver a package exactly once. There's a
>> sign on my mailslot door to leave the package at the neighboring
>> offices if I'm not in the office. Fedex and UPS do it correctly. USPS
>> ignores the note and leaves a form on the door for me to stand in line
>> for 30 minutes [....]
>
>And if the USPS leaves the package with someone other than you, the USPS is
>liable if your neighbor steals the package. Oh, sure, you can say it never
>happens, but my housemate has so far had two packages stolen that were
>delivered by FedEx or UPS.

If they leave it on the front porch, it's highly likely to evaporate.
However, I run a business. The instructions are to leave it with one
of the other tenants, all of whom I trust, not dump it on the
doorstep. Since 1990, nothing missing.

>But once again, the commercial carriers can pick and choose where they want
>to deliver. USPS is mandated by law to deliver to all addresses, even to
>the point of contracting mail delivery to people who run mailboats, mail
>planes, and dogsleds.

Amazing. Ben Lomond has some typical narrow mountain roads, where
learning to backup uphill is a required skill. UPS will deliver on
most of them. USPS won't.

Incidentally, Fedex seems to be following the USPS model. If they
can't deliver a package, it's now held at the local post office for
pickup. There was some kind of arrangement but I don't know the
details.

>Once again, I'd much rather trust the government to do things right than to
>trust private industry to do it because of (1) the extra money that must be
>tacked on to the transaction to make the company's profit, and (2) the
>incessant attempts by private companies to ding people for "service charges"
>and otherwise squeeze every dollar they can out of people.

<http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm>
Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year,
the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit
-- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has
averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the
last five years. Yet, Postal Service officials argue that they
must continue to raise postage at regular intervals in order
make up for the increased use of email.
I can't tell which 5 year period they're talking about. Probably
ancient history.

Meanwhile, the USPS is expecting a $3 billion loss for FY2012:
<http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/integrated-financial-plans/fy2012.pdf>
Read the Executive Summary near the top as the PDF won't let me
cut-n-paste. If that's true, then the government is subsidizing the
USPS to the tune of several billion per year, despite the alleged
restrictions.

Cheap loans, no taxes, hidden government subsidies, monopoly business
and they still can't make a profit? This is your idea of fiscal
efficiency?

>Can anybody say "Verizon"?

After you nationalize the package delivery services, I guess you can
work on nationalizing the communications companies.

[Jeff Liebermann]

I beg to differ. I know of several roads (including mine) in the SCZ
mountains, where the USPS demands a central mailbox drop area and will
NOT deliver to houses on these roads. In some cases, there's no room
for the central mailbox thing, and people have to go to the post
office to pickup their mail. On the other hand, one of my neighbors
is running a home business and has almost daily UPS pickup and
delivery without complaints or problems with the road. I would
describe my road as somewhat awkward, but apparently UPS package car
drivers are better drivers than me.

Incidentally, the USPS delivery vehicles are smaller than the typical
UPS package car. I would think the road would be easier to negotiate
in a smaller vehicle.
<http://www.filipinoforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7730>
Interesting that they claim the UPS package cars are overloaded, while
the USPS delivery vehicles are not. Interesting comments on "flats".

[Peter Lawrence]

On 1/2/12 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:59:28 -0800, John Slade<hhit...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> And the USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge. Try
>> that with UPS and FedEx. Also I never had the USPS just drop my
>> package in my yard like it was a sack of garbage. Actually I can
>> only blame this on FedEx, UPS delivers to the door and asks for
>> a signature. I think that's extra with FedEx.
>
> I have about 5 packages per week delivered to my palatial office
> location in Santa Cruz. Mostly, eBay purchases. Since they're all
> incoming, I don't have any control over shipping charges.
>
> The USPS will attempt to deliver a package exactly once.

Oh oh. Aren't most of your e-Bay purchases delivered via USPS (Priority
Mail or Parcel Post)? Mine are.

Since mine are sent to a residential address, I don't have such a problem as
you do at your business location.


- Peter

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <D6SdnUANN8JljZ_S...@posted.sonicnet>,

I have never seen a consumer-grade FTTH product from AT&T. Can you show
where this service exists?

Expect the U-Verse rollout to slow considerably. It done its job of
matching mid-range Comcast services. AT&T would be fine leaving
everything as it is for eternity.

> > Hopefully the handful of networks providing fiber and Ethernet to the
> > home can slide under the radar until they're big enough to ward off
> > frivolous lawsuits by Comcast and AT&T.
>
> If they do become big enough, they will be forced to share
> their networks too. This is about net neutrality. Few people
> want several private Internets where you can only access sites
> on that private network. It would be silly and would only cause
> more legislation to be passed forcing the big networks to allow
> universal access.
>
> John

AT&T has to share their lines because they were built with public money.

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote

> After you nationalize the package delivery services, I guess you can
> work on nationalizing the communications companies.

I have no problem with that. Way back in the early 1900s the SF board of
supervisors voted to run all utilities that served the public: power, water,
communications, transit. Some of these were waysided by entrenched
companies such as PG&E's predecessor.

But SF did start the first public transit system in the nation. Today it
continues to move a larger percentage of its residents than any other city,
including NYC. SF built the Muni in part because none of the then 7 --
SEVEN -- privately owned transit companies would build a tunnel through Twin
Peaks to provide public transit to the city's west side. None.

The private transit companies would only pick and choose the most convenient
and money-making routes. This is how SF originally ended up with dozens of
transit lines going between the Mission and downtown, but few along the less
lucrative corridors.

I'm all in favor of nationalizing our Internet infrastructure because
government pays attention to people; private monopolies do not. And the
tendency of any business is to create a monopoly for itself.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:47:21 -0800, John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

> Actually that's done for security reasons. I suggest next
>time you just address the package to the neighboring office.

Nope. None of the vendors will deliver to any address other than what
is on the credit card info. That includes different suite numbers.

>One
>thing about the USPS they have security procedures for packages
>and when they see a note saying to deliver to an address that's
>not on the box, it raises a red flag.

I've discussed it with DHL, Fedex, UPS, and USPS. All agreed that
it's not a problem as long someone signs for it. It's apparently not
common practice with the USPS, that mumbled some excuses, but
eventually agreed that it was at the delivery persons discretion
(which makes no sense).

Incidentally, when I got to the post office to pickup a package, I
have to sign on the signature capture machine. I found it rather
difficult to sign my name so that it was readable. It was explained
that the machine intentionally dithers the signature, so that it
cannot be recycled on a forged check or document. That left me
wondering why they bother.

> USPS Priority Mail and Express Mail both offer tracking.
>I have had lots of experience with ordering from USPS, UPS and
>FedEx.

I didn't know that, probably because I don't do any priority or
express mail. Mostly, I see the cheaper parcel post.
<https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction!input.action>

>You probably haven't seen this recent video of a
>FedEx employee delivering a package "the correct way".
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66nsrCMNu8
>That kind of "professionalism" at FedEx is legendary.

Ouch. Not good. There are several other videos on YouTube showing
delivery problems.

My father used to be in the lingerie manufacturing business in Smog
Angeles. Boxes were big and very light. Throwing them in and out of
the delivery truck was standard proceedure. However, that's not
acceptable for a fragile monitor.

> I get you, if someone puts the wrong zip+4 it goes to that
>address because sometimes the +4 is an actual address.

I didn't want to dive too deep into the details. The problem is
crappy shipping software. When the ZIP+4 code shows my PO Box, as in
95005-0272, it will go to the PO Box. However, sometimess, the
software looks up the ZIP+4 code for my house. If the delivery
address only shows the PO Box, the USPS will bounce the package. There
are several other mutations on this theme, including having the
software produce the ZIP+4 for the post office building. I solved the
problem by supplying mailing labels and later having everything
delivered to my office instead of the house. The one that caused me
the most grief is the county tax bill, which took me about 3 years to
fix.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:26:03 -0800, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Oh oh. Aren't most of your e-Bay purchases delivered via USPS (Priority
>Mail or Parcel Post)? Mine are.

Not really. My guess is about half USPS and half UPS. The big boxes
(computahs, monitors, test equipment, antennas, radios, etc)
invariably go via UPS. The small boxes (batteries, gadgets, gizmos,
junk) usually go via USPS. A few of the components arrive via Fedex
but that's probably because I tend to buy from a small group of
vendors that prefer Fedex.

[John Higdon]

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And if it's too dangerous for the ubiquitous USPS to deliver, you can bet

>that FedEx, DHL, and UPS aren't going to bother delivering there, either.

You need to get out more. There is a post office in Helendale, CA 92342.
There is a house there to which I need to send things all the time. Problem
is, the USPS will not deliver ANYTHING to any physical location other than
a P.O. box inside the post office. The house is actually in a neighborhood
about a mile from the post office, on a named residential street (as are
hundreds of other houses in Helendale, all roads paved with sidewalks) but
if you address mail to that street address and zip code, it is returned as
undeliverable or it just vanishes into thin air.

On the other hand, UPS, FedEx, DHL, and who knows how many other private
carriers have no problem whatsoever delivering to that street address.

If there is one situation in this country like that, you can bet your tush
there are hundreds more.


--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

[John Higdon]

In article <jdt7dd$a70$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:

> Oh oh. Aren't most of your e-Bay purchases delivered via USPS (Priority
> Mail or Parcel Post)? Mine are.
>
> Since mine are sent to a residential address, I don't have such a problem as
> you do at your business location.

Everything delivered to my San Jose address by the USPS gets one try. If
I'm not here, a little pink piece of paper is dropped in my mailbox and
I am invited to come down to the post office (where parking sucks) and
stand in the line that goes out the door.

Unless I'm expecting something I really want, I usually throw the notice
away and let them do whatever they do with the package. People have
learned that if they want something to really reach me, it needs to come
by a real carrier.

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:47:21 -0800, John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>On 1/2/2012 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> For outgoing mail, USPS, UPS, and Fedex are about equal for me. For
>> small packages and envelopes, USPS seems cheaper. For big and heavy,
>> I prefer UPS. If I want to make sure something actually arrives
>> without problems, I use Fedex.
>
> I use them all and UPS and USPS are great. I try to stay
>away from FedEx because I've had the worst experiences dealing
>with Fedex.

I'm only a single anecdote, but in my entire life I've only had one
package get lost in shipment. The carrier was FedEx. Fortunately,
insurance payoff was pretty quick and easy.

>You probably haven't seen this recent video of a
>FedEx employee delivering a package "the correct way".
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66nsrCMNu8
>
> That kind of "professionalism" at FedEx is legendary.

Wow...

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:44:55 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Cheap loans, no taxes, hidden government subsidies, monopoly business
>and they still can't make a profit? This is your idea of fiscal
>efficiency?

If UPS and FedEx had the same rate structure as USPS, how many
billions would they be in the red every year?

Six day per week delivery, established routes that people can count
on, delivery to virtually every address, all for less than 50 cents
per letter? And you wonder why they operate in the red?

>After you nationalize the package delivery services, I guess you can
>work on nationalizing the communications companies.

That idea has some merit.

[John Higdon]

In article <jdt7eu$afp$1...@dont-email.me>,

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But SF did start the first public transit system in the nation.

There is a big difference between operating street cars and busses, and
managing a modern telecommunications and data network.

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:28:16 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
<mcmu...@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

>Expect the U-Verse rollout to slow considerably. It done its job of
>matching mid-range Comcast services. AT&T would be fine leaving
>everything as it is for eternity.

You might be exactly right. In my small city of 100K, U-Verse is
available in limited areas, while Comcast is available throughout the
entire area. When I check the U-Verse website, it says no new
construction is planned here.

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:48:31 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:47:21 -0800, John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Actually that's done for security reasons. I suggest next
>>time you just address the package to the neighboring office.
>
>Nope. None of the vendors will deliver to any address other than what
>is on the credit card info. That includes different suite numbers.

I'm not sure who "the vendors" are, but both UPS and FedEx have left
packages with me on multiple occasions that they were unable to
deliver to my neighbors. I'm frequently home during the day and my
neighbors usually aren't. These deliveries have been limited to
packages that require a signature, otherwise they just leave the
package on the front step.

The reverse is also true. Amazon and Newegg, to name two vendors, have
no problem delivering my packages to any address I give them. Neither
has ever said, "waitaminnit, that don't match yer credit card". I
frequently have items shipped to a customer's residence so I don't
have to haul them myself. No problems so far. UPS, FedEx, and USPS
have no knowledge of the address associated with my credit card, so
they don't care.

On my street, the USPS has a secure package area where smallish
packages are left. The key is tossed into the respective mailbox.
Packages that are too big are brought to the door and left on the step
if I'm not home. Flats will be tucked between the outer and inner
doors.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:45:19 -0600, Marcus Allen
<mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:44:55 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Cheap loans, no taxes, hidden government subsidies, monopoly business
>>and they still can't make a profit? This is your idea of fiscal
>>efficiency?
>
>If UPS and FedEx had the same rate structure as USPS, how many
>billions would they be in the red every year?

You have it backwards. Perhaps if the USPS lost its monopoly position
and charged for its services what it would take to make a fair profit,
nobody would use the USPS? Perhaps if the taxpaying public had some
direct say in what it really costs to send things via the USPS, we
might not have a USPS. Let's do it the right way.

Instead of tweaking UPS and Fedex to look and operate like the
inefficient USPS, what would it take to make the USPS profitable.
Let's say 30% pre-tax profit on $50 billion/year. Right now, it's
about a $3 billion loss or about a 6% loss. So, we simply raise USPS
rates by about 40% and make it pay taxes. Then, we'll have a level
playing field. You won't notice the difference because most of that
money will come out of the allegedly non-existent subsidy that the
USPS is getting from the feds. Instead of paying it in taxes, you'll
pay it in user fees.

Let's take it step further. Read the USPS annual disaster report at:
<http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/integrated-financial-plans/fy2012.pdf>
and pretend you are a stockholder in such a company. Actually, you
don't have to pretend because you are a stockholder and are paying $3
billion per year to make up its losses. Would you consider such a
company properly managed? I wouldn't.

>Six day per week delivery, established routes that people can count
>on, delivery to virtually every address, all for less than 50 cents
>per letter? And you wonder why they operate in the red?

I keep repeating over and over. USPS will not deliver to my home.
They will not deliver on a wide range of nearby roads in the SCZ
mountains. UPS and Fedex will deliver. Saturday delivery might be
useful if I ran a retail establishment. I don't need it and if I did,
I would willingly pay an expedite fee.

As for the "low" cost, please note the above URL mumbling that as
first class mail (used to subsidize junk mail costs) drops, the losses
will "need" to be made up with increased charges or federal funding.

>>After you nationalize the package delivery services, I guess you can
>>work on nationalizing the communications companies.
>
>That idea has some merit.

Think about it. If you were the Feds, and decided to do exactly that,
how would you handle it? Would you build another useless bureaucracy?
Nope. I would do it exactly the way the FCC handled spectrum
management. I would auction off the right to serve customers with
broadband to the highest bidder from a list of "qualified" service
providers. I think you can work out for yourself what that will
produce.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:12:48 -0600, Marcus Allen
<mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:48:31 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:47:21 -0800, John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Actually that's done for security reasons. I suggest next
>>>time you just address the package to the neighboring office.
>>
>>Nope. None of the vendors will deliver to any address other than what
>>is on the credit card info. That includes different suite numbers.
>
>I'm not sure who "the vendors" are, but both UPS and FedEx have left
>packages with me on multiple occasions that they were unable to
>deliver to my neighbors.

I don't think you read my rant correctly. I currently have a sign on
my office door directing all delivery services to leave the package
with the neighboring offices. This has worked well for the last 20
years. What was suggested was to ADDRESS the package to the
neighbors, instead of to me. That won't work because none of the eBay
vendors will ship to any address other than my PayPal or credit card
address.

>The reverse is also true. Amazon and Newegg, to name two vendors, have
>no problem delivering my packages to any address I give them. Neither
>has ever said, "waitaminnit, that don't match yer credit card".

When I've tried to do that in the past, they want to "verify" the
address. I would usually get a phone call. That wouldn't be a
problem except that they seem to call for every package, every time.
When I order online from some random vendors, there's usually a
separate ship to address. Whenever that's different from the bill to
address, I get a phone call. Has this changed recently? If so, it
sucks because I expect my credit card orders to go to specific
addresses, not to some random address in Zimbabwe.

I usually use PayPal to pay for eBay purchases. I have only my office
address listed as a destination. I previously had my home address
listed, but gave up after I found that all packages to me had to be
picked up at the post office (which is only open 5 days per week). I
could add all the neighboring office addresses, but since I don't have
a clue who will be in when the delivery service arrives, that seems
useless.
Paypal -> My Account -> Profile -> Street Address

>I
>frequently have items shipped to a customer's residence so I don't
>have to haul them myself. No problems so far. UPS, FedEx, and USPS
>have no knowledge of the address associated with my credit card, so
>they don't care.

True. The delivery services don't care because they're not involved
in paying for the item (unless you ship it COD).

>On my street, the USPS has a secure package area where smallish
>packages are left. The key is tossed into the respective mailbox.
>Packages that are too big are brought to the door and left on the step
>if I'm not home. Flats will be tucked between the outer and inner
>doors.

The USPS wanted us to get a CBU (cluster box unit). With 30+
mailboxes involved, the list price would have been about $3,500.
<http://www.mailboxworks.com/cbu-mailboxes.html>
We decided to go cheap and stay with the traditional mailboxes.

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote

> Instead of tweaking UPS and Fedex to look and operate like the
> inefficient USPS, what would it take to make the USPS profitable.

What basis do you have to claim that the USPS is inefficient? The USPS is a
hallmark of efficiency. Do you realize how many billions of pieces of mail
USPS handles?

If anything could be called inefficient it's having post offices in every
community. But that continues to exist because the congress has tied its
hands. Whenever the USPS talks about shutting down post offices the seniors
get all riled up and pressure their congress person to block the shutdown.
Heck, there's an episode from "Petticoat Junction" back in 1967 or so about
closing a post office and even then the townsfolk got pissed off over it.

The USPS could save a lot of money by simply shutting down post offices in
communities of fewer than 30,000 people. That would bring it to the retail
store service level of FedEx and UPS. But the public would never stand for
it. They'd stand for having no FedEx store in Brisbane and South SF,
Pescadero, and San Gregorio, Montara and Nicasio, but they'd never stand for
having no post office in any of those towns.

So, the USPS is stuck because people romanticize the post office.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:26:54 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> After you nationalize the package delivery services, I guess you can
>> work on nationalizing the communications companies.
>
>I have no problem with that.

(...)

Topic drift. Let's get back to government operated services.

No comment on the USPS projected loss of $3 billion in FY2012?
Is that your idea of a government operated service "doing it right"
while private carriers are making a profit? Note that the $3 billion
deficit will be paid by the taxpayer.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:30:21 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Instead of tweaking UPS and Fedex to look and operate like the
>> inefficient USPS, what would it take to make the USPS profitable.
>
>What basis do you have to claim that the USPS is inefficient?

$2.2 billion loss in FY2011. $3.0 billion projected loss in FY2012.
<http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/integrated-financial-plans/fy2012.pdf>

In case you haven't noticed, there's absolutely no incentive for the
USPS to break even. If they overshoot, it goes to the general fund.
If they generate a $3 billion loss, the taxpayer makes up the
difference. Why bother being "efficient"?

>The USPS is a
>hallmark of efficiency. Do you realize how many billions of pieces of mail
>USPS handles?

Certainly. But quantity is not a good substitute for quality. If the
USPS generates a loss on each piece of mail handled, then it's not
efficient.

>If anything could be called inefficient it's having post offices in every
>community.

Not to worry. The USPS is closing those highly convenient but
expensive rural offices in the name of efficiency, err... deficit
reduction. The $3.0 billion projected FY2012 loss is based on an
assumed savings of $2.5 billion in "reduced hours" which is yet
another euphemism for reductions in services. (see above URL at
bottom of Executive Summary).

>But that continues to exist because the congress has tied its
>hands. Whenever the USPS talks about shutting down post offices the seniors
>get all riled up and pressure their congress person to block the shutdown.
>Heck, there's an episode from "Petticoat Junction" back in 1967 or so about
>closing a post office and even then the townsfolk got pissed off over it.

Yep. That's the way it works. Kinda the opposite of NIMBY. Find
someone in a fairly new community, with a single post office serving a
major number of zip codes, and ask the residents what they think of
the USPS. Also, look at the various financial reports:
<http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/welcome.htm>
As near as I can read between the buzz words, the major expenses for
the USPS are not facilities and maintenance. It's the retirement
fund, salaries, and loaded overhead. The only way the USPS is going
to reduce expenses is to lose some employees. Never mind the senior
citizens. It's the NALC (National Association of Letter Carriers)
that's the problem.

>The USPS could save a lot of money by simply shutting down post offices in
>communities of fewer than 30,000 people. That would bring it to the retail
>store service level of FedEx and UPS. But the public would never stand for
>it. They'd stand for having no FedEx store in Brisbane and South SF,
>Pescadero, and San Gregorio, Montara and Nicasio, but they'd never stand for
>having no post office in any of those towns.

Agreed, assuming post office closures also includes a reduction in
employees. However, that's unlikely for the same reason we still have
Saturday delivery (hint: overtime). The union won't tolerate it.

>So, the USPS is stuck because people romanticize the post office.

Close. More like unions, sacred cows, and tradition.

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote

>
> Topic drift. Let's get back to government operated services.

Topic drift? We're talking about government owned Internet, and I'm all in
favor of it. Public utilities should be owned and run for the benefit of
the public, not for private industry.

Other countries do it and seem to have more advanced facilities than we do.
Again, it's because governments don't have to squeeze profits out of their
infrastructure -- so you don't have 60-year old gas mains erupting and
burning down 70 homes, you don't have overloaded high tension lines melting
and causing power outages at Candlestick or in the Northwest, etc.

For-profit utlities have to amortize their infrastructure over X number of
years PLUS create a profit for their shareholders, so they squeeze every BIT
of use out it that they can, even when it's unsafe. PG&E has long regarded
itself as America's best "investor-owned" utility, and they're a
laughingstock. Goodness knows how the other private utilities fare in
comparison.

Again, you don't hear complaints about LA's Department of Water and Power,
the government agency that provides most of the power to the city of Los
Angeles.

How many people here live or work in San Bruno's municipal cable/Internet
territory? What are your opinions of their service?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:30:21 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So, the USPS is stuck because people romanticize the post office.

Reading the financial reports, I find that USPS volume is dropping
steadily at about 6% per year. At that rate, we only have to wait 17
years before the volume hits zero and there will be no more need for
the USPS.

[Jonz]

Heh... I noticed you deftly slipped around the topic of the USPS loosing
$3B in 2012. Another example of gov't employees working at top speed.

Jonz

[Jonz]

On 1/2/2012 6:30 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "Jeff Liebermann"<je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Instead of tweaking UPS and Fedex to look and operate like the
>> inefficient USPS, what would it take to make the USPS profitable.
>
> What basis do you have to claim that the USPS is inefficient? The USPS is a
> hallmark of efficiency.

BOGGLE... What planet DO you live on. Oh, I forgot, you live in San
Francisco.

I used to live in San Francisco once upon a time, (I hang my head in
shame now) actually in the Mid '60s. Even back then I had to deliver
mis-delivered mail up and down the street I lived on. This wasn't a
occasional undertaking by any means. I did this four nights out of six
every week of the year. About half of my mail was dropped of by neighbors.

Oh yes, The USPS is certainly a hallmark of inefficiency. They are right
up there with the DMV and the TSA.

Jonz

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote

> $2.2 billion loss in FY2011. $3.0 billion projected loss in FY2012.
> <http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/integrated-financial-plans/fy2012.pdf>

Only because its hands are tied by the Congress. They have to pay their
pension plan IN ADVANCE, something the Republicans have saddled them with in
order to try to get rid of government pensions (and maybe the post office
entirely). Plus, the post office is now allowed to raise postage rates
(already among the lowest in the world), or cut Saturday delivery, or close
post offices without Congressional approval.

How many federal agencies are hamstrung to the Congress so that they need
approval for every move they make? Damned few.

[Roy]

On 1/2/2012 10:11 AM, David Kaye wrote:
> ....
>
> ...

>
> But once again, the commercial carriers can pick and choose where they want
> to deliver. USPS is mandated by law to deliver to all addresses, even to
> the point of contracting mail delivery to people who run mailboats, mail
> planes, and dogsleds.
>

> ...
>

Not true.

USPS makes its own rules on what is an allowed address.

A few years ago, I was involved with a business in San Martin. We were
one block from the Post Office and actually in the old post office.

We were told we had to use a PO Box. There is no delivery to the
business area of the town. What added insult to injury was that we had
to pay for a larger box to hold all our mail.

And you must have missed the point about my friend's road being declared
off limits.

[Roy]

On 1/2/2012 10:01 AM, David Kaye wrote:
> "jcdill"<jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Did they declare it "too dangerous" because of the 1-lane section, or
>> because of a dog problem? USPS will definitely stop delivering to a home
>> if you have a dog the mail carrier deems dangerous.
>

> And if it's too dangerous for the ubiquitous USPS to deliver, you can bet
> that FedEx, DHL, and UPS aren't going to bother delivering there, either.
>
>
>

Fedex and UPS haven't been a problem. They say they are not changing
deliveries.

[David Kaye]

"Jonz" <no....@ishome.com> wrote

> Heh... I noticed you deftly slipped around the topic of the USPS loosing
> $3B in 2012. Another example of gov't employees working at top speed.

Your email address appears to be accurate: no....@ishome.com -- you are
acting like a real clod here. You've been propagandized into believing that
government workers are lazy, that they don't do a very good job, that
they're slackers. And yet government workers are among the MOST supervised
of all because everybody is on their backs, and they don't get pay raises
unless they qualify for them.

Contrast this with workers in the private sector who can lay the boss and
get raises. Need I cite examples for this? I can, y'know...

[David Kaye]

"Jonz" <no....@ishome.com> wrote

> I used to live in San Francisco once upon a time, (I hang my head in shame
> now)

Fine. Stay out of SF. We have more people than we can handle. Our
population is now the highest it's ever been. We have an educated
workforce, a transit-first policy, a publicly owned water system, public
power for our government offices, a publicly funded free wi-fi system in
some neighborhoods.

Health care? Have pity on us, dear one. We have one of the BEST acute care
hospitals in the nation -- AND it's a public county hospital, no less. We
have a publicly-funded home for the aged which has been in the process of
rebuilding. We have a program called HealthSF which provides critical
insurance for a lot of people who have fallen through the cracks in medical
insurance.

In short, our little socialist empire of San Francisco is doing everything
RIGHT, while you folks are wondering whether you're going to have to eat cat
food and live on the street when you get too old to hold a job.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:30:21 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Instead of tweaking UPS and Fedex to look and operate like the
>> inefficient USPS, what would it take to make the USPS profitable.
>
>What basis do you have to claim that the USPS is inefficient?

Well, maybe there's hope for the USPS. They're going to close about
250 processing centers and plan to vaporize 28,000 jobs (about 6% of
500,000 employees). It's too much of a coincidence that the decline
in volume is exactly equal to the percentage of employees lost. At
that rate, the USPS disappears into a black hole in 17 years. Yep, a
highly efficient example of a government operated business. Of
course, few of the employees will be fired. They will be reassigned
to feather-bedding jobs in other offices, which are already
over-staffed. The ones that are laid off or fired, will sue for
breach of contract, unlawful termination, mental anguish, and demand
that the government support them for the rest of their lives. Since
it costs the Justice Dept less to negotiate and pay, rather than risk
a gigantic award by the courts, we can add more to the $11.1 billion
per year USPS retirement burden. At the end of FY2012 there will be
another unanticipated shortfall of a few billion dollars, which will
be supplied by the taxpayers.

USPS rates go up 3-5% on Jan 22, 2012:
<http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_128.htm>

<http://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/list-of-post-offices-scheduled-for-closure/>
For SF, that would close:
San Francisco Bernal SAN FRANCISCO CA
San Francisco Civic Center Box SAN FRANCISCO CA
San Francisco Federal SAN FRANCISCO CA
San Francisco McLaren SAN FRANCISCO CA
San Francisco San Mateo 25th Ave SAN MATEO CA

You mentioned that the USPS is stuck with unfair regulations,
excessive congressional oversight, and have no control over their
finances. This is true. That's exactly what happens when big
business, big unions, and big government meet and reach a compromise
on how things should be run. For example, the Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act of 2006, which demands the USPS fund 75 years
worth of health care to retirees in 10 years was part of a rate
increase compromise intended to throw something at labor union
interests.

Conclusion: The way the USPS currently operates is NOT a good model
for a government operated internet service operator because it's
highly likely to end up a clone of the USPS.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:00:39 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> $2.2 billion loss in FY2011. $3.0 billion projected loss in FY2012.
>> <http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/integrated-financial-plans/fy2012.pdf>
>
>Only because its hands are tied by the Congress. They have to pay their
>pension plan IN ADVANCE, something the Republicans have saddled them with in
>order to try to get rid of government pensions (and maybe the post office
>entirely).

Nope. It's not pensions but retirees health care that's pre-funded.
That was tacked onto the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of
2006 to give something to the trade union. Also, congress does not
set the postal rates. It's set by the PRC (Postal Regulatory Commish)
which is under the executive (presidents) office, not congress. The
PRC is responsible for supplying reports to congress, but there's no
direct oversight. As I vaguely recall, this arrangement was necessary
in 1970 to prevent congress from "privatizing" the USPS.

>Plus, the post office is now allowed to raise postage rates
>(already among the lowest in the world), or cut Saturday delivery, or close
>post offices without Congressional approval.

The PRC sets those rates.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Regulatory_Commission>

>How many federal agencies are hamstrung to the Congress so that they need
>approval for every move they make? Damned few.

None, thankfully. Starting in 1992, the FCC controlled cable TV
rates. In 1999, that was transferred to the LFA (local franchising
authority), which is usually the county:
<http://www.fcc.gov/guides/regulation-cable-tv-rates>
<http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html>
In short, the FCC couldn't handle it, tried anyway, botched it, and
required an act of congress to rip it out of their inept hands. Do
you really want an organization like the FCC running your internet
access?

[do...@11.usenet.us.com]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Incidentally, Fedex seems to be following the USPS model. If they
> can't deliver a package, it's now held at the local post office for
> pickup. There was some kind of arrangement but I don't know the
> details.

I have had "FedEx" shipments arrive at the local USPS.
They don't deliver to any addresses around here (who said others get to
pick and chose, and USPS delivers to all?), so the FedEx delivery was held
for me at the Post Office, 10 miles away.

Larger FedEx shipments, and UPS shipments arrive at my house.
USPS mail is typically dropped at a box-pod... a bunch of mailboxes in a
single location. If a signature is required, it will be held in town.

In town, there are no USPS addressed deliveries. Everything must be to
paid P.O. Boxes. Out of town, it is to "addresses", but really to the
free box-pods.

At another property, Noble Ranch Road was misspelled as Noble Branch
Road on a DirecTV account. FedEx, UPS, and the installation guy had no
problem with that, but USPS rejected shipments.

UPS stopped by here and asked if a shipment with a last name that they
had delivered to me once belonged here, even though it was sent to a P.O.
Box and had no street address.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

[John Higdon]

In article <73q4g71req1q5fpak...@4ax.com>,

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> In case you haven't noticed, there's absolutely no incentive for the
> USPS to break even. If they overshoot, it goes to the general fund.
> If they generate a $3 billion loss, the taxpayer makes up the
> difference. Why bother being "efficient"?

There is another problem, which would apply to government run Internet:
no incentive to innovate. The technologies that enable broadband,
including the ones that other countries use to provide service have come
from private development, not government programs...in any country.

If the post office went away, I would probably not miss it. It is a
dinosaur serving as a warning sign against government run or government
dependent operations.

[John Higdon]

In article <jdtuh3$av$1...@dont-email.me>,

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Only because its hands are tied by the Congress. They have to pay their
> pension plan IN ADVANCE, something the Republicans have saddled them with in
> order to try to get rid of government pensions (and maybe the post office
> entirely). Plus, the post office is now allowed to raise postage rates
> (already among the lowest in the world), or cut Saturday delivery, or close
> post offices without Congressional approval.

Excuses don't count. Whatever the reason, the post office has become
useless and it is no longer necessary. I would say that's it cue to go.

> How many federal agencies are hamstrung to the Congress so that they need
> approval for every move they make? Damned few.

That's REALLY scary! Are you saying that most federal agencies are
completely free-running and answerable to on one?

I guess we already knew that. At least private companies are answerable
to the marketplace.

[Jonz]

On 1/2/2012 8:10 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>
> In short, our little socialist empire of San Francisco is doing everything

> RIGHT...
>

Umm... I'll remember that the next time a handout is demanded of me by
one of the great unwashed panhandlers and/or so-called "street
musicians" that are so plentiful on the streets, sidewalks, and other
areas of your "little socialist empire of San Francisco".

Jonz

[Marcus Allen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:48:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:45:19 -0600, Marcus Allen
><mall...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:44:55 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Cheap loans, no taxes, hidden government subsidies, monopoly business
>>>and they still can't make a profit? This is your idea of fiscal
>>>efficiency?
>>
>>If UPS and FedEx had the same rate structure as USPS, how many
>>billions would they be in the red every year?
>
>You have it backwards.

Nope, read it again. I was making a point.

>Perhaps if the USPS lost its monopoly position
>and charged for its services what it would take to make a fair profit,
>nobody would use the USPS?

The USPS isn't a monopoly.

>Perhaps if the taxpaying public had some
>direct say in what it really costs to send things via the USPS, we
>might not have a USPS. Let's do it the right way.

Ok, let's name a few industries where the taxpaying public, who are
the users of that industry, after all, have a direct say in what it
costs to use that industry.

1.
2.
3.

I can't think of any, and I don't understand the point you're trying
to make.

>>Six day per week delivery, established routes that people can count
>>on, delivery to virtually every address, all for less than 50 cents
>>per letter? And you wonder why they operate in the red?
>
>I keep repeating over and over. USPS will not deliver to my home.
>They will not deliver on a wide range of nearby roads in the SCZ
>mountains. UPS and Fedex will deliver. Saturday delivery might be
>useful if I ran a retail establishment. I don't need it and if I did,
>I would willingly pay an expedite fee.

I said "virtually every address", and those weren't weasel words, they
were fact. Your address is apparently one of the few exceptions and
you seem to be letting that severely cloud your perspective.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:26:03 -0600, Marcus Allen
<mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>The USPS isn't a monopoly.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status>

>>Perhaps if the taxpaying public had some
>>direct say in what it really costs to send things via the USPS, we
>>might not have a USPS. Let's do it the right way.
>
>Ok, let's name a few industries where the taxpaying public, who are
>the users of that industry, after all, have a direct say in what it
>costs to use that industry.

We elect the board of directors for the local water districts, school
board (the education industry), and various public electric utilities
(e.g. LA Dept of Water and Power). We also have a direct influence on
various monopoly franchises (cable TV) in the county. Meanwhile, the
governing board of the USPS is hand picked by the US president.

>I can't think of any, and I don't understand the point you're trying
>to make.

Easy. If the total cost of sending a letter via the USPS was actually
paid by the general public in the form of stamps and metered mail,
then my guess(tm) is that it would be about 50% higher than today.
That includes paying for the retirement plans and early retirement
downsizing. Instead, it's well hidden in the $2-3 billion shortfall
each year. I'm fairly sure heads would roll if the USPS was forced to
run at break even, where the losses from the previous years were
rolled into rate increases in the following years. Other than the
monopoly on first class mail, Fedex and UPS have done quite well
competing with an allegedly break even and non-tax paying operation.
Were the USPS to raise their rates about 50% (every year), I suspect
there will be underground alternative services appearing.

>I said "virtually every address", and those weren't weasel words, they
>were fact. Your address is apparently one of the few exceptions and
>you seem to be letting that severely cloud your perspective.

Not really. I live in a mountain area. In about 1960, the county
mapped the roads and designate which roads would be county maintained
and which would be owner maintained. My guess(tm) is that about 25%
of the road mileage in the hills are owner maintained. This has
apparently become a problem for the county, which installed signs
marking the "end of county maintained road" in various places.
Immediately afterwards, the USPS decided that it would not deliver to
mailboxes located on owner maintained roads, no matter what the road
condition. I have no clue as to how many addresses are affected. I
know of two developments in SCZ county, with nice wide private paved
roads, that were forced to get a community mailbox at the border or PO
boxes.

<http://ask.metafilter.com/36359/When-will-our-neighborhood-get-doortodoor-USPS-mail-delivery>
If the U.S. Postal Service could, however, virtually every
neighborhood nationwide would have curbside delivery, said
Gary Sawtelle, spokesman for the Suncoast district. "It's
a more efficient form of delivery for us." He said the service
has not offered door delivery as an option in new communities
since at least the mid-1990s.
I don't know if this is really true since the delivery routes are
decided by the local post office, but it seems like that's what's
happening.

Services will continue to be reduced until efficiency improves?

[David Kaye]

"Jonz" <no....@ishome.com> wrote

> Umm... I'll remember that the next time a handout is demanded of me by one
> of the great unwashed panhandlers and/or so-called "street musicians" that
> are so plentiful on the streets, sidewalks, and other areas of your
> "little socialist empire of San Francisco".

You confuse panhandlers with professional performers. One of the
jazz/ragtime great guitarists, Craig Ventresco (he did the sountracks for
such movies as "Crumb" and Steve Buscemi's "Ghost World") plays from time to
time in the 24th Street BART station. There are many others, but I won't
bore you. Street busking is a style of performing that goes back at least
1000 years.

[John Higdon]

In article <s4l6g79b367f1fm4o...@4ax.com>,

Marcus Allen <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

> Ok, let's name a few industries where the taxpaying public, who are
> the users of that industry, after all, have a direct say in what it
> costs to use that industry.
>
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.

Ok, let's name a few industries where the taxpaying public, who are the

users of that industry, after all, are on the hook for costs, including
cost overruns incurred by that industry.

1.
2.
3.

> I said "virtually every address", and those weren't weasel words, they
> were fact. Your address is apparently one of the few exceptions and
> you seem to be letting that severely cloud your perspective.

How about Helendale, CA? Yes, there is a post office: 92342, the zip
code of Helendale. No, the post office does not deliver to a single
address in Helendale. Yes, the streets are paved, and the houses have
numbers.

Want mail? Rent and check your PO box daily. Want FedEx? Delivered to
your door. Want UPS? Delivered to your door. Want DHL? Delivered to your
door.

Should I go on?

[Marcus Allen]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:01:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:26:03 -0600, Marcus Allen
><mall...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>The USPS isn't a monopoly.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status>

Seriously? You're going to trot out a poorly written Wikipedia article
that's prefaced by five disclaimers?

Ask yourself a simple question: if you want to send "mail", whatever
mail means to you, to someone, are you required to use the US Post
Office? Of course, not. It's pretty hard to call that model a
monopoly.

>>>Perhaps if the taxpaying public had some
>>>direct say in what it really costs to send things via the USPS, we
>>>might not have a USPS. Let's do it the right way.
>>
>>Ok, let's name a few industries where the taxpaying public, who are
>>the users of that industry, after all, have a direct say in what it
>>costs to use that industry.
>
>We elect the board of directors for the local water districts, school
>board (the education industry), and various public electric utilities
>(e.g. LA Dept of Water and Power). We also have a direct influence on
>various monopoly franchises (cable TV) in the county. Meanwhile, the
>governing board of the USPS is hand picked by the US president.

I can't believe you're using local government as a basis for having a
hand in the USPS. Maybe the question needs to be reframed. What other
piece of Federal Government allows members of the taxpaying public to
have a direct say in what it costs to run that program?

>>I can't think of any, and I don't understand the point you're trying
>>to make.
>
>Easy. If the total cost of sending a letter via the USPS was actually
>paid by the general public in the form of stamps and metered mail,
>then my guess(tm) is that it would be about 50% higher than today.
>That includes paying for the retirement plans and early retirement
>downsizing.

We agree on that and it's something I've said repeatedly in this
thread. USPS rates are too low, generally.

>Instead, it's well hidden in the $2-3 billion shortfall
>each year.

I don't know what's meant by "well hidden". It sounds like you have a
problem with the way Congress has decreed the USPS will operate. None
of your objections so far have anything to do with the actual USPS.

>I'm fairly sure heads would roll if the USPS was forced to
>run at break even, where the losses from the previous years were
>rolled into rate increases in the following years.

Congress has so far shown that they are immune to standard "heads will
roll" logic.

>Other than the monopoly on first class mail,

Which doesn't exist...

>Fedex and UPS have done quite well
>competing with an allegedly break even and non-tax paying operation.

FedEx and UPS don't compete with the USPS on an even basis. They
basically do package and letter delivery. They don't make regular
rounds, they don't have the equivalent of neighborhood post offices,
and they don't do a bunch of other stuff that the USPS does. And when
you say they've done quite well, you ignore the fact that they charge
200% to 300% or more than the USPS is allowed to charge for similar
services. Given the price differential, there's very little reason why
FedEx and UPS shouldn't do "quite well".

>Were the USPS to raise their rates about 50% (every year), I suspect
>there will be underground alternative services appearing.
>
>>I said "virtually every address", and those weren't weasel words, they
>>were fact. Your address is apparently one of the few exceptions and
>>you seem to be letting that severely cloud your perspective.
>
>Not really. I live in a mountain area. In about 1960, the county
>mapped the roads and designate which roads would be county maintained
>and which would be owner maintained. My guess(tm) is that about 25%
>of the road mileage in the hills are owner maintained. This has
>apparently become a problem for the county, which installed signs
>marking the "end of county maintained road" in various places.
>Immediately afterwards, the USPS decided that it would not deliver to
>mailboxes located on owner maintained roads, no matter what the road
>condition. I have no clue as to how many addresses are affected. I
>know of two developments in SCZ county, with nice wide private paved
>roads, that were forced to get a community mailbox at the border or PO
>boxes.

You realize this is a 'local' newsgroup, right? Your personal
experiences within your neighborhood don't translate to the rest of
the country. I think it's important to view each of the big 3 delivery
services on a national level, not under the microscope of your
particular neighborhood.

>Services will continue to be reduced until efficiency improves?

Like most of what you said above, that too is disingenuous. Congress
has, time and time again, restricted or outright blocked proposed rate
hikes that were needed to allow the USPS to break even, so given a
situation where they're forced to operate at a loss, what should they
do? They can't raise more revenue, so the other side of the coin is to
cut costs, usually by cutting services. It's not rocket science or
even advanced economics. It's pretty simple, actually. Yet, proposals
to cut services are also blocked by Congress. Rock and a hard place,
eh?

[Marcus Allen]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:48:33 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

I can't see that you're getting anywhere, so there are really only two
choices. Dig more furiously, or put the shovel down.

[John Slade]

On 1/2/2012 1:28 PM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article<D6SdnUANN8JljZ_S...@posted.sonicnet>,
> John Slade<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/2/2012 10:23 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>> In article<FMydnddnePtiVJzS...@posted.sonicnet>,
>>> John Slade<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>
>> I give them credit for being predictable only. U-Verse
>> uses the fiber and copper. They do provide FTTH now. AT&T knows
>> that they will eventually have to share the fiber they install.
>> U-Verse is AT&T's product that uses the FTTH or fiber to the
>> node network. It's not going to be shared.
>
>
> I have never seen a consumer-grade FTTH product from AT&T. Can you show
> where this service exists?
>
> Expect the U-Verse rollout to slow considerably. It done its job of
> matching mid-range Comcast services. AT&T would be fine leaving
> everything as it is for eternity.
>

It's in some areas for sure. It's in limited deployment
right now. You might ask on the DSLreports.com forums they have
people there who actually have the service. Right now AT&T is
content with FTTN in most areas but they want to push the FTTH
for the future as Comcast and other competitors are supplying
faster and faster speeds. I think Comcast offers a 100Mbit
business service here for a very reasonable price.

>
>>> Hopefully the handful of networks providing fiber and Ethernet to the
>>> home can slide under the radar until they're big enough to ward off
>>> frivolous lawsuits by Comcast and AT&T.
>>
>> If they do become big enough, they will be forced to share
>> their networks too. This is about net neutrality. Few people
>> want several private Internets where you can only access sites
>> on that private network. It would be silly and would only cause
>> more legislation to be passed forcing the big networks to allow
>> universal access.
>>
>> John
>
> AT&T has to share their lines because they were built with public money.

That's not the reason. If there is limited space or
resources for other companies to lay fiber, then the congress
will force AT&T and other fiber networks to share. If not they
will help smaller companies lay fiber in order to compete. Like
I said it's about avoiding monopolies whenever possible.

John

[Thad Floryan]

On 1/2/2012 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> [...] Since the USPS
> offers only pickup and delivery confirmation, and not package
> tracking, finding the package is impossible.
> [...]

Not true; examine both pages of this PDF which shows the tracking
of a RAM purchase from NewEgg in August 2011 showing the expected
delivery to be August 8, 2011 but it was delivered earlier and
placed in my mailbox by USPS on August 5, 2011 at 3:10pm:

<http://thadlabs.com/FILES/NewEgg_USPS_tracking.pdf>

That's pretty good (36 hours total from order to receipt) for NewEgg's
free shipping and USPS delivery of a padded envelope with tracking
info at every handoff along the way. This wasn't anything special,
just 4GB at $44 to upgrade one of my systems. Note the tracking
info shows its beginnings in Fontana CA, then San Leandro CA, then
San Francisco, then Los Altos, then finally my mailbox.

[Thad Floryan]

On 1/2/2012 5:48 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:45:19 -0600, Marcus Allen
> <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:44:55 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cheap loans, no taxes, hidden government subsidies, monopoly business
>>> and they still can't make a profit? This is your idea of fiscal
>>> efficiency?
>> If UPS and FedEx had the same rate structure as USPS, how many
>> billions would they be in the red every year?
>

> You have it backwards. Perhaps if the USPS lost its monopoly position

> and charged for its services what it would take to make a fair profit,
> nobody would use the USPS?

> [...]

Blame the US Congress for USPS' woes.

Congress ordered the USPS to pre-fund during the next 6 years the next
75 years' worth of retirement benefits. That's debiting the USPS many
billions each year right now (and for the past 4 years for a total of
10 years for the pre-funding).

Other Congress crapola re: the USPS can be read here (re: how the
USPS' coffers have been continually raided by Congress):

<http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes>

What also is curious: why is it usps.com and not usps.gov ?

What happens to all the international postal treaties if/when
the USPS goes belly-up in a few years? There's supposed to be
postal reciprocity between all countries -- stuff mailed to, say,
Europe from the USA with USA stamps will be delivered (and vice
versa).

[Thad Floryan]

On 1/2/2012 8:10 PM, David Kaye wrote:

> "Jonz" <no....@ishome.com> wrote
>
>> I used to live in San Francisco once upon a time, (I hang my head in shame
>> now)
>
> Fine. Stay out of SF. We have more people than we can handle. Our
> population is now the highest it's ever been.

Source?

All I see is SF's population declining constantly:

<http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/03/san-francisco-becoming-child-free-zone-youth-population-declines>

<http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/top-5-declining-us-markets-51299.aspx>

<http://localistica.com/usa/ca/san%20francisco/zipcodes/population-declining-zipcodes/>

<http://woldcnews.com/national/woldc/sf-black-population-decline-risks-political-representation/>

etc etc etc

It seems same-sex couples cannot procreate. :-)

[Thad Floryan]

On 1/2/2012 8:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> [...]

> USPS rates go up 3-5% on Jan 22, 2012:
> <http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_128.htm>

> [...]

Unless I'm going blind, those are box shipping rates with some
new services being added to the mix.

Also on that cited page (copy'n'pasted):

" A self-supporting government enterprise, the U.S. Postal Service is
" the only delivery service that reaches every address in the nation,
" 150 million residences, businesses and Post Office Boxes.
"
" The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and
" relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its
" operations.
"
" With 32,000 retail locations and the most frequently visited website
" in the federal government, usps.com, the Postal Service has annual
" revenue of more than $67 billion and delivers nearly 40 percent of the
" world’s mail. If it were a private sector company, the U.S. Postal
" Service would rank 29th in the 2010 Fortune 500. Black Enterprise and
" Hispanic Business magazines ranked the Postal Service as a leader in
" workforce diversity. The Postal Service has been named the Most
" Trusted Government Agency six consecutive years and the sixth Most
" Trusted Business in the nation by the Ponemon Institute.

[Thad Floryan]

On 1/4/2012 1:21 AM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> Blame the US Congress for USPS' woes.
>
> Congress ordered the USPS to pre-fund during the next 6 years the next
> 75 years' worth of retirement benefits. That's debiting the USPS many
> billions each year right now (and for the past 4 years for a total of
> 10 years for the pre-funding).

> [...]
> <http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes>
> [...]

Correction: that's health-care benefits per the following 2 extracts
at the above article's URL:

[...]
The fiscal gyrations are so twisted that the Postal Service is right
now forced to pre-pay health care benefits for employees the agency
hasn't even hired yet — in fact, for many future employees who haven't
even been born yet — all to artificially shrink the federal deficit.
[..]
Right now, the Postal Service is being forced to pre-pay health
benefits for the next 75 years during a 10-year stretch. In the past
four years, those prepayments have totaled $21 billion. The agency's
deficit during that time is about $20 billion. Remove these crazy
pre-payments — a requirement that no other government agency endures
and no private industry would even consider — and the Postal Service
would be in the black.

[Thad Floryan]

On 1/3/2012 3:48 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article <s4l6g79b367f1fm4o...@4ax.com>,
> Marcus Allen <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>> [...]

>> I said "virtually every address", and those weren't weasel words, they
>> were fact. Your address is apparently one of the few exceptions and
>> you seem to be letting that severely cloud your perspective.
>
> How about Helendale, CA? Yes, there is a post office: 92342, the zip
> code of Helendale. No, the post office does not deliver to a single
> address in Helendale. Yes, the streets are paved, and the houses have
> numbers.
>
> Want mail? Rent and check your PO box daily. Want FedEx? Delivered to
> your door. Want UPS? Delivered to your door. Want DHL? Delivered to your
> door.

I was curious, so:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helendale,_California>
<http://www.movoto.com/neighborhood/ca/helendale/92342.htm>

Hmmm, not many hipsters and 20-somethings there. :-)

This suggests the post office is very close to any resident of Helendale CA:

<http://www.payphone-project.com/post_offices/1366669.html>

And these show Helendale's post office also is a passport processing
office (which neither of my two local POs in Silicon Valley can do
IIRC):

<http://usps.whitepages.com/service/post_office/helendale-27072-helendale-rd-helendale-ca-1366669>
<http://usps.whitepages.com/service/passport/helendale-27072-helendale-rd-helendale-ca-1366669>

A Google Earth view at [34°44'34.39"N,117°20'28.20"W (34.742886, -117.341167)]
shows what looks like the majority of the residences have boating backyards on
the two artificial lakes; interesting.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:05 -0800, Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com>
wrote:

>On 1/2/2012 8:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> [...]
>> USPS rates go up 3-5% on Jan 22, 2012:
>> <http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_128.htm>
>> [...]
>
>Unless I'm going blind, those are box shipping rates with some
>new services being added to the mix.

Correct. First class and pre-sorted (junk mail) postage remains the
same. They're mostly increasing the Express and Priority mail rates
and adding some new boxes. The interesting one is the 70 lb max
overnight box, which I suspect targets competition with UPS and Fedex.

[Marcus Allen]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:58:58 -0800, Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com>
wrote:

This is an excellent contribution to the thread. Thanks for posting
it.

[John Higdon]

In article <4F042B9B...@thadlabs.com>,

Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote:

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helendale,_California>
> <http://www.movoto.com/neighborhood/ca/helendale/92342.htm>
>
> Hmmm, not many hipsters and 20-somethings there. :-)

Well, then there is no point in paying the slightest attention to any
need those dying people need to have, is there?

> This suggests the post office is very close to any resident of Helendale CA:

It is a mile away from the house in question. But then, the post office
here is a mile away as well and mail is delivered.

> And these show Helendale's post office also is a passport processing
> office (which neither of my two local POs in Silicon Valley can do
> IIRC):

It is usually closed when I go by there. How do they do they handle
passports when they're closed? I handle my passport matters via mail,
anyway.

> A Google Earth view at [34°44'34.39"N,117°20'28.20"W (34.742886,
> -117.341167)]
> shows what looks like the majority of the residences have boating backyards
> on
> the two artificial lakes; interesting.

I looked at some of that stuff. Some of the pictures (Google earth,
etc.) are at least twenty years out of date.

If you have never been there, we have no common reference. The web is
not always the source of all information.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:35:17 -0600, Marcus Allen

<mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:01:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:26:03 -0600, Marcus Allen
>><mall...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>The USPS isn't a monopoly.
>>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status>
>
>Seriously? You're going to trot out a poorly written Wikipedia article
>that's prefaced by five disclaimers?

Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. If you
google for "USPS monopoly" you'll find plenty of other sources that
off the same opinion.

>Ask yourself a simple question: if you want to send "mail", whatever
>mail means to you, to someone, are you required to use the US Post
>Office? Of course, not. It's pretty hard to call that model a
>monopoly.

Well, lets see if that works. I have a pile of bills to pay on my
desk. If I decide to use an alternative method of delivery, what
competitor is available to deliver my payments?

However, I agree. The USPS is not totally a monopoly. They seem to
be expanding the "services" part of the puzzle, which is certainly not
protected by the constitution. They also seem to be targeting UPS and
Fedex by planning to do overnight delivery with up to 70 lb packages.
It's the same problem with the telco and cable companies. If 100% of
their business was a protected monopoly, regulation would be easy.
However, since it's not, confusion reigns supreme.

>I can't believe you're using local government as a basis for having a
>hand in the USPS.

I'm using it as an example of a government agency where I have some
influence on the rates and services. Just a reminder... we have a
representative government. We don't directly affect anything a
government does and spends. However, we do have an affect on our
designated representatives, which make those decisions. I'll spare
you my standard rant on "independent regulatory agencies", which
methinks are far too independent and usually controlled by those they
allegedly regulate.

>Maybe the question needs to be reframed. What other
>piece of Federal Government allows members of the taxpaying public to
>have a direct say in what it costs to run that program?

None. See above. We have a representative government. We elect
representatives. The sell their votes to the highest bidder.
Occasionally, that's a grass roots movement or PAC (political action
committee). The representative then balances doing what right against
doing what's profitable and votes accordingly.

>We agree on that and it's something I've said repeatedly in this
>thread. USPS rates are too low, generally.

Well, there we agree. So, why is the USPS not raising first class
rates in order to cover a project $3 billion shortfall for FY2012?
Instead, they're reducing staff, services, closing post offices. If
this were a private company, I would suspect they're packaging the
company for a takeover or sale.

>>Instead, it's well hidden in the $2-3 billion shortfall
>>each year.
>
>I don't know what's meant by "well hidden".

I covered that in a previous rant. There seems to some variations in
the exact amount of the shortfall. If they include deferred
obligations (i.e. retirement payments), it's probably much higher than
$2 billion. If they only include FY operating costs and revenues,
then it's probably lower. Well hidden in plain sight might be more
accurate. Google for "USPS GAO" for what the general accounting
office thinks of the USPS's accounting practices. Note that the
numbers used by the GAO report is much larger than those claimed by
the USPS:
<http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/gao-says-usps-proposal-would-amount-to-a-bailout/>

>It sounds like you have a
>problem with the way Congress has decreed the USPS will operate. None
>of your objections so far have anything to do with the actual USPS.

Not really. We have the best government that money can buy. My main
comments were over the original premise that the USPS is a good
example of an "efficient" operation, which would then be used to
justify nationalizing the ISP's.

>>I'm fairly sure heads would roll if the USPS was forced to
>>run at break even, where the losses from the previous years were
>>rolled into rate increases in the following years.
>
>Congress has so far shown that they are immune to standard "heads will
>roll" logic.

Sigh. Yeah, that's true. I've often wondered what it would take to
politicize the great unwashed masses. As long as things seem
reasonably function, probably nothing will happen.

>>Other than the monopoly on first class mail,
>
>Which doesn't exist...

Really. How should I have my monthly bills delivered if not by the
USPS? I just looked up the Fedex rates... for envelopes under 1lb,
it's $5.49 for up to 150 miles.

>>Fedex and UPS have done quite well
>>competing with an allegedly break even and non-tax paying operation.
>
>FedEx and UPS don't compete with the USPS on an even basis. They
>basically do package and letter delivery. They don't make regular
>rounds, they don't have the equivalent of neighborhood post offices,
>and they don't do a bunch of other stuff that the USPS does. And when
>you say they've done quite well, you ignore the fact that they charge
>200% to 300% or more than the USPS is allowed to charge for similar
>services. Given the price differential, there's very little reason why
>FedEx and UPS shouldn't do "quite well".

By quite well, I meant that they are making a profit. The question is
not whether Fedex and UPS are overcharging, but rather why the USPS is
running at a loss. If the USPS were really "efficient" and genuinely
in the black every fiscal year, I suspect the rates would be similar
to Fedex and UPS.

>You realize this is a 'local' newsgroup, right? Your personal
>experiences within your neighborhood don't translate to the rest of
>the country. I think it's important to view each of the big 3 delivery
>services on a national level, not under the microscope of your
>particular neighborhood.

Agreed. However, the USPS is required by law to proved uniform
services across the country, which I assume includes delivery
policies.

>>Services will continue to be reduced until efficiency improves?
>
>Like most of what you said above, that too is disingenuous. Congress
>has, time and time again, restricted or outright blocked proposed rate
>hikes that were needed to allow the USPS to break even, so given a
>situation where they're forced to operate at a loss, what should they
>do? They can't raise more revenue, so the other side of the coin is to
>cut costs, usually by cutting services. It's not rocket science or
>even advanced economics. It's pretty simple, actually. Yet, proposals
>to cut services are also blocked by Congress. Rock and a hard place,
>eh?

Yep. Whatever the cause, the USPS losses will continue until
something breaks.

[John Higdon]

In article <3qe7g79tbqvsnmp50...@4ax.com>,

Marcus Allen <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

> I can't see that you're getting anywhere, so there are really only two
> choices. Dig more furiously, or put the shovel down.

I'm just tired of all this post office praise when it ought to be put to
sleep. They didn't even bother to deliver my mail yesterday (in San
Jose). Was it some sort of holiday of which I'm unaware?

[John Higdon]

In article <0ed7g7libf1iuqcrl...@4ax.com>,

Marcus Allen <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

> FedEx and UPS don't compete with the USPS on an even basis. They
> basically do package and letter delivery. They don't make regular
> rounds, they don't have the equivalent of neighborhood post offices,
> and they don't do a bunch of other stuff that the USPS does. And when
> you say they've done quite well, you ignore the fact that they charge
> 200% to 300% or more than the USPS is allowed to charge for similar
> services. Given the price differential, there's very little reason why
> FedEx and UPS shouldn't do "quite well".

And after all of that, people (including myself) prefer to pay the
higher prices of the private services. I think that alone is the best
indication of difference in quality of service. I don't put ANYTHING
that I ever expect to see again in the US Mail.

Hell, after paying fines for failure to file, I now have state forms
hand-delivered. That costs a fortune. But the savings in fines that
result from the post office losing my stuff, I'm money ahead.

If money is a problem for the post office is lack of money, rather than
making the first class service completely useless, how about raising the
price of a stamp to a buck? If the mail was any good, I'd pay that.

[John Higdon]

In article <mv09g7d4c1nr8oooq...@4ax.com>,

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Really. How should I have my monthly bills delivered if not by the
> USPS? I just looked up the Fedex rates... for envelopes under 1lb,
> it's $5.49 for up to 150 miles.

Don't laugh. If I had used FedEx instead of the post office to get my
forms to the Sec of State, I would be WAY money ahead right now.

> Agreed. However, the USPS is required by law to proved uniform
> services across the country, which I assume includes delivery
> policies.

And they certainly do, except in the places they don't.

> Yep. Whatever the cause, the USPS losses will continue until
> something breaks.

If they cannot provide reliable service at competitive prices, turn it
off. Seems like a no-brainer.

[John Slade]

On 1/2/2012 1:48 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:47:21 -0800, John Slade<hhit...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually that's done for security reasons. I suggest next
>> time you just address the package to the neighboring office.
>
> Nope. None of the vendors will deliver to any address other than what
> is on the credit card info. That includes different suite numbers.

As someone who's worked at a post office, we were briefed
on delivery procedures and what to be suspicious of. That is one
of them. Even if it's done for only the credit card address,
that's a security feature. Some people who steal credit cards
will order the package to an address and put a note telling them
to leave it with a neighbor. I've seen this done with vacant
houses and inhabited houses.

>
>> One
>> thing about the USPS they have security procedures for packages
>> and when they see a note saying to deliver to an address that's
>> not on the box, it raises a red flag.
>
> I've discussed it with DHL, Fedex, UPS, and USPS. All agreed that
> it's not a problem as long someone signs for it. It's apparently not
> common practice with the USPS, that mumbled some excuses, but
> eventually agreed that it was at the delivery persons discretion
> (which makes no sense).

Then you probably had an incompetent person at the post
office explaining it to you. When I worked at a post office they
gave us instructions on how to recognize suspicious packages and
that was part of it.

>
> Incidentally, when I got to the post office to pickup a package, I
> have to sign on the signature capture machine. I found it rather
> difficult to sign my name so that it was readable. It was explained
> that the machine intentionally dithers the signature, so that it
> cannot be recycled on a forged check or document. That left me
> wondering why they bother.

It could mean that it's distorted on the screen you sign
but the full undistorted signature is saved to memory. I know
when the PO sends certified mail, they have you sign paper. A
good reason to have a person sign even if it isn't saved
correctly is to have someone accept the package rather than the
guy just dumping it on the porch or tossing it into the bushes.
I do believe FedEx charges extra for requiring a signature.

John

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:23:08 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

>I'm just tired of all this post office praise when it ought to be put to
>sleep. They didn't even bother to deliver my mail yesterday (in San
>Jose). Was it some sort of holiday of which I'm unaware?

They delivered mine yesterday (Tues) in Santa Cruz. What I received
was what I would guess to be a weeks worth of mail and packages, that
were somehow delayed during the New Years holiday. The good news is
that nothing seems to be missing.

I don't think shutting down the USPS would be a good idea. There are
far too many entitlements (retirement), depreciable assets (mail
sorting centers, computahs, vehicles, govt property), and potential
litigatory awards, to make it economical. Better to leave 500,000
employees in place than to put them on public assistance.

[Jeff Liebermann]

I agree. All government agencies should be required to pre-fund their
future delayed expenses (i.e. entitlements, interest, contract
bonuses, etc) in advance. This way, the tax paying public knows what
they have committed to paying out in the future. My guess is that the
national debt would be many times the quoted figure. We start with
the USPS and work our way through the other agencies. If that's
unacceptable, perhaps they should be required to simply disclose the
amount of delaying expenses. (Hint: This is requied on corporate
financial statements and stock reports).

[John Higdon]

In article <0979g79drf383e4ob...@4ax.com>,

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> I don't think shutting down the USPS would be a good idea. There are
> far too many entitlements (retirement), depreciable assets (mail
> sorting centers, computahs, vehicles, govt property), and potential
> litigatory awards, to make it economical. Better to leave 500,000
> employees in place than to put them on public assistance.

Then why not raise the price of first class to a point where decent
service can be provided?

[Marcus Allen]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:39:27 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

>If they cannot provide reliable service at competitive prices, turn it
>off. Seems like a no-brainer.

Let's dissect that a bit.

>If they cannot provide reliable service

I've lived in a few dozen places around the country, pretty much every
area except the northeast, and have never had unreliable postal
service. Obviously, your experience is far from the norm.

>at competitive prices,

They aren't allowed (by Congress) to charge competitive prices.

>turn it off. Seems like a no-brainer.

Why is "turn it off" your kneejerk reaction? That doesn't make sense.
Why get rid of the one Government agency that works and that most
people rely on, on a daily basis? No brainer, indeed.

[Marcus Allen]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:16:38 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

You probably already know the answer to that question. It comes up in
Washington on a regular basis. USPS officials ask Congress for
authority to raise rates, Congress hears from its poor and elderly
constituents that raising rates will cause a hardship, congress
critter gets scared because election season is around the corner and
votes no or for less of a raise than was requested, and the cycle
repeats in another year or three. There's no way to catch up because
the jump would be a shock to some or even most people.

[Marcus Allen]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:48:53 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

75 years in advance? Consider that everything in Washington is a
compromise, so if 75 years was a compromise, what were some members
asking for? 100 years? More? It's ridiculous.

>This way, the tax paying public knows what
>they have committed to paying out in the future. My guess is that the
>national debt would be many times the quoted figure. We start with
>the USPS and work our way through the other agencies. If that's
>unacceptable, perhaps they should be required to simply disclose the
>amount of delaying expenses. (Hint: This is requied on corporate
>financial statements and stock reports).

How many non-govermental agencies and businesses are voluntarily
pre-funding 75 years worth of future expenses? You don't hear much
about that.

[Marcus Allen]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:21:46 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:35:17 -0600, Marcus Allen
><mall...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. If you
>google for "USPS monopoly" you'll find plenty of other sources that
>off the same opinion.

The Internet's a big place, with room for lots of opinions, many of
them wrong. I'm not aware of any common definition of monopoly that
applies to the Post Office.

>>Ask yourself a simple question: if you want to send "mail", whatever
>>mail means to you, to someone, are you required to use the US Post
>>Office? Of course, not. It's pretty hard to call that model a
>>monopoly.
>
>Well, lets see if that works. I have a pile of bills to pay on my
>desk. If I decide to use an alternative method of delivery, what
>competitor is available to deliver my payments?

The two that have been mentioned frequently in this thread come
immediately to mind. Both FedEx and UPS will gladly deliver your
payments for you, but you won't like the cost.

>>We agree on that and it's something I've said repeatedly in this
>>thread. USPS rates are too low, generally.
>
>Well, there we agree. So, why is the USPS not raising first class
>rates in order to cover a project $3 billion shortfall for FY2012?
>Instead, they're reducing staff, services, closing post offices. If
>this were a private company, I would suspect they're packaging the
>company for a takeover or sale.

Covered in previous posts. The USPS doesn't get to establish its own
rate structures, as unbelievable as that may sound. They know exactly
what it would take to break even, but they aren't allowed to do it.

>Really. How should I have my monthly bills delivered if not by the
>USPS? I just looked up the Fedex rates... for envelopes under 1lb,
>it's $5.49 for up to 150 miles.

See, I told you that you wouldn't like the cost, yet there are people
in this thread who have stated they are perfectly willing to pay extra
for non-USPS delivery of their mail. I say let them, but businesses
should charge them a surcharge to cover the difference rather than
spreading that cost across everyone. I don't want to subsidize someone
else's bad experiences.

>By quite well, I meant that they are making a profit. The question is
>not whether Fedex and UPS are overcharging, but rather why the USPS is
>running at a loss. If the USPS were really "efficient" and genuinely
>in the black every fiscal year, I suspect the rates would be similar
>to Fedex and UPS.

By now there should be absolutely no question why the USPS operates at
a loss in some years. In addition, since the USPS doesn't need to
operate at a profit or pay stockholders, there's no reason why its
rates (given free reign) should ever come close to what the private
companies charge.

[David Kaye]

"Thad Floryan" <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote

>
> Source?

http://www.census.gov The SF population in 2010 was 805,235, and you can
check out the rest of the counts. The population of SF is the highest it
has ever been, just as I said.

>
> It seems same-sex couples cannot procreate. :-)

I'm not particularly worried about this, though I do know of several
same-sex couples with children, usually those who have been abandoned or
abused by the straight couples who birthed them. A present I know 3 gay
male couples and a lesbian couple all with children.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:57:52 -0600, Marcus Allen
<mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

>>I agree. All government agencies should be required to pre-fund their
>>future delayed expenses (i.e. entitlements, interest, contract
>>bonuses, etc) in advance.
>
>75 years in advance?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. I would like to see at least 1
years pensions and health care budgeted in the prior years budget. I
wouldn't expect the money to actually be there when it's needed as
"borrowing" money from such funds has been the traditional way that of
funding pork barrel projects. Kinda like the 911 and PSAP funds that
were depleted to nearly zero to fund unspecified pet projects. Any
more than 1 year of genuine planning for the future would be a bonus.

>Consider that everything in Washington is a
>compromise, so if 75 years was a compromise, what were some members
>asking for? 100 years? More? It's ridiculous.

Good point. Always ask for something unreasonable so that the
compromise looks reasonable. I'm wondering who inspired that great
idea. It has to be some group that benefits. Certainly not the USPS,
its employees, or the retirees. The union won't see any of that
money, so they're not responsible. Perhaps whatever financial
instruments the advanced funding is held? Dunno, I'm guessing.

>How many non-govermental agencies and businesses are voluntarily
>pre-funding 75 years worth of future expenses? You don't hear much
>about that.

None. Note that only health care is funded in advance. Nothing about
pensions, retirement benefits, and such. As I mentioned, I think it's
a great idea, even if only the USPS is doing it.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:16:38 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

I think I covered that in a previous rant. My guess(tm) is that an
across the board rate increase to cover about a 6%-12% per year loss
(depending on whether you use the USPS or the GAO numbers) would
require about a 25% increase, mostly to cover debt retirement on
previous expenses and pre-funding of future entitlements. I suspect
that this would not be a problem for first class mail. However, in
the parcel post areas, I suspect that it would drive the shippers
towards the competitors UPS and Fedex. If that happens, along with
the inevitable drop in parcel post volume, the difference would have
to be made up by an increase in first class mail, which the USPS has a
monopoly. My guess is about a 50% increase, which I suspect the
voters will fail to appreciate.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:19:17 -0800, Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com>
wrote:

Nice. However, I just fished out of the trash a few envelopes I
received from eBay shippers that went via USPS. When I plugged the
numbers into:
<https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction!input.action>
two proclaimed that nothing was available and to contact the local PO
if a return receipt was involved. All the labels were slightly
different. The one that worked was "USPS First-Class". The ones that
didn't were "first class parcel rate" and "DHLGM" which I suspect was
forwarded by DHL to the USPS for delivery. One bag that didn't work
was labeled "ZIP - USPS Delivery Confirm eVS" which seems to include
delivery confirmation, but not tracking. However, a similar bag
labeled "ZIP - e/ USPS Delivery Confirmation" and "USPS First Class
Mail" appears to be trackable.

So, some types of USPS can be tracked, while others cannot. How to
recognize the differences is currently unknown.

[John Higdon]

In article <nla9g71bu4jn3sch6...@4ax.com>,

Marcus Allen <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

> I've lived in a few dozen places around the country, pretty much every
> area except the northeast, and have never had unreliable postal
> service. Obviously, your experience is far from the norm.

Indeed. For forty-five years it has had something wrong with it. A
couple of times a week I have to play asst. mailman and deliver the
misdirected mail to my neighbors. I imagine that some of the mail I've
missed went out with the neighbors' trash. No delivery when there should
be one (like yesterday). When I get special service mail that requires a
signature, the carrier lightly taps on my door (which I can't hear
inside) rather than EVER use the intercom, so a trip to the PO is
necessary. Funny, the UPS/FedEx/DHL delivery people can use the
intercom, every time.

>
> >at competitive prices,
>
> They aren't allowed (by Congress) to charge competitive prices.

Well, that's a problem. I don't care *why* the PO is dysfunctional, I
just don't see why we bother keeping such an entity alive.

> >turn it off. Seems like a no-brainer.
>
> Why is "turn it off" your kneejerk reaction? That doesn't make sense.

If something can't be fixed, you retire it.

> Why get rid of the one Government agency that works and that most
> people rely on, on a daily basis? No brainer, indeed.

I used to rely on it until it started costing me big money and even
greater inconvenience. I'm glad you like the price, service, and the
quirks, but at this point I don't see much of an advantage.

As soon as an agency starts talking about dumbing down the product
rather than charging what the useful level of service is worth, that is
the time we should move on. Maybe this is just the way government
services work.

The VTA's response to deficits is to raise the fares and cut back on
service (sound familiar?). I'm sure that will fix its woes. Caltrain is
the same way.

When a private company reaches this point, it goes away.

[John Higdon]

In article <s9b9g7tmrds99p338...@4ax.com>,

Marcus Allen <mall...@none.invalid> wrote:

> There's no way to catch up because
> the jump would be a shock to some or even most people.

Maybe we should move the post office to the category of an entitlement.
Instead of keeping an albatross around the neck of those who need (and
are willing to pay for) real service, we could put it under the aegis of
welfare, and give it a sunset date.