Tech Experts Look To Help Save the Postal Service 398
An anonymous reader writes "Some of the folks responsible for developing and promoting e-mail, e-commerce and social media are banding together in an attempt to save the US Postal Service, the institution arguably most threatened by the technological developments of the past few years. As mail volume continues to plummet and more Americans use the Internet to pay bills and keep in touch, Google executives, social media experts and some of the most passionate tech evangelists are planning to meet in Crystal City in mid-June to sort out how to save and remake the nation's mail delivery service. The conference, PostalVision 2020, is designed to bring together the people who understand what this technology has done, is doing and will do to digital commerce and communication in America. USPS anticipates losing about $7 billion during the fiscal year that ends in September and is in the process of eliminating 7,500 postmaster and administrative positions to save money."
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it performs a valuable service that there still isn't any combination of complete substittues for. (Anyone who thinks UPS or FedEx could just step in on the mail or stuff-delivery end doesn't know shit about the shipping industry and should be treated as such.)
For example: Do you like Amazon or Netflix? They wouldn't exist without the USPS.
The problem with USPS is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who shipped a lot of packages through USPS, the solution is very simple. Get a real time tracking system in par with UPS and FedEx (not bullshit overnight updates) and make the insurance for package claims less of a joke than UPS and FedEx.
As bills and correspondence mails have gone down, online buying and selling has taken it's place. But, most people are uncomfortable sending their packages through USPS. The tracking is only delivery confirmation and that costs extra at the post office. With cell phone technology, it should be trivial to implement real time updates.
If a package is lost, the insurance system is a joke. It takes forever and you can only correspond by mail. The insurance is ridiculously expensive and when you need it, it's a massive headache.
If they just fix those above issues, then lots of business would come swarming to them from online shippers.
Another thing, their rates are kinda screwed up. For heavy packages, the rates are much much higher than UPS and FedEx. It comes down to only making sense to send packages by USPS for under 4-5 lbs. They probably should also do the sweetheart deals with big companies that UPS and FedEx do - like shipping for pennies on the dollar for large volume shippers.
And, there are some sink holes like in Bell, CA that if packages get there, they come out weeks later (famous for losing Oscar votes). There are a few of them across the country.
I think USPS should move towards being more geared towards packages. But, that's just my end of the pond where I shipped packages through USPS. Maybe junk mail is the cash cow, or certified mail.
So what if it's losing money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike, say, UPS, the US Postal Service is not and has never been a for-profit corporation. It's an agency of the US Government, required by law to exist, serve all citizens, and is granted a special monopoly status. If it's in the public interest, it can run at a deficit, take up unprofitable jobs like serving the people that live in the middle of nowhere (which many private competitors refuse to ship to), or keep prices lower than they would be in a pure market-driven system.
At worst, if the mail volume drops dramatically, they could move to having fewer delivery days in areas that don't get a lot of mail. And they may well be able to use technology to improve their sorting and delivery system, but as it stands they have processes that put FedEx to shame.
Re:It's dying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time I've been to the post office, there's been 15+ people in line. I have a hard time believing the mail system is on the way out any time soon. Telegraphs didn't kill it, telephones didn't kill it, why would email kill it?
Telegraphs aren't secure, but my email client has encryption features built in. Or do I still have to get it through an add-on? Either way it's there.
The USPS is only becoming more incompetent all the time. I just got a letter to a former resident who has been gone for years so I wrote "NOT AT THIS ADDRESS RETURN TO SENDER" with the only writing implement I could find at the time, a pencil, and took it back to the post office and handed it to them across the counter, saying "this is not for me, I don't really need this." They redelivered it to me the next day. The USPS is fucking incompetent at best and they should be left to die.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what if it's losing money? (Score:5, Insightful)
What he said. The Postal Service should not be treated like a private business. It serves a basic public need for everyone.
If you want to let something die, let GM or American Airlines die. Quit propping up entities that are actually supposed to be private companies.
Re:why? (Score:0, Insightful)
No, the USPS can't. It just has to, so it eats the cost and ends up with huge deficits. Hence the story about which we are posting.
Re:USPS (Score:4, Insightful)
If it were solely a Government agency, it'd be doing "okay". Unfortunately, like AAFES, it's a Government owned business. It operates off of it's income and typically doesn't get any pork on it's own. Government is shrinking, yes...this, however, isn't going to shrink it in the right places.
Re:And FedEx and UPS (Score:5, Insightful)
In a sense, the real question facing us about the postal service is approximately similar to the real questions behind rural electrification, or telcom access: There are places in the country where providing infrastructure is, per capita, cheap. There are others where providing it is really, really, really expensive. There are areas where the infrastructure customers are relatively wealthy, and ones where they definitely aren't.
We can definitely trust the private sector(as long as they don't gain monopolies or oligopolies) to serve areas where customer willingness to pay is sufficiently high and cost per capita sufficiently low. We then come to the question of what to do about the ones where that isn't the case.
Obviously, this doesn't imply that the postal system is well managed, or that it couldn't do better(and, if improvement is available, it should definitely be undertaken); but, like rural telco and electrification, the fundamental question is not one of wringing out small operational efficiencies; but of whether or not we, as a society, wish to provide a baseline infrastructure to areas where it is not strictly economically justified. Depending on exactly how efficient you are, these areas may be somewhat smaller or somewhat larger; but it will almost always be the case that you could improve financial performance by just writing off your lossy service areas and letting them suck it up.The question is, is that what we want?
Worst kind of government "agency" (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States Postal Service, while operated by the United States government, is required to be self-sustaining. Yet, it is not allowed to be autonomous. It seems like every time they try to cut costs - closing redundant retail locations, eliminating Saturday delivery, etc. - they face extreme opposition from Congress (often saving because the waste benefits their districts). In addition, they are prevented by law from raising postage rates above the rate of inflation - no matter what their costs do. I'd hate to try to operate a business under those conditions.
That being said, there are some areas where efficiency could be improved. I recently started doing mass mailings for my business, and was appalled by some aspects of their processes - the user interface of their employee-facing software was terrible, for instance (and, perhaps more surprisingly, veteran employees seemed unaware of its quirks).
I think that we (as a country) need to realize that delivering small mailpieces to every household and business in the United States will never be a profitable venture, and be willing to ensure its financial viability through subsidies while also enabling and encouraging efforts to improve efficiency. UPS and Fedex are profitable because they skim off the lucrative parts of the business - large package and express delivery - leaving the rest for the USPS. The USPS serves a very valuable role in this regard, especially for certain less-advantaged populations. We can't expect it to operate like a for-profit business while simultaneously demanding that it fulfill these money-losing - yet necessary - responsibilities.
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The USPS's first incarnation was established by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1775, by decree of the Second Continental Congress. The Post Office Department was created from Franklin's operation in 1792, as part of the United States Cabinet, then was transformed into its current form in 1971, under the Postal Reorganization Act."
It was so important, that the Postmaster General used to be in line for succession to the President. Even in 1775, it was acknowledged that information was one of the most critical functions of a nation. It affects security, commerce, and national unity.
Why does this matter now? Because while paper mail may not seem important, the United States government must ensure information flow. That's why we regulate telephone, radio, television, and the Internet. Rain, sleet, snow or hail, information is arguably the make or break of a nation.
Re:The problem with USPS is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Look, there are a lot of annoying things about the USPS, but it has only one real problem: it has to deliver to EVERY PLACE IN THE US. When you compare to FedEx or UPS, you miss the point. They go hub to hub, and they don't deliver to low population areas, more less support offices there.
If they cut back to more profitable services, they'd be well in the black, but their "mission" (which is dictated by the govt) precludes this, so there are problems.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this mentality entirely whole American or is this how everyone in Europe thinks about all their government does for them.
Why subsidize the sick population with healthcare?
Why subsidize kids with schools?
Why subsidize roads for those with cars?
Why subsidize those without cars with public transportation?
Why subsidize those in rural populations with Internet/Postal Service/etc?
Because it's what makes a society function. When I traveled abroad and the topic of healthcare came up, to the people I was with (Dutch) it just seemed unfathomable not to take care of your fellow Americans. Where as if it's breeched with a large part of the population it's "This is mine, you can't have any." I'm not saying either mentality is wrong but it just seems like a fundamental difference in thinking.
We watch CEOs walk away from failing corporations with hundreds millions of dollars in their hands and people go "meh". But try to get the homeless addict into counseling, off the street and into a productive role in society and everyone is up in arms. I was watching a documentary and people allow it because it's the "American Dream" and if they should ever magically win the lottery or become a multi-national CEO, the don't want that dream taken away from them.
And the most best part, we're a "Christian" nation. As my AP government told us. Jesus is the most popular socialist of all time.
Maybe I just need to move to Europe.
Re:The problem with USPS is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the USPS delivers to, and picks up from, every address in the US and is required to do so. UPS and FedEx do not and do not have to. In addition, the USPS delivers a first-class letter anywhere in the US for 44 cents. Not everything can be handled electronically. Want to try sending all your physical letters via UPS or FedEx? Yes, I pay most of my bills electronically, but a few I cannot or there is a service charge that far exceeds the price of a stamp.
Perhaps there are efficiencies to be gained at the USPS and perhaps the prices are actually too low, but their mandate far exceeds the services only offered by UPS and FedEx. The problem with the USPS is that most people don't understand all they have to actually do, yet bitch about the inexpensive and universal services they do provide.