[PLUG-TALK] OT: [PLUG] Spam law update

[Dylan Reinhardt]

At 08:36 PM 10/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>why is it so bad that the USPS might create an expectation it can't
>fulfill?  Qwest does that every day, day in, day out - their entire
>business is based upon creating expectation they can't fulfill!

Touche.

>I don't
>see the Cato Institute writing many essays about how crappy Qwest is

Probably because the Cato Institute is in Verizon territory.  :-)

Actually, they have:  http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/011126-tk.html  It sounds 
like you read the Cato page daily, I'm surprised you missed it.  :-)


>I think it's strange that when government doesn't act
>like business they get slammed, and then when they do act like a
>business they get slammed again..

Well... it's different people doing the slamming.  It's fair to say you 
can't please everyone, no matter what you do.  It was all the rage for a 
while to suppose that government should function like a business.  I happen 
to disagree.

In a nutshell, I believe that government should do what it does best in the 
manner in which it is best accomplished.  But no more and certainly no 
less.  I'd hardly say that USPS's sales of phone cards or sponsorship of 
public tv and professional cycling meet those standards.  I'm glad 
government exists, but I don't want to see the FDA advertising new 
services, y'know?

>And just who
>is eating the RBOCS' lunch?

Wireless.  Five years ago, it was almost impossible to get along without 
basic, landline dialtone service.  Now, probably a quarter of the people I 
know don't even have home phones, they have cell phones.  It's not a big 
enough trend to make headlines yet, but it's gaining steam and it's going 
to flatten them.


>I'm personally willing to pay $0.37 for postal delivery at the current
>level of service - I don't care that I don't have a choice as to who
>delivers it.

And lots of people seem to think that Hotmail is a good deal.  To each 
their own, I suppose.

As was already pointed out, USPS services are largely opt-in, and I 
appreciate that.  I'm not trying to make a case for eliminating them.  All 
I'm doing is recognizing that needs and usage are changing, yet our mandate 
for USPS is not.  I don't think we're doing ourselves any great favor by 
maintaining their monopoly, but I wouldn't claim it's actively hurting anyone.

>The only people that seem to have serious objections to
>the costs of supporting the USPS's level of service are the direct mail
>people

Lots of business is conducted through the mail at non-bulk rates.  Indeed, 
this business is something like 95% of the "need" for mail service in the 
first place.  I'm talking, here, about invoices, account payments, 
etc.   Do you begin to object when your bank no longer mails your 
statements?

Dylan