US Postal not seeing value to sponsorship... why?

Robert Chung

hold my beer and watch this... wrote:
> Federal Publican 542 deals with corporate taxes and is not a federal
> statute addressing competition with the USPS for first class mail
> delivery.
>
> Once again Tom, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't
> have any idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>
> Do me a favor, and at least try to make it difficult for me to make you
> look stupid.

Although I try not to guess too often what Tom means, in this case I think
he meant USPS Publication 542:
http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/pub542.pdf

Matt Cahill

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<OyFkc.1066$V97.881@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:_7zkc.763$Hs1.413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6Kxkc.4224$0H1.432726@attbi_s54...
> > (*clipped entirely*)
> >
> > Shayne, obviously you are missing the point. Matt suggests a group of
> > government services that could be eliminated if the idea was to provide
> ONLY
> > what private industry wasn't interested in possessing.
> >
> > In response you merely make a laundry list of the services YOU think you'd
> > like to keep and those you wouldn't mind losing.
> >
> > Factually, these decisions have already been made. The mails are a US
> > Government monopoly. The idea espoused by Keck and White that they should
> > somehow be allowed to pay less for service and to hell with any citizen
> who
> > doesn't live in a major city is so monumentally ignorant that it doesn't
> > require any rebuttal at all.
> >
> > Phone service should have been likewise. The only advantage that I can see
> > to the phone company monopoly being broken is that technology advances
> have
> > been more rapidly applied as a marketing ploy. However, the cost of it is
> > greatly increased cost of service and much more poorly handled service
> calls
> > (my local phone company told me that a man would be there sometime between
> > 9:00 am and 4:00 pm - please be available to let them in.)
> >
> >
>
> A lot of my phone bill (land and cell) seems to be government fees. Why
> should we pay to have internet access in schools. Name a place where a
> school cannot get internet access. A long distance phone call is much
> cheaper today than it was before the great breakup.

As Tom pointed out...what we are really doing is just debating the
list of what we want government to provide

Shayne apparently wants protection and nothing else.

You don't want the government to support the internet.

I want want welfare, medical care and an entire laundry list of social
programs. I'm sure that socialist Tom agrees with me. ;-)

And a representative democracy has given us what we have now. So
apparently we all have to give a little on our pet desires in order to
live in one of the richest most powerful nations on the face of the
earth. Surprise, surprise!

PS

Tom,

Couldn't help teasing you a bit. You showed remarkable restraint on
my Iraq didn't try to kill my daddy comment. You add alot to this
board...yet I doubt we will ever agree on a non-bicycle opinion again.

Floyd L. Davidson

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Phone service should have been likewise. The only advantage that I can see
>> to the phone company monopoly being broken is that technology advances have
>> been more rapidly applied as a marketing ploy. However, the cost of it is
>> greatly increased cost of service and much more poorly handled service calls
>> (my local phone company told me that a man would be there sometime between
>> 9:00 am and 4:00 pm - please be available to let them in.)
>>
>
>A lot of my phone bill (land and cell) seems to be government fees. Why
>should we pay to have internet access in schools. Name a place where a
>school cannot get internet access. A long distance phone call is much
>cheaper today than it was before the great breakup.

Actually your telephone service has decreased in cost and
increased in functionality (the later by a few orders of
magnitude) over the past 2-3 decades.

However, it should be noted that while long distance service is
now very cheap, local service is where the expense is. It was
once exactly the opposite, because Ma Bell subsidized
residential telephone service by over charging on long distance
and business services.

Today that still happens, but in a different way, because while
an individual long distance call is extremely inexpensive, we
all pay a monthly fee, which is part of our /local/ bill, just
to be able to connect to a long distance provider. (Some, but
not all, of that probably shows up as what appears to be
"government fees" on your local telephone bill.)

One of the principles which *clearly* has benefited the entire
nation was the early application of what is called "Universal
Service" to the telephone industry. That was the reason for a
monopoly, and basically recognizes that *all* telephone
customers are afforded a significant advantage if *everyone* has
a telephone.

Hence callers connecting between New York City and Los Angeles
pay more than the cost of that call, and that subsidizes the
cost when *I* make a call from Barrow to Atqasuk ("the smallest
Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.") However,
the simple fact is that the telephone services in both NYC and
LA are *far* more valuable simply because every place like Atqasuk
can indeed not only connect to Barrow, but also to NYC and LA.
And trust me, they *do*. (And the business it generates is what
keeps this country strong.)

The Internet connections to schools is based on exactly the
same principle, that we as a country are *far* better off if
*all* schools are connected to the Internet. Congress made
a very wise decision when the made funding available for that
purpose.

(I worked in the telecommunications industry here in Alaska for
34 years before retiring.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Floyd L. Davidson

"Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Matt Cahill" <mcahill844@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > That means there is mail delivery to the smallest
>> > > Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.
>> >
>> > Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
>> > should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
>> > 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
>> > government distorting this particular marketplace?
>> >
>> You could make this argument about any function that government
>> provides.
>
>No. There's a big difference between government functions of protection
>(police, military) and those that are providing other services. Building
>roads and delivering mail should be done by the private sector, but clearly
>there would be a problem if the private sector had competing police forces
>and military.

Why should *my* tax dollar pay for *your* police protection? The
people who live in "the smallest Inuit village in the ice
barrens outside of Barrow, AK." don't need the kind of police
protection our tax dollars are paying for!

Why aren't *you* paying your own way, instead of extorting money
from others!

Clearly you have not studied history. The Founding Fathers knew
the importance of having universal mail service. As for the
road system, have you stopped to imagine where this country
would be if Eisenhower had not recognized the need for an
Interstate Highway system?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

TM

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:8765bggcu5.fld@barrow.com...
<snip>
>However,
> the simple fact is that the telephone services in both NYC and
> LA are *far* more valuable simply because every place like Atqasuk
> can indeed not only connect to Barrow, but also to NYC and LA.
> And trust me, they *do*. (And the business it generates is what
> keeps this country strong.)
>
> The Internet connections to schools is based on exactly the
> same principle

Your post proves your point!

(By having Ukpeagvik connected to the phone system/internet we all
benefitted from your explanation.)

Floyd L. Davidson

"TM" <lkjd@lkjk.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
>news:8765bggcu5.fld@barrow.com...
><snip>
>>However,
>> the simple fact is that the telephone services in both NYC and
>> LA are *far* more valuable simply because every place like Atqasuk
>> can indeed not only connect to Barrow, but also to NYC and LA.
>> And trust me, they *do*. (And the business it generates is what
>> keeps this country strong.)
>>
>> The Internet connections to schools is based on exactly the
>> same principle
>
>Your post proves your point!
>
>(By having Ukpeagvik connected to the phone system/internet we all
>benefitted from your explanation.)

That's a fact.

The example of First Class Mail being subsidized to villages
near Barrow is another very good example. 40-50 years ago most
villages in Alaska were truly "remote". Most had no telephone
service, and they received mail on a weekly mail plane. But
starting in the 1970's the mail system has been modified several
times, and the effects have been tremendous. The "mail plane"
business, which is essentially subsidized by the US Government,
has made passenger and freight runs to *every* village in Alaska
a daily event. The amount of business has increase
tremendously; and hence other places such as Fairbanks,
Anchorage and Seattle have benefited even more than the
villages. It is a very good example of how government can, with
a little effort, instigate a more robust and stable economy for
all Americans.

Of course, part of that equation was also the application of
Universal Service to telephone service in Alaska, which began in
1971. By the late 1970's virtually every village had some
telephone service. By the late 1980's virtually every village
had regular switched telephone service just like anywhere else,
and by the early 1990's it was a 100% digital system too (at a
time when the rest of the country was only about 33% digital).

The history of telecommunications in Alaska shows a microcosm
demonstrating the value of Universal Service. Initially the
long distance rates were *extremely* high, and there were almost
no telephones outside of the largest markets. Detractors from
the theory of Universal Service would say that only connections
between those large markets would be profitable; and if it had
been done that way there would be service only to places in
Alaska with populations of 5000 or more. Instead, through State
regulations, the local telephone business was turned into a
veritable gold mine! People who started a telephone exchange
business in any village of 200 or more people had so much cash
flow their heads were swimming!

And, in 1979 the Federal Government forced, through a decade
long process, the long distance rates to be equalized with the
lower-48. The effects were totally unpredicted! Every time the
rates were cut, the business boomed by more than the cut, and
profits went up! (Actually, at the end, the dominant carrier
asked to be allowed to jump to full rate integration ahead of
the schedule, in an effort to get an advantage over the
competition. They even joked about making calls between
Fairbanks and Anchorage free... knowing full well that was
their competitors primary market, and that the PUC would never
allow it.)

Of course, all of this is the difference between the late 20th
century, that we actually lived through, and the late 19th century
that some folks would have had us live through again, railroad
barons and all...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Tom Kunich

Sorry Junior G-man but the pamphlet says: "Understanding the Private Express
Statutes Publication 542"

Perhaps you could grow up some day but I doubt it. For my money I'd bet you
remain an unreconstructed asshole until the end of your days when anyone
that ever knew you breaths a sigh of relief on learning of your demise.

"hold my beer and watch this..." <trdina@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:bdudnTvpuNkWEg7dRVn-gg@dejazzd.com...
> Federal Publican 542 deals with corporate taxes and is not a federal
statute
> addressing competition with the USPS for first class mail delivery.
>
> Once again Tom, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't
have
> any idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>
> Do me a favor, and at least try to make it difficult for me to make you
look
> stupid.
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> newsxXjc.16616$e4.3925@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "hold my beer and watch this..." <trdina@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
> > news:3bGdnUm1zJLaNBDdRVn-vw@dejazzd.com...
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > > Please quote the federal statute(s) that defines 'first class mail' as
> > well
> > > as the other types of delivery services for which USPS is or is not
> > granted
> > > exclusivity.
> >
> > Perhaps you have a post office somewhere in your vicinity in which you
can
> > request a copy of Federal Publication 542 which will answer any
questions
> > you may have on this subject.
> >
> >
>
>

Tom Kunich

"Matt Cahill" <mcahill844@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df69827f.0405010549.5622d040@posting.google.com...
>
> Couldn't help teasing you a bit. You showed remarkable restraint on
> my Iraq didn't try to kill my daddy comment. You add alot to this
> board...yet I doubt we will ever agree on a non-bicycle opinion again.

I suggest that the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative will be
apparent in Justice Souter's future opinions.

Tom Kunich

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:8765bggcu5.fld@barrow.com...
>
> Actually your telephone service has decreased in cost and
> increased in functionality (the later by a few orders of
> magnitude) over the past 2-3 decades.

Perhaps you could outline that to someone who once owned an interconnect
company because I don't see telephone company supplied answering machines,
call forwarding and caller ID as increases in functionality. And my basic
phone bill is three times what it was before deregulation.

> However, it should be noted that while long distance service is
> now very cheap, local service is where the expense is. It was
> once exactly the opposite, because Ma Bell subsidized
> residential telephone service by over charging on long distance
> and business services.

Duhh, who makes more long distance than local calls, private individuals or
businesses? Who, therefore benefits from the decreased long distance rates
and who is charged more on the whole?

Tom Kunich

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:871xm4gc6r.fld@barrow.com...
> "Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Matt Cahill" <mcahill844@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > > That means there is mail delivery to the smallest
> >> > > Inuit village in the ice barrens outside of Barrow, AK.
> >> >
> >> > Why should they get a letter delivered for 37¢ if it costs more? Why
> >> > should I pay 37¢ if it can be done in a competetive environment for
> >> > 31¢? If it costs more, why not pay what it costs? Who needs the
> >> > government distorting this particular marketplace?
> >> >
> >> You could make this argument about any function that government
> >> provides.
> >
> >No. There's a big difference between government functions of protection
> >(police, military) and those that are providing other services. Building
> >roads and delivering mail should be done by the private sector, but
clearly
> >there would be a problem if the private sector had competing police
forces
> >and military.
>
> Why should *my* tax dollar pay for *your* police protection? The
> people who live in "the smallest Inuit village in the ice
> barrens outside of Barrow, AK." don't need the kind of police
> protection our tax dollars are paying for!
>
> Why aren't *you* paying your own way, instead of extorting money
> from others!
>
> Clearly you have not studied history. The Founding Fathers knew
> the importance of having universal mail service. As for the
> road system, have you stopped to imagine where this country
> would be if Eisenhower had not recognized the need for an
> Interstate Highway system?

Floyd, you get a perfect 10 points for being, probably, the only one on the
group who knows that Dwight David Eisenhower lobbied for a Federally funded
coast-to-coast highway system because he was in charge of protecting the
West Coast from invasion between wars and knew how long it took to move
troops and supplies and hence knew the immense value of a highway system.

People who didn't grow up without public highways and universal mail
delivery don't appreciate what it is like without them.

Yes, Benjamin Franklin was the one who lobbied for a Federal mail system and
was the first Postmaster General. But according to many here he must have
been a pretty stupid person.

Floyd L. Davidson

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
>news:8765bggcu5.fld@barrow.com...
>>
>> Actually your telephone service has decreased in cost and
>> increased in functionality (the later by a few orders of
>> magnitude) over the past 2-3 decades.
>
>Perhaps you could outline that to someone who once owned an interconnect
>company because I don't see telephone company supplied answering machines,
>call forwarding and caller ID as increases in functionality. And my basic
>phone bill is three times what it was before deregulation.

So your phone bill hasn't changed at all, considering inflation.
Yet I'll bet you *use* it a lot more. You can also send data at
rates many times the 110 baud that was common once. You can
send a FAX too, with equipment costing less than $100 instead of
several thousands. You can call from you car if you break down
on the way home. You can take a satellite phone to almost
anywhere too. And have 10 or 20 party conference calls.

Not to mention that today a trans-continental telephone
conversation with Grandma sounds just exactly the same as if she
were in the house next door.

The list could go on and on...

Heh, you'll get a kick out of the three "most famous last words"
I've heard from anyone in the business:

1989: "Cell phones are just a fad, it'll never catch on."
1991: "Internet? Why would we want that?"

And the final one:

1992: "We don't know what we are going to do... we may just
fold the company and sell off the assets."

The same person (VP of Operations) made all of those statements.
In late 1995, that company ceased to exist. (Almost everyone in
the top management, except that VP, then went on to form another
company in a different branch of the telecom business. To date
they have not yet ever shown a profit.)

>> However, it should be noted that while long distance service is
>> now very cheap, local service is where the expense is. It was
>> once exactly the opposite, because Ma Bell subsidized
>> residential telephone service by over charging on long distance
>> and business services.
>
>Duhh, who makes more long distance than local calls, private individuals or
>businesses? Who, therefore benefits from the decreased long distance rates
>and who is charged more on the whole?

Business calls are by far the largest portion of such calls.
What's your point? Businesses also have metered local service,
and residential customers don't. In 1940 even businesses would
send a telegram rather than make a long distance call (besides,
you could hardly hear Grandma on a trans-continental call
anyway). In 1950 there were actually some places where you
could hear Grandma, and it didn't cost a week wages. By 1960
most people could direct dial Grandma, and would be able to hear
her just fine, and it wasn't all that expensive any more.
Thirty years later, in 1990, Grandma is probably refusing to
answer the damned phone half the time just because every single
one of the grand kids can and does call her at the drop of a
hat, because talking to Granny is cheaper than going to a movie,
by *far*.

I'd say there has been a *huge* change in telecommunications.
And thank goodness for Judge Green breaking up the Bell System
when he did!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Shayne Wissler

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:871xm4gc6r.fld@barrow.com...

> Why aren't *you* paying your own way, instead of extorting money
> from others!

Since I'm opposed to extortion and have said that already, then all I can
say is: if you can't really follow a thread, then perhaps you shouldn't post
on it.


Shayne Wissler

Floyd L. Davidson

"Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
>news:871xm4gc6r.fld@barrow.com...
>
>> Why aren't *you* paying your own way, instead of extorting money
>> from others!
>
>Since I'm opposed to extortion and have said that already, then all I can
>say is: if you can't really follow a thread, then perhaps you shouldn't post
>on it.

So what are saying is that it is okay for you to be a hypocrite, and
damned nasty of me to point it out.

You're wrong.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Shayne Wissler

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:878ygbg1on.fld@barrow.com...
> "Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
> >news:871xm4gc6r.fld@barrow.com...
> >
> >> Why aren't *you* paying your own way, instead of extorting money
> >> from others!
> >
> >Since I'm opposed to extortion and have said that already, then all I can
> >say is: if you can't really follow a thread, then perhaps you shouldn't
post
> >on it.
>
> So what are saying is that it is okay for you to be a hypocrite, and
> damned nasty of me to point it out.

No, what I am saying is that your reading comprehension is not up to this
thread. Not only did I not advocate extortion, but I specifically pointed
out that governments can be funded without it.


Shayne Wissler