Tech Broiler

Jason Perlow and Scott Raymond

Opt Me Out! The United States Postal Service Needs an Overhaul

By | August 10, 2009, 9:31am PDT

Summary: The volume of physical spam I receive, aka junk mail, is now becoming an absolutely intolerable situation. Nothing less than a complete overhaul of the entire US Postal Service is in order. My friend and colleague David Strom, over at his site Strominator.com, in a reaction to recent congressional hearings about possible changes to the United [...]

The volume of physical spam I receive, aka junk mail, is now becoming an absolutely intolerable situation. Nothing less than a complete overhaul of the entire US Postal Service is in order.

My friend and colleague David Strom, over at his site Strominator.com, in a reaction to recent congressional hearings about possible changes to the United States Postal Service, has proposed a very interesting idea — that Netflix should take over the USPS. His reason? Netflix has been an effective user of the postal service with its standardized DVD mailers, their elimination of stamps and a corporate culture that is the polar opposite of the way USPS works with its own employees and treats its customers.

Click on the “Read the rest of this entry” link below for more.

I’m not going to debate whether Netflix is necessarily the best steward for the USPS or if the USPS should follow a Netflix-like business model. Indeed, Netflix itself is more and more getting out of the business of sending DVDs snail mail and are moving towards Internet content delivery with devices like the Roku and their Instant Play service. What I will say is that the USPS is woefully outdated, inefficient and wasteful.

[EDIT: I previously added "and costs taxpayers way too much money to run." The USPS is a government-run corporation and income generating entity for the US Treasury and receives no tax dollars, apparently. However, when it was formed in 1971, it received a 3 billion dollar subsidy from the US Government. The 2008 USPS Annual Report shows an approximate 3 billion dollar capital contribution from the US Government. ]

It’s time that the Postal Service enters the 21st century and adapts a number of modernization methods, the most significant being how to deal with junk mail.

Yes, junk mail. Physical spam. The never ending pile of dead trees that seems to stuff our mailboxes every week, which includes all sorts of commercial mails we never opted-in on, or knew we opted-in on by virtue of joining any number of mailing lists for companies we thought would handle our personal information in a discreet manner. Just as certain types of robocalls should be made illegal and we have the ability to opt-out of telemarketing calls through a government web site, we should also have the ability via a web site to opt out of entire classes of mail sent through the USPS.

How do we do this? Every type of commercial/bulk mailer should be required by law to use a bar code that classifies it in a number of pre-defined categories, which will get sorted via electronic scanner prior to delivery. The major ones that we want to be concerned with is Legal or Time-Sensitive Official Correspondence, Municipal/Government, Financial (Bills), Health (Lab reports, medical records, medication), Periodicals (Magazines/Newspapers) and lastly and most importantly, Bulk Marketing Materials (Catalogs, Get Rich Quick Letters, Coupon Mailers, etc).

As with the National Do Not Call Registry, I should be able to register my home address and opt out of anything that fits in the Bulk Marketing Materials category, which alone should reduce the pile of crap that accumulates on my mantle by my front door by about 95 percent, and allow me to find the stuff that is actually important.

[EDIT: Apparently, the Direct Marketing Association has created a website where you are able to opt-out of THEIR managed lists. You can try it out at https://www.dmachoice.org. I've registered and opted out of catalogs and magazines and a whole bunch of other junk, but apparently to opt out of credit offers you have to go to an external website, OptOutPreScreen.com that asks for your Social Security Number. There is also CatalogChoice.org, which allows you to fine tune your catalog choices but does not allow you to opt out of ALL of them in one fell swoop. As to the effectiveness of dmachoice.org and whether it works or piles more junk into my mailbox, I'll let you know in 90 days.]

Mandatory registration of commercial bulk mailing entities and electronic sorting and “physical spam assassination” will also reduce the amount of paper waste that is occurring and reduce de-forestation and our global carbon footprint, because once companies get “Do not mail” notifications from the USPS’s database, they won’t waste postage on sending stuff that is going to go right in the garbage when the USPS scans it and checks it against their “Do not mail” database and sends them a monthly electronic “Bounce” reports on garbage volumes from rejected addresses.

If businesses try to game the system by attempting to re-categorize their physical spam as something other than “Bulk Marketing Materials” I should be able to read their number off the barcode and file a complaint on the USPS “Do Not Mail” website which should have real consequences if businesses that do commercial mailings of bulk marketing material get high bounce rates. Is snail-mail spam making your life a living hell and making it harder to sort out your most critical correspondence? Talk Back and Let Me Know.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies.

Disclosure

Jason Perlow

My Full-Time Employer is IBM. I write as a freelancer for ZDNet.

Disclaimer: The postings and opinions on this blog are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions.

I own no investments or direct financial instruments in the companies I write about.

Biography

Jason Perlow

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet is a technologist with over two decades of experience with integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. A long-time computer enthusiast starting the age of 13 with his first Apple ][ personal computer, he began his freelance writing career starting at ZD Sm@rt Reseller in 1996 and has since authored numerous guest columns for ZDNet Enterprise and Ziff-Davis Internet. Jason was previously Senior Technology Editor for Linux Magazine, where he wrote about Open Source issues from 1999 to 2008.

In his spare time, Jason is an avid amateur chef and food writer, where his work reviewing New Jersey restaurants has appeared in The New York Times. He is also the founder of the popular food web site eGullet and blogs about restaurants and cooking at OffTheBroiler.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
70
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

opt-ins
nola startup 4th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
They Can't Change It
rshol 10th Aug 2009
The ONLY people using the Postal System today are Direct Marketers, Billers and Magazines. That's why the only mail in your post box is catalogs, bills and magazines. 85% of current USPS revenue is from bulk mailers of which Direct Marketers are the largest share. So the Postal Service has two options. Spam you (to use your term) or shut down.

Another big segment of revenue comes from fulfillment services. Many carriers (FedEx smart post for one) use the USPS for last mile delivery in a B to C context.

Losing a significant portion of Direct Marketing postage revenue would be a substantial negative to the post office. Think of it as a subsidy or like the ads on ZDNet.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely correct
_Aoshi_ 10th Aug 2009
Your point is dead on shollomon.

You and every other American can thank all that junk mail piling up in your inbox for keeping your first class stamps at $0.44, and your flat rate parcel boxes from costing as much as Fedex.

I own a lettershop - a company that deals with large volume mailings for our clients. Everyone, from Microsoft, CNet, Sears, American Express, etc... I mean *everyone* that spends any amount of advertising dollars knows good old fashion mail gets the highest rate of returns (BY FAR!)... and that's not going to change anytime soon. So the reality is, there's ZERO motivation for the advertisers to change their ways, and even less for USPS.

You know what works for most people? Put a nice note on your mailbox that says "No junkmail please!". Almost every postal worker will respect that. As for the addressed junk, simply write "PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME" clearly on the piece and Return to sender! No mailer wants to waste postage money on someone that won't even open their piece... The solutions already exist, and it doesnt' require a crazy complicated scheme. happy

0 Votes
+ -
Death Spiral
rshol 10th Aug 2009
I am the CFO for a company with a significant direct marketing (mail) business. The problem for the industry is continued increases in mailing costs (postage, printing, paper, list acquisition, etc.) and stagnant response rates. If rates go up and response rates remain flat it does not take long before mailing is unprofitable. Prospecting is already unprofitable for most direct marketers except in very narrow segments.

So at the USPS, demand declines and they raise rates. This pushes up costs to mailers and makes more lists unprofitable so mailings decline some more, which prompts the USPS to raise rates -- etc.

Printed magazines are on the decline, direct marketers are pulling back from mailing and billers are pushing electronic billing/bill payment. I don't see how the USPS survives over the long term. At the very least the cost of 1st Class postage could go to $2 or $3 in a relatively short period of time.

The good news, for those who don't like catalogs and other direct solicitations in their snail mail, is that the market will solve their problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Q: How do they survive?
rshores 10th Aug 2009
A: Government subsidies.

That's the only way that the USPS, Amtrak, or any other quasi-government agency can survive.

If you don't have a viable business model, you should be allowed to fail. I don't care if you're the postal service, a bank, an airline, a car company, et. al.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How do they survive
Weasel82 11th Aug 2009
eh? unfortunately there are some goods and services where the benefits are largely in the form of externalities and cannot therefore be viable businesses. That's why government has to support them - to your list you can add the police, the fire department, the military... All of which provide tangible benefits to society, none of which are viable on their own. You willing to "allow them to fail"? The postal service falls into the same category.
0 Votes
+ -
send junk mail back!
t0mmyt@... 14th Aug 2009
Whenever I get junk mail, I save it and put it in the postage paid envelopes from other junkmail that I get.
0 Votes
+ -
WRONG!
kd5auq 10th Aug 2009
They CAN change it, but the junk mail/spam lobby won't let them (and they don't want to).
We are stuck with a "reverse subsidy" in this situation because first class mail subsidized junk mail not the other way around.
0 Votes
+ -
So then shut them down...
Caggles 11th Aug 2009
Man, who uses snail mail anymore for ANYTHING? I pay my bills online, my paycheck is direct deposit, my magazine subscriptions are in the process of being turned into monthly subscriptions to online magazines.

Snail Mail is pretty much dead. Just let the people know that they have so many more years before the mail system will be shut down entirely, so those handful of people who are without computers and email can move into the 21st century. Or, for those who insist on using snail mail, they can pay a premium and use FedEx.
0 Votes
+ -
I have a simpler solution.
Letophoro 10th Aug 2009
All mail that is not personal in nature must enclose a mailer to return the mail to the sender and that sender must pay for receipt of any returned material. Failure to enclose a mailer is punishable by a $500USD fine per incident.

You can also try this:
http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html
0 Votes
+ -
I already do that to those bastards at Geico.
Hallowed are the Ori 10th Aug 2009
When (not if) they send me yet another mailing trying to convince me they are cheaper (they aren't), I cram it all into the nice envelope they thoughtfully enclose that is already "meter stamped", and mail it back to them, so they not only get to pay for sending it to me, they get to pay for me sending it back to them as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe their insurance would be cheaper
Michael Kelly 10th Aug 2009
if you didn't keep doing that. wink
0 Votes
+ -
You must be some kinda special!
mgp3 10th Aug 2009
I average about two junks per month from Geico and I never get a return envelope. That pisses me off because, with the ones that do provide an envelope, I usually do just like you do. I let them pay the return postage.

trying to convince me they are cheaper (they aren't),...

No kidding, huh? The one time I called them for a quote, they quoted me a premium 35% HIGHER than I currently get. When I laughed and told the rep that, he said "Well, we could change your options and increase your deductibles to lower the price." I laughed again and hung up. Maybe THAT'S why they don't provide an envelope. happy

0 Votes
+ -
No kidding
Hallowed are the Ori Updated - 10th Aug 2009
I swear I am not making this up:

I bought my daughter a car a couple of years ago. Geico wanted $4,900 every six months (That's not a typo. They wanted four THOUSAND nine hundred dollars every six months.)

I thought "Well, that can't possibly be correct.", so I rechecked it a few more times. Each time I got the same amount: $4,900.

I went to State Farm and got exactly the same coverage that Geico want $4900 for... I paid State Farm less than $300 for it.

Later on, after that enormous quote, I got a series of junk mails from Geico that made me laugh. They read something like "Why not give us another look? Our rates for your coverage may have decreased."

Needless to say, I did not and will not give Geico "another look".

And if that wasn't enough reason to tell them, their cavemen and their Gecko to FOAD, I refuse to do business with Geico because of those godforesaken "That's the money you could be saving with Geico." commercials
0 Votes
+ -
Pre-paid reply envelopes
JTF243@... 11th Aug 2009
Almost every time something unsolicited comes that has a "business reply envelope", I will use that envelope to send all their material back to them, including their original envelope.
It has been suggested to take that envelope, open it up, wrap and tape it around a brick. They will have to pay the postage on that brick. >:-) *weg*
0 Votes
+ -
I go one step further...
i8thecat 12th Aug 2009
I collect those prepaid return envelopes and I
stuff them with as much snail spam as I can stuff
in (and still seal it closed), and then I mail
them back.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope
theforce 11th Aug 2009
This is not the case. If so, then all postcards would be in violation of this ruling. Have you seen a return mailers attached to any postcards you've received recently. NO, that's what I thought.
... each piece of junkmail is a contributing to the pay of everyone in the USPS system. That's why they like it. I'm curious how a 'company' like the USPS even loses money. With all of the packages being sent these days, you would think they would get a share of it, but not may people trust the USPS to deliver important packages (I know I don't). SO it's junkmail delivery.
I do it every time i move. I opts you out of any bulk mailing. http://www.obviously.com/junkmail/

The bulk mailings already have special electronic stamps that list them as such. Same thing with charity and political. We have charity pricing here that is printed on each envelope. The only people who still use stamps are generally individuals. Everyone who uses a printed stamp usually gets a discount or atleast is able to be electronically billed.. which is why they use the printed on stamp.

The thing here is that the post office makes money by deliveriing bulk mail.. why would they want to give everyone a way to opt out?
0 Votes
+ -
won't work
Linux Geek Updated - 10th Aug 2009
snail mail is not as bad as email spam, but USPS won't try to block it since it's generating revenue for them.
The only positive outcome would be that it would save some trees.
If you want to get rid of paper mail just send back the postage prepaid reply envelope empty and with your address as originator.
They don't like getting spamed back and paying for useless mail.
It worked for me.
0 Votes
+ -
and NOT have the government regulate yet another aspect of
life.

Apparently, a radical concept in today's world.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually...
Hallowed are the Ori 10th Aug 2009
... after Obama, Pelosi and Reid get finished with us and our power bills skyrocket, we may need to burn junk email for warmth and light.
0 Votes
+ -
I really hope..
Silver J 11th Aug 2009
you're trolling.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Burning junk mail
JTF243@... 11th Aug 2009
The problem is they will probably outlaw any and all "open air burning" (leaves, trash, charcoal grills, fireplaces, etc.). Then things will really cold.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen!
stano360 11th Aug 2009
I will second that motion!
0 Votes
+ -
E-mail has put such a dent...
bjbrock 10th Aug 2009
in the USPS volume and thus $$$$ that they need junk mail to survive.
0 Votes
+ -
A Better One Should Be...
riverab@... Updated - 10th Aug 2009
Opt me in. So basically the default should be that I don't receive anything from anyone unless I request it. Of course as you listed government, bills and healthcare get a pass. I'm tired of having to opt out on stuff. For example, If I want to post something on ZDNet, the automatic logon box is checked. It should be unchecked as a default.
0 Votes
+ -
opt-ins
nola startup 4th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
When are these so called "reporters" going to do some fact-checking before they spew out these insane comments like "and costs taxpayers way too much money to run"??? The fact is that there is a very small portion of the postal budget that is paid by 'taxpayers' to reimburse the cost of FREE MATTER FOR THE BLIND. ALL other revenue comes from the USERS of the postal service from the postage paid.
When are these so called "reporters" going to do some fact-checking before they spew out these insane comments like "and costs taxpayers way too much money to run"??? The fact is that there is a very small portion of the postal budget that is paid by 'taxpayers' to reimburse the cost of FREE MATTER FOR THE BLIND. ALL other revenue comes from the USERS of the postal service from the postage paid.
0 Votes
+ -
The blind?
Hallowed are the Ori 10th Aug 2009
The disabled, including the blind, have lobbied for years to be treated just like "normal" people.

OK fine. But normal people pay their own way, and do not expect others to do it for them.
0 Votes
+ -
Greening -> this one is for Harry Fuller
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 10th Aug 2009
Totally agree. The amount of advertising is insane. This would be a good topic for fellow blogger Harry Fuller to pick up, after all, less advertising = less waste = greener. But I guess he won't be interested, because there's no blaming others and putting guilt feelings on others involved in this story. Then the tree huggers suddenly are not interested anymore.
0 Votes
+ -
Not true
rapson 10th Aug 2009
It would be easy to blame junk mail on the corrupt American capitalist system, which falls right in line with Harry's feelings about our "civilization" (his quotes, not mine).

Carl Rapson
Some very interesting and novel ideas - but based on some inaccurate and inconsistent assumptions. First, the USPS is not run with a single dime of taxpayers' money EXCEPT for extremely limited congressional appropriations that don't even fully cover the cost of mail for the blind and the "franking privileges" for members of Congress. Otherwise, the Postal Service pays its own way through the sale of its products and services. And while the recession has hit it hard, the Postal Service would have been in the black in 2008 if it hadn't been obligated by a new law - passed in December 2006 - requiring it to pre-fund retiree health care benefits to the tune of over $5 BILLION each year. No other agency, and no business in the either the private or public sectors, is required to (or does) pre-fund such benefits.

Having said that, the fact is that the Postal Service has been getting leaner (its workforce is down to 630,000 from close to 800,000 just two years ago), more efficient due to the implementation of cutting edge technology, and is a leader in environmental and sustainability initiatives, having won more than 70 major awardsm, including five EPA WasteWise Parter awards to 40 White House "Closing the Circle" awards to the 2008 California Climate Action Registry's Champion of the Year. The Postal Service AND the mailing industry at large are much greener than you think, and are committed to sustainable practices (paper, by the way, IS a sustainable resource - and you don't think the servers farms supporting email and internet activities have no carbon footprint, do you? EVERYTHING we do has an environmental impact, and electronic mail is no exception).

But the issue, I realize, is whether there should be an opt-out registry for paper mail similar to the FTC's national Do Not Call registry. What I don't understand is how otherwise intelligent and informed people can think it would be a good idea for taxpayers - or postal ratepayers, also known as customers - to fund an advertising mail registry when such registries ALREADY EXIST?? The Direct Marketing Association has an excellent, effective service called DMAChoice (www.dmachoice.org), and at most it costs consumers $1 to join. It permits consumers to identify mail they don't wish to receive, and notifies the companies responsible for that mail. Another good opt-out service is Catalog Choice (www.catalogchoice.org), which is free and has dramatically improved its offerings over the past year. And there is nothing stopping any consumer from using BOTH services, and/or other services available on the internet that charge more for their services (but don't have the reach of either DMAChoice or Catalog Choice). People who wish to opt out of credit card and banking solicitations can do it FREE at www.optoutprescreen.com, a service provided by the four major credit bureaus. And you can also contact specific companies to let them know you don't wish to receive ad mail from them - particularly in this market, they don't want to spend the money to try to sell you something if you already know you don't want it,so companies are very receptive to consumers' preferences.

The bottom line is that there are already many ways for consumers to express their preferences regarding the mail, without: 1) requiring the government (state? local? federal?) to use taxpayer funds to set up the kind of registry described in your blog entry; or 2) requiring the Postal Service to set up such a registry at ratepayers' expense (think people without computers and e-billing systems can afford to pay $1 - or more - for a first class letter stamp?)? Unless you have tried the existing mail preference services and found them severely lacking (the millions of consumers who currently use them have found otherwise), why promote the creation of yet another government program that will cost a lot of money? Use these services, contact your mailers, and RECYCLE... and help to preserve affordable postage as an option for everyone who needs and/or wants to continue to send and receive paper mail and packages.
0 Votes
+ -
Subsidy:
rshores Updated - 11th Aug 2009
He wrote it best: http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston21.html

The USPS is subsidized. One need only refer to the 2005 annual report (http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/) to get some illustrative numbers. A line item showing as "U.S. government appropriations ? received" lists an amount of $503 million. The 2003 annual report (http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt03/) shows a similar line item with a similar heading. That line item lists an amount of $762 million. Call me a nitpicker, but those listings both sound suspiciously like, well, government appropriations, A.K.A. taxpayer investment, to me. Looking further into the 2005 annual report we find this.

"We commenced operations on July 1, 1971, in accordance with the provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act (the Act). The equity that the U.S. government held in the former Post Office Department became our initial capital. We valued the assets of the former Post Office Department at original cost less accumulated depreciation. The initial transfer of assets, including property, equipment and cash, totaled $1.7 billion. Subsequent cash contributions and transfers of assets between 1972 and 1982 totaled approximately $1.3 billion, resulting in total government contributions of approximately $3 billion."

So even without the (apparently) semi-annual infusions of "government appropriations" the USPS received something like $3 billion in "start-up" capital. That is about as far from "no taxpayer support" as one can get! Additionally, these are economic benefits that private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL do not receive and they are still kicking the Post Office's butt in the realm where the USPS is not protected by fiat. (Have you seen the FedEx boxes placed outside the USPS recently?) Clearly the USPS benefits from government subsidy, no matter what they choose to call it.

[EDIT: Thanks for the changes to the original, Jason!]
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Thanks.
0 Votes
+ -
um, not really
coffeeshark 19th Aug 2009
There may be a pretense that the USPS runs entirely on its own funds, but unfortunately there are still millions spent by taxpayers to keep it afloat.

For instance, a recent purchase of 6,500 vehicles was completed at no cost to the USPS, only to the GSA. I'm pretty sure this qualifies as government subsidization in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That's just one example.

So, yes, technically they run on their own revenue (and pay no taxes), but in reality?
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not disagreeing!
rshores 19th Aug 2009
If you look farther up in the comments, you'll see I said that they can afford to do "business" (if you want to call it that!) only with subsidies from the government.

I just didn't feel like doing the research myself, and just posted the article I'd found - he specifically referred to only those 2 years, but those citations were enough to prove that they *are* taxpayer funded, regardless of ongoing operating expenses... thus refuting some earlier posters.
0 Votes
+ -
my response was to the first post
coffeeshark 19th Aug 2009
but no worries
0 Votes
+ -
I agree I get mail once a week rest spam
Randalllind 10th Aug 2009
I get mail once or twice a week mostly bills the rest of the time is junk or spam mail.
0 Votes
+ -
Do you get the Monday load?
Hallowed are the Ori 10th Aug 2009
Every Monday they dump one of those stacks of garbage in my box that is multiple pages, hawking Piggly Wiggly, Pizza Hut, Dominos, Jiffy Lube, etc.

The problem is that it's loose like a newspaper, and you have to go through it page by page to make sure REAL mail didn't get stuck inside it during handling.
0 Votes
+ -
Piggly Wiggly?
mgp3 10th Aug 2009
I didn't even know they still existed.
0 Votes
+ -
"Net neutrality" for ISPs but not for the USPS?
Vesicant Updated - 10th Aug 2009
Consistency has never been a ZDNet blogger virtue. And none of your NPD blather about barcoding and opting out has anything to do with the USPS. Your beef is with the mailers, not the carrier.
If the USPS eliminated delivery of junk mail, there would be nothing to delivery. No USPS !!
0 Votes
+ -
So you think
seanrunner26 12th Aug 2009
Remember the USPS also delivers several packages at performance rates comparable to its competitors, at a lesser charge. If the USPS were disbanded how much would you be willing to pay for shipping when prices go up from the competitors.
0 Votes
+ -
Then stop bulk mail. Pretty stupid idea actually. They DO pay for the mail to be sent to you. This keeps the service going without the price for letters you do want to send getting too high. I have an idea...recycle the bulk mail and forget about it.

Another thing.. The USPS has made a profit from the service in every year since its inception. The problem is that the federal government ROBS PETER TO PAY PAUL. They "Desginate" the money made by the postal service to the general fund. Then the USPS has to beg, borrow and steal to get funding for every modernization project. That is why they need to get money from congress, but it is money it already put into the general fund in the first place.

Quit complaining about the BEST postal service the planet has ever seen. They get a piece of paper from your front door completely across the country in less than 2 days 99.999999% of the time. IT is positively incredible and it is mostly paid for by SPAM.

The only problem with SPAM online is that it takes away bandwidth, and they don't pay to send it.... if the spammers paid 30 cents per email toward the infrastructure I would have NO problem with them online either. But they don't so we hate them.

As for junkmail in my mailbox at home, I smile and am happy coupons for life is paying for me to have a cheap mail service.
0 Votes
+ -
I have a better idea.
Hallowed are the Ori 10th Aug 2009
Get rid of the bulk rate for junk mailers. Let them pay first class like the rest of us.

Oh, and I don't really care how much they charge for letters. I pay all my bills online, and if I want to send a letter to someone, I fire up Outlook and send them an email.
0 Votes
+ -
How lame
theforce 11th Aug 2009
Are you kidding me. Another shining example of a person who doesn't understand the free market system. If the mailer has to pay a higher rate to mail their advertizing, then the cost of goods sold goes up, which is then passed back to the consumer in the form of higher prices. So, your infantile idea will end up costing you more for your stuff. Sound like a good idea now?
0 Votes
+ -
The postal service is great
RationalGuy 11th Aug 2009
What I will say is that the USPS is woefully outdated,
inefficient and wasteful.


For $.44 you can send a physical letter anywhere in the US
within 3 days. Please tell me any other company or
organization that can even come close to competing with
that.
0 Votes
+ -
Cost per ounce, pay it.
zclayton3 11th Aug 2009
Get rid of all the jigger pokery that allows for the system abuse. If it costs $.42/ounce to process my first class letter then it should cost $.42/ounce to process the other Krap that gets delivered from unsolicited commercial snail mail. Why should the farging SPAMers be subsidized by the victims of their greed.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix