We used Yellow Royal Mail branded envelopes to gain attention.
> Sending the messages wouldn’t be simple, either. Customers had to register their company with the USPS using Form 5320, pay a $50 annual fee, send a minimum of 200 messages per post office, and “prepay postage for transmitted messages received, processed, and printed for each transmission,” dictated the 1981 Federal Register.
Almost sounds like a parody
https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/outbox-vs-usps-how-the-po...
>When Evan and Will got called in to meet with the postmaster general, they were joined by the USPS’ general counsel and chief of digital strategy. But instead, Evan recounts that Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe “looked at us” and said “we have a misunderstanding. ‘You disrupt my service and we will never work with you.'” Further, “You mentioned making the service better for our customers; but the American citizens aren’t our customers—about 400 junk mailers are our customers. Your service hurts our ability to serve those customers.'”
That's the US mail. Can we all please stop pretending that any actual human needs the US mail to continue? No one's paying their bills through the mail... you can't even really write checks. Hell, given how international mail works, it's the US government subsidizing Aliexpress and Temu. No one should be defending the US Postal Service.
It's a public service. It doesn't need to turn a profit because every dollar put into it generates economic activity.
Junk mail is well over 99% of their activity by any metric you can offer. Pieces of mail, revenue, weight, etc. It's not a joke. It's the fucking truth of it. And you're all bizarrely delusional if you can't or won't see it.
>everyone else rolls their eyes and thinks you're not very bright.
I've experienced that all my life. And yet I always out-tested everyone who thought that. Why would that change? The comment above yours talks about how he's always paying by check... what the fuck is grandpa going to do in the next couple years when that goes away? They can only postpone the deprecation of paper bank checks for so long. Guess he will either have to stop living in the 1950s, or just croak.
>It's a public service.
It's a goddamned public nuisance.
>It doesn't need to turn a profit because every dollar put into it generates economic activity.
???
We could also pay them to dig holes and fill them back in. That'd be an economic win too, eh? Though your comment probably comes closest to hinting at the real justification: a unionized voting bloc that without it the Democrats would become doomed to irrelevance.
Please avoid personal swipes like this in HN comments, and the general style of commenting on display here. It's against the guidelines:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Notice I didn't say the USPS doesn't ship junk mail. Just that they do a lot more than just ship junk mail. This is objectively true.
The USPS provides massive benefits to numerous americans. Prescription drugs shipped via USPS, last mile service to people that other carriers wont deliver to, signature mail, passports, etc.
Money put into the USPS benefits the economy. This is like food stamps. A dollar in creates more than a dollar of economic activity. This is something that some people absolutely refuse to acknowledge. The USPS doesn't need to be profitable because it provides an invaluable public service.
hard lol and eye roll at "it's a goddamned public nuisance." what a telling thing to say, because it invalidates your entire stance. The bias is on full display. It's almost like you read my comment then wrote a satire piece to show how correct my comment was. It really sounds like you've bought the conservative mentality that everything the government touches is bad. Haha.
This is exactly how I pay all my non-cash invoices — via USPS, sending checks. I don't even use email anymore (freedom!).
Ironically, I lost access to online banking a few years ago [which I'd really love to have, but US banking has ridiculous "security" infrastructure].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Post_Office#The...
It isn't an entirely novel idea - during the Second World War, mail was often sent to very remote destinations on microfilm.
I was in Afghanistan for a different country. It was my job to keep the satellite communications working, including so people could send emails to their friends and family.
Because they weren't in one of the larger bases that had satellite internet. Combat troops in the wilds of Helmand might go weeks without seeing a fresh egg or a slice of bread. Satellite terminals circa 2002 were bulky, expensive bits of kit that just weren't that widely distributed, at least in the British armed forces.
I was there in 2010 and even our FOBs had access to BGANs.
Russians also use theirs for actual comms a fair bit because their equipment (like older tanks from storage) often lacks encrypted digital radios, or sometimes any working radios at all. Ukrainians invested heavily into DMR after the Donbas war in 2014-15 where they had similar troubles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanhope_(optical_bijou)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microform
> Portable readers are plastic devices that fold for carrying; when open they project an image from microfiche on to a reflective screen. For example, with M. de Saint Rat, Atherton Seidell developed a simple, inexpensive ($2.00 in 1950), monocular microfilm viewing device, known as the "Seidell viewer", that was sold during the 1940s and 1950s.
Apparently that’s not what they really used for mail in WW2, though. This video shows how it was really done.
Person in City A would phone the local telegraph office and dictate a message. It would be sent over the telegraph wires to the nearest telegraph office to the recipient in City B, where it would be written down by the operator. Then someone would phone the recipient and read the telegram over the phone to them.
This was in use at least into the late 1940's that I know of.
Inmates do not receive originals - incoming mail is scanned at some service provider’s office that a PO Box forwards to, and things are reprinted at the detention center and walked to the inmate. Or people sign up for a faster service where photos / letters are uploaded through an app to skip the snail mail + scanning step.
One of these is called pigeon.ly
At most participating facilities the only exception to get an inmate physical paper from the outside world is legal mail.
This is how some imprisoned authors have managed to publish their samizdat — by sending thoughts/outlines to their lawyer [under the pretense of legal mail] — when their written ramblings might otherwise have been destroyed [as contraband].
Or is it to make even more profit on the backs of prisoners & their families for companies who win juicy contracts from the government? This was being done by private companies before fentanyl.
Look into Jpay - they do a lot of slimy things and make a lot of money doing so. The free market in action I guess.
https://theappeal.org/prison-tablets-ipads-jpay-securus-gtl/
It’s certainly an exploitative service taking advantage of a captive audience. I do think the substances thing is making many more smaller jails consider it.
The service is https://www.bunk1.com/
I attended summer camps as a kid and worked at one for years as an older teenager. I love summer camps. Looking back, part of the magic for me was being away from my parents for an extended time in a way that wasn't really possible in any other setting. The service you linked (a way for parents to constantly follow along with what's going on at camp) just feels... wrong? unnecessary? detrimental? to me. Do parents really need to be updated all the time with what's going on while their children are away for a week or two?
I don't think it's immoral or unethical to offer this service, I'm sure there's a market for it, but I just don't see why anyone would choose to use it. Let the kids go off to camp and have a good time, and they can tell you about it when they get home. It would really take the wind out of my sails if I got home and my parents already knew everything I had done, instead of getting to tell them all about it myself.
1. diesel needed to cut the trees down
2. diesel needed haul logs to saw mills
3. natural/gas/coal needed to make the water to turn logs into paper
4. diesel needed to haul paper to printer to make spam
5. diesel needed to haul spam to post office
6. diesel needed to haul spam to to your door
7. diesel needed to put spam in the landfill
It serves as boring technical infrastructure for government agencies which still need to send physical mail. Instead of each agency employing their own people to handle printing their mail and stuffing it in envelopes, they can just send it electronically to the post office, which will handle it far more efficiently.
The eventual goal is to move most people to e-deliveries, which you're encouraged to set up when using government services online. For those who haven't done so, the letter will be printed as close to them as possible to save on delivery time and costs, regardless of where in the country the sending agency is located.
I bank with two credit unions. Years ago, they implemented a fee of $2/month for paper statements. I get it, printing and mailing statements costs money. But it also comes to me without me having to log into an account and navigate my way to where the statement is.
I'd prefer to have them send the statement each month to an email address I specify. I get that they should take security seriously, so practically maybe that only means Gmail, Apple Mail, etc. are whitelisted.
I used to think there was a business idea here, that the banks should be willing to pay $.10/statement to save on the cost of paper. I'd be willing to use the service because the statements would automatically go to it and be retained for forever.
The reality is, I'm afraid, that the banks don't want you looking at statements because then you might find errors and dispute them and that costs the banks money.
What does that have to do with security? Geniune question. I really don't see what attach vector this prevents
The threat would be from people cracking Ed's and getting the statements there, possibly without the sysadmins at Ed's ever knowing that it had happened.
On the one hand, it seems like a good public service -- and certainly essential when it was created and up until recently.
But 99% of what comes in my mail box goes straight in the trash. We do everything we can to stop email spam, why not stop postal spam?
If the government offered email as a public service, perhaps there wouldn't need to be any reason for postal mail in terms of ensuring a means of communication that reaches every one.
The Postal Service could still exist but would be quite expensive and only used for things that actually matter (i.e., original legal documents like car title, etc.)
calvinmorrison•8mo ago
j_w•8mo ago
Yes, currently the service is expected to fund itself. This is short sighted and has progressively made one of the greatest public services worse.
giancarlostoro•8mo ago
Goronmon•8mo ago
This logic could be applied to literally anything, so your argument is effectively that the government should never fund anything.
If there is a war, cancer/disease research is going to be less important, so the government shouldn't fund cancer/disease research.
If suddenly a famine strikes, war is going to be less important, so the government shouldn't fund the military.
If a sudden deadly disease arises, funding for food security/research is going to be less important, so the government shouldn't be funding any of that as well.
robertlagrant•8mo ago
potato3732842•8mo ago
But a mail and parcel service, something that the private sector does profitably, shouldn't be deeply in the red though a little from time to time is probably fine.
fragmede•8mo ago
potato3732842•8mo ago
fragmede•8mo ago
robertlagrant•8mo ago
What's causing the unlevel playing field?
fragmede•8mo ago
robertlagrant•8mo ago
HWR_14•8mo ago
robertlagrant•8mo ago
Although I thought USPS had an enforced monopoly on US mail, so how did you do the comparison with private sector mail?
[0] https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-...
HWR_14•8mo ago
The USPS has a monopoly on traditional delivery to a mailbox. So FedEx walks all the way to the door which makes it not "traditional delivery"
giancarlostoro•8mo ago
Sometimes I find Amazon packages in my mailbox, though I know sometimes amazon will use USPS, so could just be them.
fkyoureadthedoc•8mo ago
jgeada•8mo ago
fzzzy•8mo ago
dfxm12•8mo ago
Thankfully, the government guarantees it will deliver letters to some remote rural places at a price private companies can't touch, but we can do better to make life easier for everyone: the mail man, the people wanting their mail, etc.
fzzzy•8mo ago
orwin•8mo ago
I've been twice now in WV, in counties so far away from everything, the only government presence is USPS. The only proof you're in the modern US is USPS (and a bit further a weird, small public library near a weirder Dollar tree).
Some people have trouble getting their retirement money, other are destitute who found a new, non-homeless life (but have trouble with debt collection or just lost their papers), And from what I've understood, USPS has buildings and employees present everywhere and is really trusted in those deep parts, more than anything the government does.
Wouldn't offering basic banking (and maybe limited but free internet access) be a nice addition to help the poorest in the US?
Just an idle thought I had for a while
moduspol•8mo ago
justin66•8mo ago
jdeibele•8mo ago
Paying by check in the mail put a huge dent in this and then having the utility automatically debit your account pretty much put an end to it from what I've seen. I'm sure there are some areas where it still is a thing but they'd also have a high number of people without bank accounts.
For a while, utilities would only debit checking accounts, presumably because ACH payments are so much cheaper than credit card ones. A few years, they opened up to credit card payments. There seem to be a lot of people who do everything on credit cards and they must have had to change with the times.
justin66•8mo ago
jermaustin1•8mo ago
I usually actually have a handful of checking accounts for splitting up bills, not relying on a single bank, etc. And a couple years ago I started a Chime account for my "allowance" because they were partnered with Walmart, and you could deposit cash at Walmart, well not anymore (at least not at my Walmart). I can go to walgreens, but I never need to go to walgreens, so that card has been removed from my wallet.
bee_rider•8mo ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings...
> The United States Postal Savings System was a postal savings system signed into law by President William Howard Taft and operated by the United States Post Office Department, predecessor of the United States Postal Service, from January 1, 1911, until July 1, 1967.
Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren have suggested bringing it back.
amoshebb•8mo ago
nxobject•8mo ago
Qworg•8mo ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings...
There are places in the US where the bank drives to the town once or twice a week, since there's otherwise no way to get cash or transact.
insane_dreamer•8mo ago
potato3732842•8mo ago
I could not disagree more.
While I agree they don't "need" to be profitable and we "could" just give them tax money the fact that they try to be in the face of competition and come pretty close to doing so despite some dumb requirements really results in an incentive structure that puts them head and shoulders above pretty much any other subsection of government one interacts with. So perhaps let's not remove the incentive for profitability.
Edit: And before anyone tries to construe this as me advocating for privatization or anything else like that, I'm saying they're fine the way they are (on a macro level, I'm sure there's tons of individual items that could use refinement, like any organization) and ought to be a model for other government functions.
>and has progressively made one of the greatest public services worse.
What? Are you joking? Have you ever tried to do anything other than a bog standard transaction at the DMV or get anything beyond typical "homeowner pays professional to do typical thing" type work permitted? The USPS is one of the most user friendly services in existence even once you get off the beaten path of sending standardized envelopes and parcels. If you restrict the comparison to just federal services it's not even close except perhaps some very specific common workflows but even then when it goes off the rails it goes off the rails way harder and is way more painful to resolve. Ask anyone of social security age if you don't believe me.
kochb•8mo ago
I enjoy Christmas cards and personal letters as much as anyone, but with electronic payments and telecommunications taking more of the volume, it is increasingly becoming an advertising service. If it is operating unprofitably, we are paying a form of subscription fee to receive those ads.
nxobject•8mo ago
dfxm12•8mo ago
jermaustin1•8mo ago
dfxm12•8mo ago
The ubiquitous conservative media bombards them with lies about the quality, quantity and cost of these services, along with who receives the benefits.
They also haven't taken a step back to consider all the things they enjoy that are provided as government services, like roads, police, education, subsidized mail delivery, unemployment, support for dairy products, etc.
pessimizer•8mo ago
No efficient service will be allowed to survive long in the US, if anyone has any power to cut it. An efficient service is just one that temporarily lacks enough middlemen to increase costs, or enough red tape to reduce enrollment. If neither of these things happen, that means no one with any power has any personal interest in it, so it will be cut arbitrarily at some point in order to make a budget target.
The reason USPS has lasted so long (even in its degraded state) is just because it has lasted so long previously, and is deeply integrated into society. But there's been a bipartisan effort to privatize it and sell it off (to each other) for nearly a generation now. They've taken the steps of lowering its quality and level of service, barred it from entering lines of business that private companies have taken over, and played accounting games with it in order that people will depend on it less. This is not something "conservatives" did, but both Democratic and Republican Congresspeople have even dropped into deceit to try to make happen, and they publicly blame each other for the inexorable progress of dismantling USPS during each administration to distract extreme partisans.
Democrats talked a lot of trash about DeJoy before not firing him when they had the opportunity. It's like how they screamed about DeVos being horrible and out of touch, but Arne Duncan, the school privatizer-in-chief, got to play the "cool" white guy who plays basketball with the "cool" president with virtually identical policy positions.
Once people have stopped depending on the USPS because it is bad, they can give it the Royal Mail treatment that they've always wanted. Mail privatization in the UK was a massive success if you don't care about the mail. The people who got it made a lot of money. The mails there became so brutally expensive and unreliable that it probably affects exports and it still doesn't matter.
edit: sometimes I feel optimistic, though. There was a recent announcement that while hiring for a new person to run public transportation in Chicago, the city has decided that, this time, they will look for somebody with experience in transportation. This is unusual because the job is usually filled by political patronage, by someone with no experience.
nxobject•8mo ago
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/10/08/1203950823/15-minute-cities-c...
jermaustin1•8mo ago
Right now I have about a 1% lost/damaged package rate (averaged over 12 months - it's a tiny amount and it is insured), but come Christmas, that shoots up to around a 10% lost/damaged package rate through USPS - some of those packages do eventually resurface, and I let the customers keep them (I've already filed the insurance claim and shipped a replacement).
UPS was at 5% on average - never used them around Christmas - so no data for that - they might be better than USPS and the were close enough in cost just further away from my workshop.
FedEx (only used for 2 weeks) cost double and 30% of my packages were lost or damaged - can't average it out since there isn't enough data, but having to file claims for 1 in 3 packages after already paying 2x USPS rates wasn't going to fly.
BenjiWiebe•8mo ago
We ship packages via UPS, and have <1% lost/damaged. Not sure how long it's been now since a damaged/lost package - maybe 300?
It probably helps that our smallest packages are ~1000 cu inch and 6 pounds. Hard to lose.
I don't like dealing with UPS customer service, but I really like the actual shipping service. And it's very fast and predictable. Very rare that it takes any longer than UPS WorldShip predicts. 1 day shipping to most of our customers in our state, and some in neighboring states.
jermaustin1•8mo ago
ETA: Except Christmas, that is basically 100% loss, though, about 50% of those losses seem to show up after the claims have been submitted.
BenjiWiebe•8mo ago
And then UPS won't pay out a claim, since they don't cover perishables, even when it's their fault for smashing the cooler. So we started self-insuring at $3 per order, plus we've learned how to package the cheese in the cooler better so it's less likely to break.
And as I mentioned it's very rare now to get a damaged one.
int_19h•8mo ago
BenjiWiebe•8mo ago
TheJoeMan•8mo ago
BenjiWiebe•8mo ago
kbolino•8mo ago
This is actually one of the challenges of public services in the US today; many things, from mail delivery to bus and train service to road construction and vehicle registration, were once self-sufficient but haven't been for a long time. There's a lot of reasons for this, but one of the outcomes is that entities which used to take care of themselves now have to beg for a growing portion out of the general fund.
However, it's clear that the 1970s experiment to have it turn a profit again didn't work and likely never would have worked (it was, in many ways, set up for failure).
jermaustin1•8mo ago
It was a political ploy to force the USPS into debt in 2006 with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. No other federal agency or private sector business pre-funds its retirement benefits.
kbolino•8mo ago
strongpigeon•8mo ago
https://about.usps.com/what/financials/financial-conditions-...
jermaustin1•8mo ago
But to me, none of that really matters, because I don't believe a government entity should be turning a profit on me, because then it is a tax. So I want the USPS running at a loss (pulling from appropriations as needed), but as close to breakeven as possible. If it ever pulls a profit, I expect prices to drop in accordance.
kbolino•8mo ago
About half of their liabilities were forgiven as part of the 2022 legislation. They still have debt and retirement liabilities, but those are more in line with other large services (private or public) now. However, they've each increased over 20% per year since 2022, which is quite a lot.
Personally, I would like to see a return of postal banking, in which case the postal service would pay out its profit to its accountholders.
----
FY23 report showing the halving of liabilities from '21-'22 (p. 29): https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2023...
FY24 report showing the significant increase in other liabilities from '22-'24 (p. 28): https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2024...
kotaKat•8mo ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/06/mule-ma...
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.theatla...