The USPS used to be a clear-cut government agency, but has been quasi-privatized. Congress cut its taxpayer funding, and directed it to run itself like a business, not like a public service. Accordingly, you are incorrect about who are the "people paying their salaries": the USPS has not received any taxpayer money since its funding was cut to zero in the early 1980s. It now funds itself like a business, by charging fees and, like any other business, exploiting intellectual property where the opportunity arises. In that sense it's more like a regulated utility, like Comcast or PG&E, having been privatized in all but name.
Ultimately whether it's a public service that should act in the public interest, or an organization that should be run as a business, is a policy decision that's up to Congress to decide. And Congress decided on the 2nd. Given that, exploiting the zipcode database as proprietary IP seems in line with the letter and the spirit of their (current) mandate.
> Congress cut its taxpayer funding, and directed it to run itself like a business, not like a public service.
Not really. Congress forced the PO to run itself like no other business or government entity with the goal of ruining it. The 109th Congress wanted to promote the belief government can't do anything efficiently. It was called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act and intentionally places huge burdens on the USPS which no other business has. Without those, estimates show the PO would still be hurting, but no where near its current state. So Bush can say "Mission Accomplished" about one thing and be right about it.
While it is true the USPS has requirements that no other business has, it also has benefits that no other business has. These include, but are not limited to:
* A box for its use at every residence in the United States
> * A box for its use at every residence in the United States
Not even close. I've lived many places without a box. If you're too expensive to deliver to, you don't get a box and you have to drive to the nearest post office and pick up your mail yourself. That's what a PO Box is.
They do not pay taxes. They are also not subject to many regulations other businesses face, and of course they are more famous for not having to adhere to parking laws.
They are forced to prefund their pensions unlike other government agencies but like private companies.
the truth of their problem is that mail service is declining, stats show it at 213 billion in 2006 down to 160 billion letters in 2012. That is a major decline in revenue.
Even if the Post Office did not have to fund its pensions it loses billions of dollars a year. If they did not fund their pensions and those pensions ended up negative the tax payers would step in.
Also consider.
1. the Post Office when negotiating with its unions cannot factor in the operational costs of the contract. As in, they cannot factor in the impact of it in day to day expenditures versus revenue.
2. The Post Office also has 535 overseers, as in Congress who can stop them from closing unprofitable offices, distribution centers, and the like. They even like to interfere with vehicle purchases. Anecdote, I remember my Aunt and Cousin (both ran local offices) bemoaning the left hand drive Windstars they had to take.
3. The EU even requires member nations to open their markets to competition, the US does not permit direct competition in letter delivery.
> They are forced to prefund their pensions unlike other government agencies but like private companies.
Which private company has to fund 75 years of pension plans? Can't say I've ever heard of a company being forced to prefund pensions for future employees not even yet born before learning about PAEA.
They are, in fact, a government agency. Government agencies that are funded entirely through user fees -- which is what postage is -- aren't entirely uncommon. (Of course, given the way that it is funded in part by "loans" from the Treasury that are made without any indication that the Postal Service will ever have a business plan that enables them to be repaid, its kind of questionable to even put the Postal Service in the category of purely user-fee funded government agencies. Its really just a plain old regular tax-and-user-fee-funded government that has been cloaked in some misleading smoke-and-mirrors.)
No, they're an independent government agency. Federal agencies that survive on non-appropriated funds aren't uncommon, for example, The Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint and several DoD NAFIs (e.g. the different exchanges and various MWR programs).
It's always been a mix of public/private since Benjamin Franklin won the contract to deliver mail between the colonies. Perhaps more public than private but the USPS history is fascinatingly complex.
The USPS has the massive benefit of government-protected monopoly on first-class mail. Even if it's not a direct infusion of funds, it's a major subsidy.
Whether that's a net subsidy or anti-subsidy is an interesting question. They have both a monopoly and a fairly stringent mandate: they are required to deliver first-class mail to every mailing address in the United States (including very remote areas), six days a week, at prices that they can't set. The estimates I've seen are that the first-class mail mandate is a net money-loser, with pre-sorted bulk mail and premium services like Priority Mail the more successful products. So the USPS might actually be financially better off without this "subsidy". But Alaska and Montana senators would have a fit if rural communities lost mail service.
I live in Montana and don't think I've ever seen a package from FedEx or UPS. Both companies use USPS to do the final legs of the delivery that would be unprofitable for them to do.
Indeed. We see what the market price for delivering a letter quickly across the country is: about $20 from Fedex. USPS can only charge 46 cents by law, the cheapest first-class mail service in the world.
The more than 40x price difference is not all about speed, insurance, and tracking. No private service would providing first class mail delivery without cutting off service to unprofitable rural areas or jacking up the price significantly. Or, more likely, both.
>No private service would providing first class mail delivery without cutting off service to unprofitable rural areas or jacking up the price significantly. Or, more likely, both.
I don't know how you can prove that, postal services worldwide have been a government run business until very recently, and are still kept as a monopoly even after being privatized. Fedex cannot ship your normal mail, they are not even allowed to do it.
I thought we needed the State to protect us from monopolies? There must be a certain amount of double-think that goes into this line of reasoning. But yeah, remove the monopoly on first-class mail and let them charge differently if they'd like. Let other services compete with them. It's unfair for those living in remote areas? Well, I guess everyone should be charged the same for real estate regardless of location to make it "fair."
Businesses aren't subject to FOIAs. If they're a business, why did they even respond? Given that they have responded, they are not a private business (of course). The USPS response here is shameful and we (Americans) should change it!
Did you even read my post? I said they are nominally a government agency (therefore liable for FOIAs), but have been directed by Congress to operate as a business, not to operate as public servants. Therefore it's not surprising that they exploit proprietary IP as if they were a business, since these are precisely the instructions they were given.
Ultimately whether it's a public service that should act in the public interest, or an organization that should be run as a business, is a policy decision that's up to Congress to decide. And Congress decided on the 2nd. Given that, exploiting the zipcode database as proprietary IP seems in line with the letter and the spirit of their (current) mandate.