I'm from the government, and I'm here to control your email....
- start of quoted section ----------- http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9808064usps Clinton backs universal E-mail plan By Tom Diederich The Clinton administration wants all Americans to have an E-mail address to go along with their street address and is asking the U.S. Postal Service to deliver the project's backbone. The idea is to connect physical and electronic addresses using the nation's Internet "country code" -- the top-level ".us" domain. Then a company or government agency, for example, could send bills or bulletins to your electronic mailbox as well as your home. The administration said the move would "accelerate and universalize the growth of electronic commerce," according to the Postal Service. [...] The Postal Service sent a proposal to launch the .us domain initiative to the Commerce Department on June 1. The department on Monday said it would accept comments from the public, based on 11 questions (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/dotusrfc.htm, until Sept. 3. ) Responses will be posted on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Web site (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/). - end of quoted section - There is an utter cluelessness here which assumes that there is and/or should be a strong corrospondence between an individual, a physical location, and an email address. This is not suprising, considering that this is from the Post Office, which is mired a 19th century concept of what constitutes 'mail'. I suspect that the PO will want to be able to charge for all mail sent to these addresses. The miserable failure of the USPS to generate any interest in their offer to 'frank' email (for a price) may play into this. Once everyone has an government registered email address, it will be a simple matter to forbid the use of uncontrolled email addresses (for either sending or receiving) at least within the US. It's to be expected that government agencies will refuse to send to any other address. In my opinion, the proper response of the USPS to competition from email and parcel delivery services would be to wind down USPS operations. There is no longer a critical need for a protected monopoly in postal delivery. Peter Trei Disclaimer: The above represents my personal opinions only.
In <D104150098E6D111B7830000F8D90AE8017958@exna02.securitydynamics.com>, on 08/10/98 at 02:56 PM, "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@securitydynamics.com> said:
There is an utter cluelessness here which assumes that there is and/or should be a strong corrospondence between an individual, a physical location, and an email address. This is not suprising, considering that this is from the Post Office, which is mired a 19th century concept of what constitutes 'mail'.
I suspect that the PO will want to be able to charge for all mail sent to these addresses. The miserable failure of the USPS to generate any interest in their offer to 'frank' email (for a price) may play into this.
Once everyone has an government registered email address, it will be a simple matter to forbid the use of uncontrolled email addresses (for either sending or receiving) at least within the US. It's to be expected that government agencies will refuse to send to any other address.
In my opinion, the proper response of the USPS to competition from email and parcel delivery services would be to wind down USPS operations. There is no longer a critical need for a protected monopoly in postal delivery.
Well this is the last thing the USPS wants to do (power corrupts and all that) and they have a few congress critters on their side. A while back they had the postmaster general on C-Span giving his yearly report to congress. USPS is scared to death of the internet and have been scrambling around trying to find a way to generate revenue from it. Back then they were talking about establishing USPS as a national CA and a center for certified e-mail. I guess they realized that there is no way they can compete in the marketplace and the only thing to do is to force their system on everyone. Now enter the usual suspects and their agenda: Mandate USPS e-mail addresses for everyone. Mandate National Electronic ID's (security measure for USPS e-mail). Mandate use of National CA for ID's (run by USPS). Mandate GAK for all e-mail on the USPS system. Mandate all communication to & from government use USPS system. *Big* tax increase to pay for it all with plenty of pork to go round. Hell in a few years you will have them whining and crying that computer ownership is a "right" and we need to *pay* for all those welfare bums to have one (how else will they get their mail?). At a very minimum every post office will be set up with public computer terminals so people can get their mail. Many of the unusual suspects that will go along with this plan will be from the states like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, ...ect who are fearful that their constituents will actually have to pay a fair price to have mail and packages delivered to bum-fuck nowhere. I don't recall the name but one of the critter from Alaska was very upset that if USPS looses it's monopoly delivery in Alaska would no longer be subsidized and that they might have to pay market value to have packages delivered by plane to the far reaches of the wilderness (god forbid!!). -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Trei, Peter wrote:
Once everyone has an government registered email address, it will be a simple matter to forbid the use of uncontrolled email addresses (for either sending or receiving) at least within the US. It's to be expected that government agencies will refuse to send to any other address.
I don't know how easy this would be. The Govt would be going up against some pretty heavy businesses if they wanted to eliminate all but their own email addresses. I can see them pushing a standard by only acknowledgeing "postal" addresses, and probably pushing some kind of cost, since for obvious reasons, these email addresses would have to be managed by the govts own servers. I predict that the idea will go through, the USPS will consider charging people based on the space their incoming mail takes up, but change to a charge on outgoing mail after everyone raises a stink. Then, some clever person will push a bill through congress forcing all commercial email to be sent from a postal email address, forcing spammers to pay a bulk rate and provide both a physical and internet return address. -Caj
See Also: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/13129.html Postal Service Eyes .us Domain 12:30 pm PDT 19 Jun 98 The post office is circulating a draft laying out its case for taking over the United States' official top-level Internet domain as a means of accelerating ecommerce. The 8 May proposal outlines four goals the postal service would pursue if granted authority over the domain by Jon Postel, who heads up the numbers authority and administers the .us domain. The service said it is already working with Postel's group to map .us domain space against its postal address database. Postal service spokeswoman Sue Brennan said the proposal was developed at the urging of the White House. "The administration requested that we investigate the policy of a .us domain, just to investigate what would be involved," Brennan said. "The majority of the other countries have their own country domain ... managed by the government, so the Commerce Department was investigating the possibilities [of doing the same in the United States]." According to the proposal submitted to the institute, the postal service would "engage the private sector in the development of credentialed, commerce-enabling space under .us [and] promote classified business addressing under .us at local, state, and national levels as an open reference for public and private delivery systems and competing directory services." The proposal also said the postal service would "manage an open policy process to develop policies for expanding the .us domain... [and] work toward the establishment of a governance structure that will represent the diversity of stakeholder interests -- private, nonprofit, and public -- in a fully developed .us domain space [snipped...] James Glave, News Editor, Wired News, http://www.wired.com (415) 276-8430
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Trei, Peter wrote:
operations. There is no longer a critical need for a protected monopoly in postal delivery.
If there ever was. Someone once wrote that the difference between a good government and a bad government is that the former simply builds the roads, the latter tells you where to go. In my opinion this could be extended to "the latter tells you how to get it there". Almost as if the government was delegated the power to tell you what kind of car you could drive to work. If it doesn't have that power, how can it have the power to tell you what conveyance to use for your letters? Please refer to Lysander Spooner for an extended and depressing treatment of this subject. Jim
At 02:24 PM 8/10/98 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Many of the unusual suspects that will go along with this plan will be from the states like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, ...ect who are fearful that their constituents will actually have to pay a fair price to have mail and packages delivered to bum-fuck nowhere. I don't recall the name but one of the critter from Alaska was very upset that if USPS looses it's monopoly delivery in Alaska would no longer be subsidized and that they might have to pay market value to have packages delivered by plane to the far reaches of the wilderness (god forbid!!).
Where are you from? Bum-fuck nowhere to you and bum-fuck nowhere to me are two different places. A letter costs 32 cents (presently) whether you send it across town, or across the country. This knife cuts both ways. Once the precedent is set, other industries would quickly join in. How long would it take, do you think, until some whizbang at the electric company decides 'lectric usage rates should be determined on distance from the 'lectric generating plant? Reeza!
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Reeza! wrote:
At 02:24 PM 8/10/98 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
Many of the unusual suspects that will go along with this plan will be from the states like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, ...ect who are fearful that their constituents will actually have to pay a fair price to have mail and packages delivered to bum-fuck nowhere. I don't recall the name but one of the critter from Alaska was very upset that if USPS looses it's monopoly delivery in Alaska would no longer be subsidized and that they might have to pay market value to have packages delivered by plane to the far reaches of the wilderness (god forbid!!).
Where are you from? Bum-fuck nowhere to you and bum-fuck nowhere to me are two different places.
A letter costs 32 cents (presently) whether you send it across town, or across the country. This knife cuts both ways. Once the precedent is set, other industries would quickly join in. How long would it take, do you think, until some whizbang at the electric company decides 'lectric usage rates should be determined on distance from the 'lectric generating plant?
Reeza!
This is how it works in a free-market economy (doh!). One of the self-appointed/assumed functions of gubbmint is to "fix" this, by granting some organization a monopoly in return for bearing the costs of creating infrastructure, as well as spreading the cost of servicing a (smaller) number of remote customers across a (larger) number of non-remote customers. Whether this is a good thing(tm) or a bad thing(tm) depends, as usual, on which side of the subsidy you are on. I would argue that such monopolies are desirable, and that their creation is a proper function of a responsible government. When the monopoly is no longer necessary (sufficient economy of scale has been reached to permit a competitive market to adequately service the customer base), then deregulation can occur. I'm sure some on this list will argue this with me from their mountain cabins in bf-nowhere, but without such monopolies, they'd be sending smoke signals rather than paying $10,000 to get a phone line installed to their home. If you doubt this, look at the heavy reliance on wireless communications in third-world countries, and take a moment to consider how recently the consumer-wireless market arrived on the scene. Before you argue "the best government is no government", visit a few third-world capitols, and note how you move from a modern capitol city to flintstones-like living in about 50km. A $.32 price on first-class mail to anywhere in the country is a good deal for all. OTOH, package delivery has become sufficiently competitive, and probably needs to be revamped. Just my $.02.
On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Rabid Wombat wrote:
This is how it works in a free-market economy (doh!).
One of the self-appointed/assumed functions of gubbmint is to "fix" this, by granting some organization a monopoly in return for bearing the costs of creating infrastructure, as well as spreading the cost of servicing a (smaller) number of remote customers across a (larger) number of non-remote customers.
Whether this is a good thing(tm) or a bad thing(tm) depends, as usual, on which side of the subsidy you are on.
No, it can still be a bad thing even if I am the beneficiary. The question is whether or not it maximizes efficiency. A stock market crash will benefit the short sellers and owners of puts. But it will also cause a depression, which will still affect the short sellers.
I would argue that such monopolies are desirable, and that their creation is a proper function of a responsible government. When the monopoly is no longer necessary (sufficient economy of scale has been reached to permit a competitive market to adequately service the customer base), then deregulation can occur.
There is a cross-subsidy. The monopoly then pays the government to maintain the monopoly indefinately using government force to drive out competition. Being able to legally imprison or shoot competitors is an advantage that is hard to overcome.
I'm sure some on this list will argue this with me from their mountain cabins in bf-nowhere, but without such monopolies, they'd be sending smoke signals rather than paying $10,000 to get a phone line installed to their home. If you doubt this, look at the heavy reliance on wireless communications in third-world countries, and take a moment to consider how recently the consumer-wireless market arrived on the scene.
Alaska tends to be cold. Should heat and other forms of energy be subsidized, and roads built to wherever I want to place my cabin? Arizona is dry - should they get subsidized water? Why is distance different than any other factor. If I want to live in a remote area, I should bear the costs of the remoteness, just as if I want to live near a river, I will have to bear the costs of flood control or damage from uncontrolled floods. I don't have to live in a mountain cabin, but if I do there will be costs. The largest delay for consumer wireless has been government regulation itself - not allowing efficient use of bandwidth. (I think the first cell phone was 1979). And there was a CB craze, although it had limited range. The big wait was for the FCC to catch up with technology (or for congress to allow them to do so).
Before you argue "the best government is no government", visit a few third-world capitols, and note how you move from a modern capitol city to flintstones-like living in about 50km.
Many third world governments are thoroughly corrupt. Across the border in Mexico they have "Government" - are you saying that Mexico City is better than Wyoming? And the small villages have government even if they don't have technology.
A $.32 price on first-class mail to anywhere in the country is a good deal for all. OTOH, package delivery has become sufficiently competitive, and probably needs to be revamped.
Generally wealthier people can afford to live in the remote areas, and can afford alternatives to first class mail. Poor people rely on first class mail within cities to do much of their business, and that is mainly local. So you have another case of the poor subsidizing the rich.
Just my $.02.
No, your $0.32, soon to be more. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 dontspam-tzeruch@ceddec.com wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Rabid Wombat wrote:
This is how it works in a free-market economy (doh!).
One of the self-appointed/assumed functions of gubbmint is to "fix" this, by granting some organization a monopoly in return for bearing the costs of creating infrastructure, as well as spreading the cost of servicing a (smaller) number of remote customers across a (larger) number of non-remote customers.
Whether this is a good thing(tm) or a bad thing(tm) depends, as usual, on which side of the subsidy you are on.
No, it can still be a bad thing even if I am the beneficiary. The question is whether or not it maximizes efficiency. A stock market crash will benefit the short sellers and owners of puts. But it will also cause a depression, which will still affect the short sellers.
Yes, it can be a bad thing no matter which side you are on. Many subsidies are merely re-allocation of wealth, often from the rich to the poor. OTOH, some services, although not essential, are important enough to warrant a limited, regulated monopoly until sufficent scale has been reached to allow a competetive marketplace to be successful.
There is a cross-subsidy. The monopoly then pays the government to maintain the monopoly indefinately using government force to drive out competition. Being able to legally imprison or shoot competitors is an advantage that is hard to overcome.
Every organism seeks to propogate. It is the responsibility of the people to kill the monopoly when it has outlived its usefulness.
Alaska tends to be cold. Should heat and other forms of energy be subsidized, and roads built to wherever I want to place my cabin? Arizona is dry - should they get subsidized water?
They do. What's your point? That this is unfair? Of course it is. Life is unfair. Some of these unfair subsidies by not be equitable in the short run, but in the long run, everybody comes out ahead. Others simply re-distribute wealth, to no long-term socialo benefit whatsoever. The difference between the two comes down to managing resources. Some enterprises have traditionally been beyond the scale of the private sector, although that is really no longer the case. The US flourished due to the success of the railroad building in the late 1800's, and this success would not have been possible without a great deal of public assistance. True, the rich got richer, but in the long run, a more competitive marketplace evolved. The common person was, as a result, better off (at least from an economic perspective). Eventually, the highway systems were government-subsidized, and the railroads were not. This helped GM and its shareholders to get rich, provided a lot of post-WWII manufacturing jobs, and created huge traffic problems and suburban sprawl. See post-WWII Los Angles as a reference.
Why is distance different than any other factor. If I want to live in a remote area, I should bear the costs of the remoteness, just as if I want to live near a river, I will have to bear the costs of flood control or damage from uncontrolled floods. I don't have to live in a mountain cabin, but if I do there will be costs.
The government provides flood insurance for those who continue to build in flood plains, and those of us who live on high ground continue to subsidize this. I live on high ground, and peronally feel that providing flood insurance to an area that washes out every 5-10 years is stupid. OTOH, it might be useful to provide such insurance for areas that only wash out every 40-50 years. Where do you draw the line? BTW- The government funds "water-control" projects as well, subsidizing the delivery of water to rural areas. Distance is just another cost factor, one that happens to be pertinent to the process of delivering packages.
The largest delay for consumer wireless has been government regulation itself - not allowing efficient use of bandwidth. (I think the first cell phone was 1979). And there was a CB craze, although it had limited range. The big wait was for the FCC to catch up with technology (or for congress to allow them to do so).
This was only partially due to frequency regulation. Miniturization has had a lot to do with the recent growth in wireless as well. Back when cellular phones were the size of a small purse, they were slow to catch on; people who spent a good deal of time in their cars, or those whose employers subsidised status symbols had car phones, but growth was still fairly slow. Once the hand-helds appeared, growth accelerated. There had to be enough consumers to support the cost of adding infrastructure, and there had to be enough infrastructure to support the consumer; some industries can pull this off without outside help, and some cannot. BTW - Australian cattle stations used radios as their primary link to the outside world for quite a while, due to their rural location; the same held true for many other "remote" corners of the globe. Not a very scalable solution, though. Try using a CB in a built-up area. Then imagine everyone getting home on Thursday after a long day at work, and trying to order pizza delivery at the same time on a CB in that same area.
Before you argue "the best government is no government", visit a few third-world capitols, and note how you move from a modern capitol city to flintstones-like living in about 50km.
Many third world governments are thoroughly corrupt. Across the border in Mexico they have "Government" - are you saying that Mexico City is better than Wyoming? And the small villages have government even if they don't have technology.
My point is that many areas of the world have not invested in deploying technology very far beynd the boundaries of a few "modern" cities. Without getting into an even longer rant here, the end result is to perpetuate the cycle of rural poverty (look into some of the studies of third-world economic development - distribution of technology and services is often cited as a critical success factor). Those who do escape to the city and manage to attain a higher socio-economic status remain there. The bulk of those born to poverty have no hope of climbing out of it. In many countries, (including Mexico, since you mentioned it), delivering telephone service to rural areas without wireless technology was not even possible; the locals pull down the telephone (and power) wires to steal the copper for re-sale. Basically, some groups just haven't managed to pull off effective self-government; in the long run, you get the form of government you deserve. If you are too damn self-interested to see anything in terms of the common good, you'll probably end up with a self-interested government. Call it corrupt if you wish to, for it is, but don't confuse cause and effect.
A $.32 price on first-class mail to anywhere in the country is a good deal for all. OTOH, package delivery has become sufficiently competitive, and probably needs to be revamped.
Generally wealthier people can afford to live in the remote areas, and can afford alternatives to first class mail. Poor people rely on first class mail within cities to do much of their business, and that is mainly local. So you have another case of the poor subsidizing the rich.
I'm not sure where you've been, but not everybody who lives in a rural area is wealthy; this only occurs in places where space is at a premium, and only the wealthy can afford to purchase space. There are plenty of rural people who are dependant on first class postage to pay their bills, and they can't simply walk over to the corner grocer/food stamp launderer/check cashing/utlity bill collector to take care of business the way they can down on da block.
Just my $.02.
No, your $0.32, soon to be more.
At twice that, it is still a bargain, when you consider what you're getting for your money. Actually, a good portion of the costs of first class delivery are subsidized by commercial bulk mailers, who are in turn supported by those who purchase goods and services found in direct mail advertisements. I suppose that you could even draw the conclusion that if one can afford to purchase goods, one is better off that one who cannot, and therefore the "haves", by subsidizing bulk mail, are bearing a share of the cost of first class delivery used by the "have nots." Of course, we could argue economics for months - if you don't like the results, just change the assumptions. -r.w.
participants (8)
-
dontspam-tzeruch＠ceddec.com -
James Glave -
Jim Burnes -
Rabid Wombat -
Reeza! -
Trei, Peter -
William H. Geiger III -
Xcott Craver