zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (05/05/91)
I don't know if this will work, but I have an idea. The US Post Office should provide a service to people who don't want junk mail. These people will sign up and the post office will not deliver mail which does not have their name on it. Names such as "The Folks at" or "Postal Customer" or "Resident" will not be delivered. If someone WANTS this mail, they don't have to ask for the service. The Post Office would then do both the people and the junk-mailers a service. The people who don't want the mail won't be bothered, and the junk-mailers won't have to waste money on postage for people who won't read the junk mail anyway. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/09/91)
In article <1991May05.025110.8941@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > I don't know if this will work, but I have an idea. > > The US Post Office should provide a service to people who don't want > junk mail. These people will sign up and the post office will not deliver > mail which does not have their name on it. Those informational mailings from your congresscritter that arrive during the months before elections are addressed to "Postal Patron". The US Postal Service (they changed their name some years ago) sells several services that deliver mail without even addresses on it. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (05/14/91)
In article <4534.28292e48@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >In article <1991May05.025110.8941@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> I don't know if this will work, but I have an idea. >> >> The US Post Office should provide a service to people who don't want >> junk mail. These people will sign up and the post office will not deliver >> mail which does not have their name on it. > >Those informational mailings from your congresscritter that arrive >during the months before elections are addressed to "Postal Patron". > >The US Postal Service (they changed their name some years ago) sells >several services that deliver mail without even addresses on it. > >dan herrick >herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com I know this. I want a NEW item. (I don't care to read what my congressperson says anyway, even the replies to my letters with my address and name on them are form letters.) -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/22/91)
In article <1991May14.015238.27707@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > In article <4534.28292e48@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >>In article <1991May05.025110.8941@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >>> The US Post Office should provide a service to people who don't want >>> junk mail. These people will sign up and the post office will not deliver >>> mail which does not have their name on it. >> >>Those informational mailings from your congresscritter that arrive >>during the months before elections are addressed to "Postal Patron". >> > > I know this. I want a NEW item. (I don't care to read what my > congressperson says anyway, even the replies to my letters with my address > and name on them are form letters.) > But you are seeking to have congress (they run the Postal Service, through intermediaries) provide you a way to opt out of their communication systems. They use those communication systems to arrange for re-election. In other words, fat chance. I find it hard to believe that the people who are railing against "junk mail" here ignore all third class mail that comes to their addresses. There are two organizations around my residence that mail out envelopes full of coupons from local merchants. This is "to the person living at" mail that is eagerly opened by many of my neighbors. I don't, because my wife takes care of the parts of our lives that involve local merchants. Though she tries to get me to use haircut coupons that come in those packages. Direct mail is an important communication medium. It keeps coming because people respond to it. It seems arrogant to agitate so strongly to take direct mail away from the people who depend on it. Remember that people at both ends of the channel depend on it. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com PS. I know I'm interjecting a change of subject into a thread in which Sameer advocated providing a mechanism to opt out, not abolishing direct mail. However, Sameer's proposal is one of the gentle ones. I'm puzzled by the wider trend of postings on the network.
bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) (05/24/91)
In <4643.28390fcb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >I find it hard to believe that the people who are railing against "junk >mail" here ignore all third class mail that comes to their addresses. Occassionally it is even useful and informative (very occassionally). >Direct mail is an important communication medium. It keeps coming >because people respond to it. It seems arrogant to agitate so strongly >to take direct mail away from the people who depend on it. Remember >that people at both ends of the channel depend on it. I'd MUCH rather get junk mail than junk phone calls in the evening (I WANT CALLER-ID TO PREVENT THIS INVASION OF MY PRIVACY). I have a box by the couch just for junk mail that goes directly to the recycler. Bill -- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) (05/30/91)
> >I find it hard to believe that the people who are railing > against "junk > >mail" here ignore all third class mail that comes to their > addresses. I agree. Not only that, the PO makes so much money off it it basically subsidizes our personal mail. The main complaint is an aesthetic one it seems. So what. Just throw it out if you dont like it. "Conveience " as the ultimate goal once again. -- tom jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!tom.jennings INTERNET: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (06/01/91)
In article <1028@camco.Celestial.COM> bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes: >I'd MUCH rather get junk mail than junk phone calls in the >evening (I WANT CALLER-ID TO PREVENT THIS INVASION OF MY >PRIVACY). Unfortunately, CID won't help much here. Most junk phone callers call from out of state and/or from DID lines. The former do not send CID yet, and the latter do not send it because there is no incoming number associated with the line. Even if you got a number, would it help you if 256-2343 was the number of the junker on Tuesday and on Wednesday the junker calls from 257-2341? Just let your answering machine pick up the phone. Junkers usually do not leave messages and if they do, you can ignore it. The telco certainly is not pushing CID to reduce junk phone calls. They get paid for those. If they wanted to help you reduce junk phone calls, they would implement another system. David
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (06/13/91)
tom jennings: ) Not only that, the PO makes so much money off it [3rd class junk mail] ) it basically subsidizes our personal mail. I don't think so. I read that the PO is required to set prices so that each class of mail breaks even. ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.224050.9098@midway.uchicago.edu> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes: >tom jennings: >) Not only that, the PO makes so much money off it [3rd class junk mail] >) it basically subsidizes our personal mail. > >I don't think so. I read that the PO is required to set prices so that >each class of mail breaks even. Before that requirement was imposed by Congress, first class mail was actually subsidizing junk mail! Or so I'm told. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.042624.17037@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes... > >Before that requirement was imposed by Congress, first class mail >was actually subsidizing junk mail! Or so I'm told. Whether It pays for itself (outright) or not, it's still our tax dollars that enable the situation to exist. A much larger postal bureaucracy is the result. Besides the impact that all this paper has directly on the environment (tree cutting, toxic inks, waste bulk, energy cost <to make and transport>, and litter) it takes advertising dollars away from electronic media . I strongly support telecommunications and computing as cheaper, cleaner, and better than information delivered by physical transport methods. Especially, if it gives me "search" and "kill" capability. {not "search and kill", I haven't gotten that frustrated yet 8-} The net culture is the new power group. Real-time, constant access shared mind is a phenomena that demands courtesy. The ability to turn off people, to filter out distractions, and then later to open up and wallow in the info-flow is crucial. Any system which seeks to interject into our thoughts, pass the filters we set up, subverts this, be it propaganda, advertisement, or well intentioned social sharing. Junk mail / telemarketing and other unsolicted forms of subtle coercion most importantly waste time which can't be replaced. I wrote to the 3 "flyer" companies that send newspaper insert bundles to me by mail. The first time I asked them to stop. The second time I asked, I told them it was against my religious beliefs. The stuff is still coming, almost everyday, bundles of newspaper advertisements that go straight from my mailbox to the the trash. I asked the post office if they would stop the "to resident" stuff, also no luck. I've sent a letter of complaint to President Bush. Congress would be useless since they have a vested interest in keeping this going, as a method of supporting small business. Of course, I'm already boycotting the businesses who resort to this. Junkmail is harassment! I'm wondering if legal injunction can be used to make them quit? Does anyone know of a precedent? _ Stephen Tice _ (b645zaw@utarlgt.uta.edu) / don't own a TV anymore --> because of commercials \ \ sure miss Star Trek NG <-- NetNews is my substitute /
olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (06/14/91)
>>I read that the PO is required to set prices so that each class of >>mail breaks even. >Before that requirement was imposed by Congress, first class mail was >actually subsidizing junk mail! Or so I'm told. What I read is that first-class mail (the PO's monopoly) has subsidized the other classes for quite some time, and continues to do so. The law used to require each class to break even, but the PO routinely ignored this requirement. When someone took them to court in order to force them to comply, they got Congress to change the law, removing the requirement (or, actually, making it unenforceable). This actually makes sense, from the PO's (and postal union's) point of view. If you have a legally-mandated monopoly, you should squeeze every last penny you can out of it, even if you have to juggle the books to do so. -- Jim Olsen olsen@mit.edu
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun14.163229.13916@xn.ll.mit.edu> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: >>I read that the PO is required to set prices so that each class of >>mail breaks even. >Before that requirement was imposed by Congress, first class mail was >actually subsidizing junk mail! Or so I'm told. What I read is that first-class mail (the PO's monopoly) has subsidized the other classes for quite some time, and continues to do so. The law used to require each class to break even, but the PO routinely ignored this requirement. When someone took them to court in order to force them to comply, they got Congress to change the law, removing the requirement (or, actually, making it unenforceable). This actually makes sense, from the PO's (and postal union's) point of view. If you have a legally-mandated monopoly, you should squeeze every last penny you can out of it, even if you have to juggle the books to do so. I don't understand this, though. If the postal service is taking money they *make* on first class mail and *spending* it on junk mail, how are they squeezing more money out of the monopoly? I would think that it would make more sense for them to *try* to break even on the junk mail, and then they would get all the money they made on the first class mail. On the other hand, if the point is that they're not supposed to make a profit at all, then I can't see how any amount of juggling will let them "squeeze more money out," since they can't keep any of it anyway. Can someone explain whether they're supposed to make a profit, what they do with any money they make, and how it benefits them to spend some of the money they make on subsidizing junk mail? Muffy
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/17/91)
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: }In article <1991Jun14.163229.13916@xn.ll.mit.edu> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: } What I read is that first-class mail (the PO's monopoly) has subsidized } the other classes for quite some time, and continues to do so. The } law used to require each class to break even, but the PO routinely } ignored this requirement. When someone took them to court in order } to force them to comply, they got Congress to change the law, removing } the requirement (or, actually, making it unenforceable). } This actually makes sense, from the PO's (and postal union's) point of } view. If you have a legally-mandated monopoly, you should squeeze } every last penny you can out of it, even if you have to juggle the } books to do so. }I don't understand this, though. If the postal service is taking money }they *make* on first class mail and *spending* it on junk mail, how are }they squeezing more money out of the monopoly?... }Can someone explain whether they're supposed to make a profit, what they }do with any money they make, and how it benefits them to spend some of }the money they make on subsidizing junk mail? OK, I'll give it a try: the goal of the postal unions is to have as many jobs for postal employees as possible. Therefore, it is in their interest to get folks to mail as much stuff as absolutely possible, and use the USPS to do so, so as to keep as many people busy handling it as possible. By extracting money out of first class and using it to subsidize the other classes, they can [artificially] lower the costs of the other classes of mail, and this has two good effects [if you're the postal union]: 1) they will have a competitive advantage against other carriers 2) they will be able to attract some customers who wouldn't mail anything AT ALL if the costs were higher. All of which turns into more postal jobs, bigger budgets and more prestige for postal executives, etc. /Bernie\
olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (06/17/91)
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >I don't understand this, though. If the postal service is taking money >they *make* on first class mail and *spending* it on junk mail, how are >they squeezing more money out of the monopoly? You must understand that government is different from private business. In a business, the goal is to make a profit. In government, the stated goal is to provide the best service for the least cost. The _de_facto_ goal (i.e., what is actually rewarded) is usually to increase your budget and employ more people. The PO budget for first-class mail is relatively secure, since they can bring criminal charges against anyone who tries to compete with them. By skimming money from the first-class monopoly, they can subsidize the other classes, where they must face competition. The net result is not a profit, which they're not interested in anyway, but a larger budget and workforce, which they are deeply interested in. Everyone wins, except the people who have to pay for first-class postage (and the people who don't like junk mail). -- Jim Olsen olsen@mit.edu
tannerr@prism.cs.orst.edu (Ryan Tanner) (06/23/91)
In <1991Jun13.223616.27679@cse.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes: >In article <1991Jun13.042624.17037@athena.cs.uga.edu>, > mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes... >> >>Before that requirement was imposed by Congress, first class mail >>was actually subsidizing junk mail! Or so I'm told. >Whether It pays for itself (outright) or not, it's still our tax >dollars that enable the situation to exist. A much larger postal >bureaucracy is the result. Besides the impact that all this paper has >directly on the environment (tree cutting, toxic inks, waste bulk, >energy cost <to make and transport>, and litter) it takes advertising >dollars away from electronic media . >I strongly support telecommunications and computing as cheaper, >cleaner, and better than information delivered by physical transport >methods. Especially, if it gives me "search" and "kill" capability. >{not "search and kill", I haven't gotten that frustrated yet 8-} >The net culture is the new power group. Real-time, constant access >shared mind is a phenomena that demands courtesy. The ability to >turn off people, to filter out distractions, and then later to open >up and wallow in the info-flow is crucial. Any system which seeks >to interject into our thoughts, pass the filters we set up, subverts >this, be it propaganda, advertisement, or well intentioned social >sharing. Junk mail / telemarketing and other unsolicted forms of >subtle coercion most importantly waste time which can't be replaced. >I wrote to the 3 "flyer" companies that send newspaper insert bundles >to me by mail. The first time I asked them to stop. The second time >I asked, I told them it was against my religious beliefs. The stuff >is still coming, almost everyday, bundles of newspaper advertisements >that go straight from my mailbox to the the trash. I asked the post office >if they would stop the "to resident" stuff, also no luck. I've sent >a letter of complaint to President Bush. Congress would be useless >since they have a vested interest in keeping this going, as a method of >supporting small business. Of course, I'm already boycotting the >businesses who resort to this. >Junkmail is harassment! I'm wondering if legal injunction can be used to >make them quit? Does anyone know of a precedent? > _ Stephen Tice _ (b645zaw@utarlgt.uta.edu) > / don't own a TV anymore --> because of commercials \ > \ sure miss Star Trek NG <-- NetNews is my substitute / I had a friend write to some bulk mailers that she was indeed dead, and therefore would not need their mail any longer. They desisted. Of course, she pretended to be one of her own family members. There is a book out (alas, I do not know the title) with tips to living with less of an impact on your environment. It has an address that you can write to and get some companies to stop mailing to you. A friend of mine has the book, and I can post the article if I get enough response. One thing about electronic advertising, won't that use up bandwidth? I am assuming that the advertisers would then begin paying to support the Net, much like TV. I would guess that these companies wouldn't like users weeding out their advertisements with their news programs. Ryan (tannerr@prism.cs.orst.edu)
tannerr@prism.cs.orst.edu (Ryan Tanner) (06/23/91)
In <1991Jun14.163229.13916@xn.ll.mit.edu> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: >>>I read that the PO is required to set prices so that each class of >>>mail breaks even. >>Before that requirement was imposed by Congress, first class mail was >>actually subsidizing junk mail! Or so I'm told. >What I read is that first-class mail (the PO's monopoly) has subsidized >the other classes for quite some time, and continues to do so. The >law used to require each class to break even, but the PO routinely >ignored this requirement. When someone took them to court in order >to force them to comply, they got Congress to change the law, removing >the requirement (or, actually, making it unenforceable). >This actually makes sense, from the PO's (and postal union's) point of >view. If you have a legally-mandated monopoly, you should squeeze >every last penny you can out of it, even if you have to juggle the >books to do so. >-- >Jim Olsen olsen@mit.edu Aren't some mail classes subsidized, such as Book rate? Congress orginally setup book rate to encourage the transfer of books and magnetic media. By the way, does anyone know if floppies can be shipped book rate? Ryan (tannerr@prism.cs.orst.edu)