From: Rich Graves <rich@c2.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:45:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Spamming
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960822220224.006a0ff0@labg30>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.95.960822180904.29100C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, John Deters wrote:
> At 02:55 PM 8/22/96 +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> >>   1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient.
> >    Internet pricing models are complicated and debatable, but you surely
> >    end up paying for snail-junk-mail. Not directly, but hidden in the high
> >    first-class mail costs. More mail, more infrastructure, higher costs.
> >    This could be quite true for the net also, if we consider bandwidth
> >    costs money.
> 
> I beg to differ.  The USPS considers "junk" mail their bread-and-butter.
> Huge mailings of all manner of bulk mail (especially those that are PostNet
> barcoded by the sender) pay the bills around the Post Office.  Your "more
> mail, more infrastructure, higher costs" argument is flawed.  The post
> office has many fixed costs related to maintaining their huge presence,
> delivering to so many rural addresses.  If we had to pay a per-letter basis
> *discounting* the value provided by the infrastructure already in place
> supporting the bulk-mail handling systems, we'd be paying roughly Federal
> Express 2-day letter rates for each piece of mail (around $6.00, if memory
> serves correctly.)

True in broad outlines, but I think this $6 is exaggerated just a tad. 
Depends whether you mean the marginal cost of an unsubsidized piece of 1st
class mail given the current infrastructure, or the share of a hypothetical
1st class-only mail system, I suppose.

> I do not say this to begin yet another "Privatize the USPS" rant.

Actually, if you're a consumer-scale mailer, it's a good argument for
keeping the USPS heavily regulated. It certainly helps lubricate the flow of
free speech among individuals and small groups. 

-rich