Fake news for a fake president. Sort of a double-negative thing.
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
It may actually be a good point that the USPS should be charging Amazon more, but that common sense approach would have to apply to EVERY company and individual that ships a package via USPS.
Amazon is on track to provide its own delivery system. including the last mile.
The monopolistic ambiance of commerce regulators will allow it and USPS, UPS, and FedEx will hurt like hell, just as retail has, because of the "Amazon Effect."
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
Works OK in the UK, to a point. Businesses that send a lot of post get a preferential rate, hence all the junk mail we enjoy (well, I enjoy putting it in the shredder). I guess that's not "neutral" as it charges differently to different customers.
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Volume discounts are normal in most any business. Here there is network neutrality but it doesn't stop my ISP from doubling my bandwidth for 30% more cost even though I'd be using 2 households of regular bandwidth. Likewise the post office here gives deals if you buy a bunch of stamps at once. As long as they aren't playing favourites, it's neutral. Likewise as long as everyone who shows up with a thousand packages gets the same deal, it's neutral.
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin
Fake News (Score:4, Interesting)
While they probably should, Trump feels this way because Jeff Bozo, who owns Amazon, also owns the NYT - or as Trump says "Fake News"...
Re: (Score:1)
Fake news for a fake president. Sort of a double-negative thing.
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that.
It may actually be a good point that the USPS should be charging Amazon more, but that common sense approach would have to apply to EVERY company and individual that ships a package via USPS.
Amazon is on track to provide its own delivery system. including the last mile.
The monopolistic ambiance of commerce regulators will allow it and USPS, UPS, and FedEx will hurt like hell, just as retail has, because of the "Amazon Effect."
Re: (Score:2)
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
Re:Fake News (Score:2)
Now that Net Neutrality is gone, can Postal Neutrality be far behind?
Re: (Score:2)
Works OK in the UK, to a point. Businesses that send a lot of post get a preferential rate, hence all the junk mail we enjoy (well, I enjoy putting it in the shredder). I guess that's not "neutral" as it charges differently to different customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Volume discounts are normal in most any business. Here there is network neutrality but it doesn't stop my ISP from doubling my bandwidth for 30% more cost even though I'd be using 2 households of regular bandwidth.
Likewise the post office here gives deals if you buy a bunch of stamps at once. As long as they aren't playing favourites, it's neutral.
Likewise as long as everyone who shows up with a thousand packages gets the same deal, it's neutral.