POSTAL RATES changed on Monday. It now costs 2 cents more to send a first-class letter. But we now have the “forever stamp” — a 41-cent stamp that will be good for first-class postage until the U.S. Postal Service goes out of business or the universe dies, whichever occurs first.
In the hullabaloo over the magic stamp, other changes in postal rates have gone largely unnoticed by the letter-writing and card-sending public. Businesses are already struggling to deal with the changes. As time passes, more and more ordinary postal customers are likely to run into problems with the new rates.
At the heart of the changes is the decision to charge postage based on the size and shape of the item being mailed. Postage used to be based mostly on weight. With few exceptions, it cost the same amount to send an ounce of mail, no matter the size of the envelope. Now, mailing an ounce of paper in one envelope will cost 41 cents, while mailing the same ounce of paper in a larger envelope will cost more.
The size requirements come into effect even on standard letter envelopes. If a letter is more than a quarter of an inch in thickness, mailing it will cost more than 41 cents.
What about oversize greeting cards? They will cost more to send. So will that bundle of photos of the summer vacation.
Time was, the only tool necessary for determining postage was a scale. Now, the scale will need the help of a ruler and a set of postal regulations. Expect long lines at the post office for a few months as people go to the experts to find out how much they’ll have to spend to send their packages and letters.
Is there any good news here, beyond the forever stamp? Well, the new rates are already giving headaches to mass-mailing companies. The new rates and requirements may mean a reduction in the amount of junk mail in the nation’s mail boxes.
Of course, a reduction in junk mail could cut into postal service revenues and require further increases in postal rates.
Better pick up some forever stamps and put them away for a rainy day.
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Thank goodness for the internet (email, online bill payment, e-cards, etc.). We don't have to use stamps as often as we once did.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
May 17, 2007 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
I agree "bd". Just wait, it won't be long before the government figures out a way to charge or tax for the internet benefits.
May 17, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Well, at the moment, we're safe. The Internet Tax Freedom Act frees us from that fear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet...
But, President Bush still has another 20 months in office. Thus, I guess the repeal of that protection is a possibility. (Oh no, I went negative in my comment. Please forgive me.)
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
May 17, 2007 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Brian, you do a nice job on your comments.
May 17, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
I think Pat Kelley does a very, very, very good job. I wish he'd write a book or do a collection of his editorials. Thank you, Mr. Kelley.
May 17, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drillbert (anonymous) says...
Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.
The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?
I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!
The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ““In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, “the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail.”
We need a nationwide “Do Not Mail” law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.
http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html
Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel
May 20, 2007 at 12:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )