Post Office to the First Amendment: Drop Dead
Everyone who visits the Common Dreams site is reading articles that were first published or commissioned by print publications. Without these print publications, there would be a lot less material for all of us to read, and some of our most important reporters and thinkers wouldn’t get paid to write.
Yet the independent magazines and small publications that contribute to Common Dreams are under attack by government bureaucrats and media conglomerates. Unless we take action now, the wide variety of voices and viewpoints available on sites like this one will become considerably diminished.
This crisis which could have devastating effect on new media revolves around Americas very first and arguably most visionary and progressive media policy: postal rates for periodicals.
Because the Post Office is a monopoly, and because magazines must use it, the postal rates always have been skewed to make it cheaper for smaller publications to get launched and to survive. The whole idea has been to use the postal rates to keep publishing as competitive and wide open as possible. This bedrock principle was put in place by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. They considered it mandatory to create the press system, the Fourth Estate necessary for self-government.
It was postal policy that converted the free press clause in the First Amendment from an abstract principle into a living breathing reality for Americans. And it has served that role throughout our history.
What the Post Office is now proposing goes directly against 215 years of postal policy. The Post Office is in the process of implementing a radical reformulation of its mailing rates for magazines. Under the plan, smaller periodicals will be hit with a much larger increase than the big magazines, as much as 30 percent. Some of the largest circulation magazines will face hikes of less than 10 percent.
The new rates, which go into effect on July 15, were developed with no public involvement or congressional oversight, and the increased costs could damage hundreds, even thousands, of smaller publications, possibly putting many out of business. This includes nearly every political journal in the nation. These are the magazines that often provide the most original journalism and analysis. These are the magazines that provide much of the content on Common Dreams. We desperately need them.
What the Post Office is planning to do now, in the dark of night, is implement a rate structure that gives the best prices to the biggest publishers, hence letting them lock in their market position and lessen the threat of any new competition. The new rates could make it almost impossible to launch a new magazine, unless it is spawned by a huge conglomerate.
Not surprisingly, the new scheme was drafted by Time Warner, the largest magazine publisher in the nation. All evidence available suggests the bureaucrats responsible have never considered the implications of their draconian reforms for small and independent publishers, or for citizens who depend upon a free press.
The corruption and sleaziness of this process is difficult to exaggerate. As one lawyer who works for a large magazine publisher admits, “It takes a publishing company several hundred thousand dollars to even participate in these rate cases. Some large corporations spend millions to influence these rates.” Little guys, and the general public who depend upon these magazines, are not at the table when the deal is being made.
The genius of the postal rate structure over the past 215 years was that it did not favor a particular viewpoint; it simply made it easier for smaller magazines to be launched and to survive. That is why the publications opposing the secretive Post Office rate hikes cross the political spectrum. This is not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it is a democracy issue. And it is about having competitive media markets that benefit all Americans. This reform will have disastrous effects for all small and mid-sized publications, be they on politics, music, sports or gardening.
This process was conducted with such little publicity and pitched only at the dominant players that we only learned about it a few weeks ago and it is very late in the game. But there is something you can do. Please go to www.stoppostalratehikes.com and sign the letter to the Postal Board protesting the new rate system and demanding a congressional hearing before any radical changes are made. The deadline for comments is April 23.
I know many of you are connected to publications that go through the mail, or libraries and bookstores that pay for subscriptions to magazines and periodicals. If you fall in these categories, it is imperative you get everyone connected to your magazine or operation to go to www.stoppostalratehikes.com.
We do not have a moment to lose. If everyone who reads this piece responds at www.stoppostalratehikes.com, and then sends a link to it to their friends urging them to do the same, we can win. If there is one thing we have learned at Free Press over the past few years, it is that if enough people raise hell, we can force politicians to do the right thing. This is a time for serious hell-raising.
Robert W. McChesney is the co-author, with John Nichols, of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy (New Press). He is the founder of Free Press, www.freepress.net.
###
I’m sorry, I must have missed it…
What part of the rate hike specifically affects “progressive” written documents?
On the face of it, I see a general increase in costs which is reflected in a general increase in prices passed along to us, the consumer.
While I don’t necessarily like it, I can’t stretch my imagination enough to accept that this is an attack on the 1st Amendment.
Am I missing something? Please pass along any illuminating thoughts.
I thought I would never take the side of an agency of this government in a squabble but I agree with PDFee
PDFee - government of the people has always subsidized by way of lower than cost postage the ability of independent presses to distribute their work - the high postage costs have a deleterious effect on small time publishing
i publish a very small magazine (see http://thefuclrum.org )
and i can say that the difference between 59 cents and 1.13 is big enough to delay my schedule if i am mailing out 100 copies. i am on a very tight budget,see.
it has been the idea that certain things in a democracy are necessary - such as an accessible distribution network for ideas and communication - for that democracy to be meaningful - we are not consumers of postal services we are citizens who need to talk to each other and the post office has been the method - if it fails, and it is failing, what is there that doesnt have a monetary gate - look at the world today and see if there isnt a wholesale disregard for an educated and flourishing populace.
I too am a small publisher, putting out the Blue Collar Review and yes, this will hurt. The small independent presses are more vulnerable and yet, more importent. The real problem here however is the privatization of something as essential as the postal service. I have seen the quality go down even as the price has risen. As a not-for-profit bulk mailer, my experience is that something that used to take five days to move across the country now takes two weeks. We may be the only country so ideologically driven that we would expect our postal service to have to turn a profit but that idiotic attitudes is why our country is in the process of internal collapse. Our infrastucture is decaying, our public transport is non-existant or ailing, medicine and housing are luxuries and our mail is not dependable. Maybe you like the K-Martization of the media but if you value alternatives that could include your voice, you will oppose this rate hike aimed at the small press.
Hmmm, I did a search on the word “progressive”, and it didn’t appear in the article. So I’m rather confused as to what the first commenter is talking about.
The whole point of the piece is big publications versus small publications. The piece points out that the policy for centuries has been to cut the smaller publications a break on postage rates. This helps to encourage small publications, and gives them the chance to grow into bigger ones. And it helps to create a diversity of opinion. All items that can be considered good for the health of a democracy.
Now, little surprise that the corporate rear kissing officials in the Bush administration want to reverse this. They want to give the Time Warner’s of the world a cheaper bulk rate, and charge their smaller competitors more per magazine mailed.
We live in a world where its harder and harder for voices outside the Time Warner’s of the world to be heard. This change would make that even worse.
The first amendment is about freedom of speech. Technically, I wouldn’t call this an attack on the first amendment itself. But it is an attack on the principles that underlie the first amendment. The principle is that for a democracy to function, there needs to be a wide and open exchange of views and opinions amongst the people. A system that favors a top down pushing of mass audience publications and which charges more to smaller publications is an attack on that principle. If I was writing the headline, I’d probably replace “1st Amendment” with “Democracy”.
I too am a publisher, putting out the Blue Collar Review and this rate hike will hurt. The alternative press functions on a tattered shoestring of a budget and is far more vulnerable than say, Time-Warner. The real problem here is the privatization of the Post Office. We may be the only country so ideoligically driven that we would privatize something so essential and expect it to turn a profit. That is why we as a country are in the process of slow collapse. Our infrastructure is decaying, our public transport is nearly non-existant, healtchare is a luxury and education poorly lacking. If you support the Wal-Martization of the media and the elimination of alternatives that include your voice, go ahead and ignore this. If not, make your objection known using the links in the article. We in the small press will appreciate it.
I belong to a paperback swap club online. We use Media Mail to send the books at a cost of $1.59. When the rates change, that goes up by fifty cents!
I live on a fixed income. I may have to give up this wonderful source of books. This whole rate increase is just sleazy. Even the employees who use our book site are very confused and not receiving training.
Also, there will be three different rates for just First Class mail. It will be a total fussup when it happens.
“Progressive” is used here in the same sense as “progressive” taxation which requires people with higher incomes to pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes.
Note: A person making $100k/yr doesn’t just pay twice as much as a person making $50k/year under progressive taxation– they pay more than twice. This is fair because they are benefiting more from the civil society that is structured to provide them with certain advantages (copyright laws and other regulations that make it possible for the wealthy to become so).
In this example “progressive” has nothing to do with the politics of the publications, but with the idea that large circulation publications (like TIME) should pay more per magazine postage stamp that fledgling small publications. There are many economies of scale enjoyed by large publications, so the cheaper stamps for small publications makes it more of a level playing field for them in the marketplace of ideas.
That may be true but politcally progressive media will be hurt disproportionately because it is usually underfunded and has smaller mailings whereas the large corporate press not only will be less affected but, unlike us, has the wealth to absorb increases.
I live in Europe and mail things out of both France and Switzerland and frankly the US rates are some of the lowest in the world.
And, I should add, off topic, progressive taxation redistributes income and prevents the rise of oligharchy.
It was very judicious of the authors to suggest that TimeWarner did not consider the implications of the rate hike for smaller publications. I, less judicious and more cynical, suggest that they certainly did consider the implications, and found them exactly to their taste. Let the biggest voices grow bigger, not only with the intention of outshouting the smaller voices but of silencing them entirely. As Gore Vidal put it, “It is not enough that I succeed; others must fail.”
a buddy of mine used to work in the entertainment industry (he worked at “variety”) he told me that when networks flood the market with similar type shows - say “reality” programming after the huge success of MTV’s real world, or Survivor , or hospital shows, or cop shows, in a response to a new and successful program - it serves two functions, one obvious, cash in on a trend, and the other darker, which is over saturate the market with that sort of thing, thereby killing the original and opening up that part of the “market” to the next big thing.
these are “the life is a game” crowd - nasty in business, no better as a new age slogan - totally trivializing and destructive at once - it reminds me of the smug expression gore maintained through the debates with bush - and i thought what a fool! - doesnt he know that smug debate team winners are the worst thing an american can imagine - better to elect a dope - as it turns out of course, not necesary wtih jeb and the supreme court in your corner - you dont even need to count the votes, let alone get the most of em
Magazines are just one dimension of this; small businesses who send out catalogues are another victim — anyone who sends out mailings in like manner.
Why do they hate small business!?
We should ask!
(And small businesses should be involved with this resistance as allies.)
As we do not have a government that is interested in governing, we must make do as we can. Time Warner and other “content providers” have worked tirelessly to restrict and codify the law in their favor. From licensing of music to…well now mail rates, these people do everything in their power to make more profit. Governement must regulate the amorality of capitalism, but has not.
The internet is a difficult way to read news, opinion or fiction for many. Yet it is the only egalitarian means of distribution left for the people of the world. The corporations have been in control of the physical world for a long time now. They do not yet have contol of the internet, and we must all work hard to keep it that way. If Google can become one of the biggest companies in the world in part for their ad revenue, then the same can be said for all those who blog/write/create in posting on the internet.
The business of printing magazines and newspapers does have a somewhat finite future. The cost and use of energy and materials to create paper, print it and mail it will become more and more expensive, as energy becomes more and more expensive. Let’s be robust in defending what today is ours, and not let the likes of Time Warner take it over. AOL was Time Warners attempt to control the internet… but they failed, and it cost them a lot of money. Let’s make sure they always fail.
This is the same issue the arose in 1996 when Congress amended the Telecommunications Act to permit mass consolidation of the media. Radio has been affected the most dramatically with hundreds of mom and pop or family owned stations selling out, replaced by cookie-cutter outlets of huge media conglomerates. The result is most evident in election years when right-wing media owners try to force their stations to support right wingers. (conservatives are the dominant owners of radio and TV stations currently).
I have owned a small newsletter publishing company since 1996. The only way that I was able to begin publishing (lacking deep pockets) was because of the periodical mailing class. Technically, it is 2nd class mail. It is highly regulated. The process to obtain a permit involves many hundreds of dollars for fees before you can even qualify for the rate. It is not automatic. The USPS must review and then approve your application.
But the difference in mailing costs is dramatic. To mail a package weighing 13 ounces by first class is $3.27. Anything over 13 ounces goes Priority Mail which starts at $4.05.
My newsletters are quite heavy. Sometimes up to a pound. But with the periodical rate, I pay approximatley .343 cents per PIECE of mail. (The rate flucuates based on advertising and whether the mail qualifies for discounts).
The rationale for this huge discount is to allow independent publishers like myself to survive financially. The USPS is not solely a profit-driven enterprise. It also serves the needs of the public by allowing people like me to run a business that makes a profit. That has been the policy of the USPS for quite a long time.
This is a changing of the rules in favor of the corporations. AGAIN. They have more money, more resources and more lobbyists. They apparently had access to the process that others did not have. Not only is that unfair but it’s wrong. These same corporations will proclaim that the needs of the marketplace affect all companies equally, that if we cannot pay for mailing, then so be it. That is how capitalism works.
But the big corporations are gaming the system. In a fair system, a publication will live or die based on its quality and interest by readers/subscribers. In this system, the big guys are making sure that they get their lower rates, and the rest of us face huge increases.
This is bad news for anyone wanting to publish in the future. Despite the internet, despite email, most people still like to have printed pages in front of them when they read anything of length. It’s just easier to read.
That may change someday. But until then, the current system needs to be preserved, with the needs of small mailers protected.
The solution seems to be obvious. Regardless of content I would suggest the rate to be depending on the volume of the mailed items.
In my student years I worked for the local post office and I regularly became very upset about the scam that took place. Unsolicited mail or mass mailings were subsidized where a letter was sometimes only machine stamped with 3 cents. Regular mail that appeared in less volume was quite expensive in comparison, but way less work for us to be distributed. The mass mailings just crashed over the mail men/women only to end up in the trash . Small print publications were never a problem. Little volume - no big deal. So I do agree with the poster that comes to the same conclusion. Time Warner and other mass media corporations are intending to push the small publications off the train. There occupation of the postal system is way more expensive than the distribution of ‘Adbusters’, ‘World Watch’ or ‘Green Peace’ periodicals. Look alone at the mental trash at the store register.
Once more a stunt by the bush corp., the guys that brought you ‘No child left behind’, ‘Katrina disaster relief’, ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’ and now ‘Small Business Support’.
Unless you join the streets with a specific intend, nothing will change.
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
I beg to differ a bit with you, Mr. McChesney.
First, the Post Office isn’t a monopoly. I, for one, wouldn’t mind if it were.
Second, the issue isn’t the first amendment. It’s Article 1 Section 8 clause 8 of the Constitution, which is the basis for intellectual property law, and which, by the way, is just after clause 7, which establishes the Post Office.
Third, the Post Office is a business. No tax revenue, just sales revenue. Businesses sometimes used what is called volume pricing, for good business reasons.
Otherwise, I would agree that you have a point, and a good one. But it’s not fair to pick on the Post Office. Pick on Fedex, UPS, and its competitors, who could offer a competitive service. Pick on Time Warner for the idea. Pick on the American religion, capitalism, for making cost efficiency more important to both policymakers and the public, than promoting the general welfare. But I don’t think it’s entirely fair to pick just on the Post Office.
I write software. I have to give it away for free (it’s called “open source”, but I do it because there’s a monopoly running the industry, and I think the world needs an alternative. It’s darn hard making a living at software when you have to give it away for free. Unfortunately, the good ole’ USA doesn’t throw money at good causes; you gotta sell stuff.
So small, worthy publishers may not be able to make a profit; that doesn’t stop them from publishing; and the First Amendment, sir, doesn’t guarantee anyone a profit. That’s why this isn’t a First Amendment issue.
We could make the postal service free. Maybe it should be free; it is, after all, a constitutional mandate. I’m all for that. Argue that case, and I’m with you. And you’ll need my support, since you’ll have trouble with people who complain about creating a new tax burden to support the Post Office, which until now has been self-supporting. But you haven’t argued that case; that case would be closer to a First Amendment case. So far, you’re not even close to that.
We must learn black hatred. It is like a compass that will point us in the right direction for years.
This is just the same thing that has been done over and over and over by the Bush Administration. The guys with the money get what they want. It isn’t only the Post Office; it is the corrupt and ethically challenged administration.
The following is from Wikipedia and should answer alot of questions.
Governance and organization:
“The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service sets policy, procedure, and postal rates for services rendered, and has a similar role to a corporate board of directors. Of the eleven members of the Board, nine are appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate (see 39 U.S.C. § 202). The nine appointed members then select the United States Postmaster General, who serves as the board’s tenth member, and who oversees the day to day activities of the service as Chief Executive Officer (see 39 U.S.C. § 202 and 39 U.S.C. § 203). The ten-member board then nominates a Deputy Postmaster General, who acts as Chief Operating Officer, to the eleventh and last remaining open seat.
The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g. Amtrak), but as noted above is legally defined as an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is wholly owned by the government and controlled by the Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail.”
the post office aint a business - its a governmental(meaning self-governmental here right?) system for the citizens who empower that gobvernment to communicate. anything that hurts such a set-up is wrong anything that helps is right.
personally i say when the gol-derned guvmint wont do what its supposed to do than do it yourself - lets just make our own damn distributin’ thing - a - ma - jig -
get uis some ponies and spread them ‘zines far and wide.
Is it a correct recollection that the USPS has been solvent, moderately profitable in recent years?
Who, what besides Time Warner is causing the reworking of the rate structure? If it isn’t driven by sound corporate governance to avoid loss, why change the rates? I’m sure that the prepondence of mailed periodicals has driven the capital improvement expenditures of the USPS system. The magazine business would be nothing without an effective postal system. Seems the existing rate stucture and historical favoritism conspired to distribute fair share fairly. Leave the old rate structure alone. If they need an increase do it by maintaining current ratios.
Since discovering the Internet I seldom read books or magazines, which, multiplied by billions = the electronic media displacing the paper media, and far less paper demanded from the dwindling forests.
But this only happens because the human population and its technology keep on growing in response to its advertising lust for more and more wealth and power - ever insatiable capitalism. Yet, the same thing is happening in “socialist” nations too, if more slowly.
Therefore, to at least save the books, reduce the human population with family planning clinics, giving all women the right to decide if and when to birth how many or few children, then devolve to continental networks of eco-villages that surround themselves with miles of healthy wilderness, using whatever technology is helpful - but if this cannot happen peacefully and voluntarily it cannot happen at all.
Meanwhile, in the present situation, it seems to me that all those scrabbling small presses and magazines can much more cheaply and successfully flourish on the globally connected Internet than in any neighborhood, town or city. It’s already happening.
The following is from Wikipedia and should answer alot of questions.
Governance and organization:
Thanks to Gail we can now guess fairly accurately that the different postage costs for magazines and periodicals is politically motivated . The awesome power that millions of progressive Americans possess is not in the message written on placards,banners and bumper sticks,however true and inspiring they may be,but in their wallets and handbacks . If progressives what to send a clear message to USPS and an clearer message to its beneficiaries,Time-Warner,Newsweek,People…and any other magazine that publishes in the millions,then CANCEL SUBSCRIPTIONS.
Rosa Parks showed Americans how to protest with their wallets fifty years ago to bring the Metro Transit Authority of Montgomery,Alabama to its knees.
Then again giving up your favourite magazine for a while would be just as traumatic as giving up smoking but the benefits would be just as rewarding.
In March of 2006, I wrote an article that makes some of the same points that Robert McChesney is making. The big mailers like Time Warner generally try to get the Postal Service to serve them at the expense of regular citizens. In my article, I was mainly addressing consolidation (concentrating postal facilities into a few hubs), which is still a battle today, but postage rates were also mentioned. Here is an excerpt:
Postal Service Consolidation Plans Will Benefit Big Mailers At Expense of Citizens
“The story of how large corporations are benefiting and the average citizen losing in the Postal Service consolidation plans are not being adequately covered by the corporate media because many of the large mailers who will benefit from the consolidation plans are also the large media corporations that provide most of the news to the country. AOL Time Warner, which owns CNN and many other media sources of information, argues for the “de-averaging” of postal costs and supports the consolidations plans. Newsweek, Reader’s Digest, and other large media mailers also support consolidation and cannot be expected to tell the story from the general public’s viewpoint…
…Large advertising based mailers will benefit from the Postal Service plans. For the average citizen however, the Postal Service consolidation plans mean a reduction in mail service, higher costs for the reduced service, and a loss of union covered living wage job opportunities. The loss of living wage jobs will hurt our communities in turn.
The reduction in mail service and higher cost for using the Post Office will also mean a reduction in equality and will harm small business owners and non-profit organizations. Many small non-profit organization and small businesses will find it increasingly difficult to use the mail for their communication needs if the service is slow and expensive. In the magazine business, the big mailers like Time Warner will be better able to discourage competition if the smaller mailers have to pay more for their mailings.
Perhaps most importantly, the plans to dismantle the Post Office will mean a reduction in democracy. Higher costs for small mailings will reduce the ability of citizens to communicate through the mail. Corporate media, no matter how many channels, is still corporate media. A real democracy needs to provide support for the voice of the regular citizen. The Postal Service is one place that historically has provided that support.
The large mailer response to the loss of the small mailings is that people can always use the internet. AOL Time Warner (an internet provider), not surprisingly, has been especially vocal on this argument.”
The postal arena is one of the few places where you can see large media corporations like Time Warner lobby and reveal their corporate biases. The battles going on at the Postal Rate Commission (PRC) should be given the same attention that media activists provided for the battles at the FCC.
For more information see, http://www.postalmag.com/olympia.htm and http://www.postalreporter.com/olympia.htm
I was at first surprised at the numerous comments which defend the crippling postage rates. Then it suddenly hit me–they’re probably written by PR staff from Time Warner.
Ignorance and libertarian attitudes explain those who defend this rate hike. As I stated before, the probelm has been the privatization of the post office begun under Reagan. Privatization of essential services is an idiotic ideologically driven mistake.
As for communitarians comments — no, we can’t replace the printed word with online material. The internat is class based and many don’t have it. Also, everything on the internet of this vanishes instantly when the power goes off. Imagine if Mark Twain or Shakespeare had relied on such a temporary medium! It is your voice and mine that is under attack here.
Thanks for writing this article, and i will follow up by going to the link provided.
Lest I sound like a plant from Time Warner, I want to begin these comments by saying that I agree with what most of you have been saying. The Postal Office Department, now the Postal Service (since 1970) was created to afford universal service at uniform rates. The Postal Service has a legislative monopoly over letter mail (first class like bills, cards, etc and standard mail, usually what we refer to as junk mail). The Postal Service also up until the recent passage of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (was enacted by congress after over a decade of debate on Postal Reform) had a “break even” requirement, meaning that it needed to project its costs and set revenue to meet that cost, not exceed. Unfortunately the Postal Service has a lot of debt that is not its fault like paying for retirement pensions of its retired military employees. But I digress. My basic point is that the Postal Service seeks to get as much money as it can - but it is not a profit maximizing company. That being said rate cases under the old law, the Postal Reorganization Act, are extremely complicated. I know because I actively participated in the last, had to read over 190 pieces of testimony, innumerable data spreadsheets, interrogatories and other discovery. It took approximately 10 months from being to end to complete. During the course of it, large mailers, like Time Warner were adequately, overwhelmingly really, represented. Sometimes for me, who represented “aunt minnie” (what individual mailers and small business mailers are called in the Postal community)it felt like I was screaming into the wind. There were only a handful of people approaching the rate proceedings from that perspective. But we did make some progress.
I think it is very unfortunate what is happening to small periodical mailers and something needed to have been done about it. But the point of my writing is that the author says this was all done in secret, with no public involvement and that is just not true. If you don’t believe me go to www.prc.gov and check out Docket R2006-1. ANYONE could have participated in this case. Anyone could have asked questions of the Postal Service, anyone could have challenged the rate structure. I know it costs money, but people could have also simply written in their opinion on the subject and it would have become part of the record to be considered. But if you look at the list of participants none of the people most affected by it did. And that is a shame. The Postal Service is allowed to file one more rate case under the old law. No one knows if they will or not, but they may since the new law imposes a rate cap requirement which may be difficult for the Service to meet at times. I suggest that all of you small mailers keep your eyes and ears open and get involved if something does come about. Then if things turn out badly I will be more sympathetic to your complaints. Right now it just seems like bitching over who won an election when you didn’t bother to get out and vote.
…and communitarian’s claim that the IT age saves paper is false. Computer use has caused an explosion of paper consumption as it has led to the incredibly wasteful practice of throwing entire long memos and reports away due to a misplace comma.
A few thoughts:
About 80% of USPS budget is labor. This is the elephant in the closet. A longstanding and generous arrangement with the union requires a regular increase in rates. This is not a political statement, just a matter of fact.
U.S. postal rates are among the lowest in the industrial world. Service is excellent; stuff usually gets where it’s going.
The internet has hit periodicals hard, both big and small. Subscriptions are down and newspapers and magazines across the country are in trouble. It may be that TW and other megacorps are manipulating rates to their advantage, but even they are hurting.
The fact is, we are in the midst of a revolution in information delivery and no one knows for sure what periodicals will be like 10-20 years hence. It’s probably a safe enough prediction however that paper periodicals of all stripes will go the way of the horse and buggy. It’s important to keep in mind that the Internet has empowered small publishers. The playing field is more level today than ever, and anyone can basically set up shop. It’s easier for established companies to capture people’s eyeballs, sure, but they have no monopoly.
Jaded Prole,
If the Internet is class based, how come jaded proletarians like you and me are on it freely casting our opinions? With micro-credit even poor working folks can buy a computer as easily as they can buy a car and as easily as they learned to drive it, they can learn to surf the Internet - and millions are doing so. Also, it does not all vanish instantly in a power failure, only what’s on the screen. Everything else is saved within the modem, or on disc.
PJD,
I used to generate a lot of paper copies of my messages, but back in the late 90s suddenly the numbers on ink-jet cartridges became extremely difficult to match to the printer number, so I quit printing anything. Either I save it on disc or copy it out by hand. Anyway, paper copies are redundant when you can fit more information on a little floppy disc.
But generally, I agree with the opposition to postal rate increases as you all clearly state and, for those reasons, we need to save the books for future generations to maximize their access to information - the Internet AND printed media AND audio AND video, and what about the old fashioned art of face-to-face conversation? - whatever can raise people’s consciousness.
I was in on the startup of a city magazine that went toes up not only because we refused to editorialize advertising, but also because of the media rates AND the cost of newsstand distribution. We learned the hard way that we had to use the one and only periodical distribution company in town, sometimes called the Mafia. Perhaps we should now call it La Cosa Postal.
the setting of new postal rates is an 11-month process and hardly, as the author suggests, takes place in the dark of night. let’s briefly review the process.
the usps board of governors (bog) proposes new rates before the postal regulatory committee (prc), an independent panel comprising five commissioners who review, question, alter, and/or approve rate and classification requests as proposed by the bog. they have 10 months to complete their work.
as part of this process, the office of the consumer advocate is tasked to represent the interest of the general public and always does.
any party with an interest in the rate case may file to become a partial or full intervenor. this allows them, or their counsel, to present arguments, testimony, and rebuttal as they see fit. typically, this means that every class of mailer will testify that their rates are too high and that other classes should bear more of the load.
the process is long, tedious, and a bonanza for attorneys and economists who present testimony numbering in the thousands of pages to support their argument. at the end of the process, the prc recommends rates which then go back to the bog to be accepted, accepted under protest, or rejected (only possible by unaminous consent of the bog).
in this case, all recommended rates were accepted although some were accepted under protest and returned to the prc for review. as the author pointed out, periodical rates for smaller publishers were increased proportionately higher than those for large publishers. the distinction to be made is that larger publishers present mail to the usps in a form that is easier and less expensive to handle than that of small mailers.
so, what’s my point? simply that the author egregiously misrepresented the usps rate setting process and in so doing, made it seem shady and under-handed. while no one would describe a usps rate case as a perfect mechanism, it is documented, above board, and communicated far in advance of the implementation of new rates.
if one wants to dissent, it is possible to do so. i haven’t reviewed the list of intervenors in this particular rate case but would be extremely surprised if every class of mailer didn’t get on the record in some form … either individually as time-warner and dow jones might do or by way of their membership in a trade association.
lest anyone think otherwise, i do not work for the usps nor do i work for a large publisher. i do work for a publisher however and was well-represented in this rate case by an association that speaks for mailers from the largest to the smallest with equal fervor. in fact, parts of my summary were excerpted from an article on their website.
is everyone happy with the outcome of this rate case? certainly not but to describe it as did the author simply does not comport with reality.
Its called the internet. Stop publishing rags no one reads and join the 21st century. Either that or pay up. The USPS is a bloated organization that needs more money to keep itself afloat despite the fact it is obsolete.
This is definitely about free press and First Amendment. Some people really need to read the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and our current supreme ruler of our political system needs to stop violating the entire constitution.
I believe postal rates for tree-murdering magazines & catalogs should be TRIPLED.
The most cutting-edge and important “alternative news” is NOT published on paper…it’s electronic, on the Internet. “Loose Change,” for example, is viral media among Liberty-minded Americans. rense.com spreads ten times the news-worthy information than the top 10 “progressive” print magazines combined.
And speaking of being progressive, this brings me back to my earlier point: paper kills trees. And mailing tons of it consumes millions of gallons of diesel and jet fuel.
I prefer a world where marijuana is legal, so marijuana products would be legal; such as the hemp printing press; these presses produce paper at a small fraction of the cost of pulp/trees. THEN, our government should implement no or extreme low cost postal rates. While we’re at it, let’s cut our bloated fatass Pentagon budget in half overnight - that’s enough savings to pay for about everything that ails America. Willima Randolph Hearst is the goddamn bastard who illegitimized marijuana, via his Congressional buddies and the Marijuana Act of 1937, BECAUSE hemp printing presses and their publishers were driving ole Hearst and his pulp-based printing presses out of business. Prior to this time, most of our textiles were made from hemp, and there was n such thing as a negative connation with marijuana. It was Hearst’s anti-marijuana campaign and anti-weed movies which demonized marijuana.
All ~ Thanks for the illumination. I agree with many points, the crux of which is that electronic-based communications is where we should be headed. If you’re choosing to print and distribute a magazine, you are probably looking hard at the available e-publishing avenues.
The marketplace of ideas, as well as the ecological betterment of our planet, is best served by a distribution vehicle that places your viewpoints and ideas in people’s hands immediately and cost-effectively.
We’re on it now!
However, I can’t agree with the idea that the internet is class-based. That’s just silly. Barring the Lewogoso Lukumai tribe in deepest Africa, pretty much every breathing person can access the web. No, it’s not always on their hip-borne palm pilot, but if you can’t walk to a public library, then you aren’t trying hard enough.
Not everybody has a telephone either, I suppose.
Although I’m humored every time I see a young, healthy neer-do-well panhandling on the streetcorner with a cell phone strapped to their hip!
What sad irony. A proponent of state monopoly lamenting the always inevitable event of powerful and wealthy friends of the state’s controllers using the state’s monopolies to protect themselves.
What in the world did you expect? That the violent coercion of the state necessary to create and sustain your monopoly would only and always break in YOUR favor? Did you somehow skip the 20th Century?
If they can’t abolish net neutrality, they’ll try to abolish postal neutrality.