Re: Spamming

At 02:55 PM 8/22/96 +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
>> 
>> At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
[deleted]
>>   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.)

I do not say this to begin yet another "Privatize the USPS" rant.  I also am
not interested in whether or not the USPS should be privatized, have its
criminal law protctions stripped, or even if the postmaster general should
report our stamp purchasing habits to Janet Reno.  All I'm saying is that
the above statement ("junk mail = higher costs") is false.

John
--
J. Deters  "Captain's log, stardate 25970-point-5.  I am nailed to the hull."
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| NET:   jad@dsddhc.com (work)    jad@pclink.com (home) |
| PSTN:  1 612 375 3116 (work)    1 612 894 8507 (home) |
| ICBM:  44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work)   |
| PGP Key ID:  768 / 15FFA875                           |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

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

> 
> At 02:55 PM 8/22/96 +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> >> 
> >> At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
> [deleted]
> >>   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.)

Alright, I agree. Though this could very easily differ with size and reach 
of a PS.  But on the net it means more bandwidth right? 
Which means more bandwidth, and more money. Hang on. This might not be 
a problem in US (as jim bell points out there is tons of untapped bandwith), 
but it is in other not so well connected countries. 
For example, if somebody spams an Indian Network from india, the
spam goes to US and comes back to india (since our govt sayz you cant connect
2 local networks!) and eats up most of the 20 MBps bandwidth.
Gov't will buy more bandwidth and will make us pay for it!

- Vipul