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...
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.
I urge you to take a few minutes and sign the petition here. If it were just that Eisenbrauns had to pay higher postage, I would not even post this. But, this postage increase would tax the smaller publications, such as academic journals, and potentially drive them out of business, while rewarding the conglomerates. The deadline is April 23, so please don't delay.
2 comments:
This is not, in principle, anything totally new. The USPS has for decades offered the best prices to the outfits that send the most mail. It is especially cheap (per unit) to send something to every single mailbox in an entire zipcode, for instance. If they had to pay first-class rates, maybe we wouldn't get so much junkmail all the time.
Philosophically, I would prefer a flat rate, wherein you pay the same amount per unit irrespective of how many you send. (It wouldn't have to be first class rate, necessarily -- it could still be cheaper to send a catalog than a letter weighing the same amount, if the catalogs and other non-first-class mail received lower priority, e.g., the carrier could still do things like deliver the lower-class mail on Tuesdays, to help even out his load between the days.)
But I can understand why the post office doesn't do things that way. It's the same reason any business gives discounts to the largest customers. There's less overhead involved with a single large transaction than with many small ones.
Bear in mind that the USPS is not subsidized with tax money. They have to break even. (Yes, this means every time you mail anything you help subsidize the mail sent via franking privilege -- not that it adds up to anything much.) This is why they are allowed to set rates without congressional oversight. They really *have* to be allowed to set their own rates, if we don't want to have to start subsidizing them with tax money.
As for petitions, those are pretty well worthless. If you want to be heard (by anyone, on any issue), write your own letter to the people making the decision and lick an actual stamp. Five such letters from five different people will generally have more impact than five hundred names on a petition. Certainly, one letter will always have a great deal more impact than one name on a petition.
Actually, it would seem that if you want to be heard by everyone you have to go on a shooting spree at a university. For shame, NBC.
Post a Comment