AuctionAce
|
posted on October 26, 2003 05:07:16 PM new
http://tinyurl.com/sguh
Interesting reading. It's probably going to happen in my opinion.
-------------- sig file ----------- *There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
Roadsmith
|
posted on October 28, 2003 06:57:44 PM new
Gee, I hope not. And if they do, I'll bet we can lay that problem at the door of those who've misused media mail over the years. Thanks for the link. Very interesting and very scary.
___________________________________
Junk: Stuff we throw away.
Stuff: Junk we keep.
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on October 28, 2003 07:14:03 PM new
I think it was going that way even it there was not a single case of misuse. The post office needs more money and the perfect cop out is distance traveled.
-------------- sig file ----------- *There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
sanmar
|
posted on October 28, 2003 07:40:02 PM new
There is a sign posted on every window at our PO that says, "We have the right to open & inspect any piece of Media Mail" I guess the PO is smelling a rat in the woodpile
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on October 28, 2003 07:47:35 PM new
The right to search Media Mail has been there since the day they started Media Mail. The post office is it's own worst enemy. The clerks at my post office never ask if the package qualifies as Media Mail but instead try to please the customers with a variety of shipping options, including Media Mail.
-------------- sig file ----------- *There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
Libra63
|
posted on October 28, 2003 08:03:59 PM new
I think someone posted here last week about reading an auction where clothes were being sent media mail. Abuse is the reason for the USPS to change and I don't blame them.
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on October 28, 2003 08:17:27 PM new
In the thread I posted here's one of the interesting responses:
**************
The postal service did not envision the highly acclerated usage of Priority Mail subsequent to the 1999 rate revisions and was certainly not prepared for the wholesale abuse of free Priority shipping product for other class services. Necessarily, then, the rate increases of 2001 with zone implementation for items that exceeded one pound helped to recover the previous losses, and it was believed that the new zone structure would help offset projected increases for shipment of fourth class package services (MM, BPM, etc.)
Although the postal service recommended application of zone pricing for all package services for the early rate considerations in 2001, the Board of Governors and the Postal Rates Commission deferred to an application to zone for MM and BPM since they believed that - among other considerations - uprated First Class services (including zoned Priority) could help to affect a balance.
It is clear now - some two years later - that the effect of the internet on First Class mailings and the large reductions in telephone services costs has decidely cut into revenues, and since First Class revenues represent nearly 65% of total receipts (and shrinking markedly from any responsible prediction for the future), there can be no way that the postal service can meet the legislative mandate of total self-sufficieny by 2010 unless new rate revisions are put in place. Accordingly - and since deferral of zoned MM was announced in 2001 - the time has come to act, and we should be preapred to accept that the necessity to zone MM is upon us.
Rates discussions are on the agenda for the closed session part of the November meeting. If rates upgrades to zoned MM are recommended by Board of Governors, they will be forwarded to the Postal Rates Commission for final determination. Announcement of new rates would then be expected to be posted to the DMM in January with appropriate public disclosure, and new rates could be expected for the June, 2004, anniversary.
-------------- sig file ----------- *There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
capolady
|
posted on October 30, 2003 03:32:10 AM new
Good Lord!!! As usual it requires a Philadelphia lawyer to interpret anything the Government publishes.
|
paws4God
|
posted on October 30, 2003 06:41:30 AM new
When I was at the post office yesterday I mentioned I have some priority boxes I ordered but can't use, I asked if I could bring them in for them to give out. The clerk said sure and asked if I had ordered them on the internet. She was amazed that they are still allowing that. She also said that the post office wants to stop giving the boxes away and implement the boxes you have to buy. She thought it would be a mistake since it has brought so much revenue in to the post office.
If they do stop with the free priority boxes can you imagine the havoc it will cause with ebay sellers!? I think I have heard rumors about this before but I'm too fuzzy this morning to remember.
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on October 30, 2003 07:02:36 AM new
Ask Paloma91 about the rumors a few years ago about free Priority Mail boxes being no longer available. She has a great story to tell. 
Those free boxes are heavy and cost money to send so the post office at worst breaks even on the cost of the box. I think the post off could charge half of the Priority Mail rate for Media Mail and do okay but that would still leave the pricey Parcel Post option. If they would merge Parcel Post and Media Mail and charge 65% of the Priority Mail rate that might be a good solution.
-------------- sig file ----------- *There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
wgm
|
posted on October 30, 2003 07:07:10 AM new
Media Mail is already zoned - look on the rates chart.
I asked about this at the PO yesterday - the person who usually takes care of me is one of the supervisors - and she said there is NO truth to this RUMOR. There are no plans to raise the rates anytime sooner either, according to her.
edited to add - Sherrie (the person I deal with at the PO) said a lot of these unsubstantiated rumors are nothing more than postal clerks venting the way they think things should be run. The talk about Priority supplies is just that - talk.
Someone posted some time ago about a ten package limit (or something like that) when mailing things - that is not a rule and is not allowed by the USPS. Contrary to what many believe, the USPS is not trying to give eBayers a hard time
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
[ edited by wgm on Oct 30, 2003 07:10 AM ]
|
neroter12
|
posted on October 30, 2003 03:18:00 PM new
I dont believe any rumor of the post office 'losing money' because of ebay and internet sales. If anything, you would think there has been a dramatic increase in USPS revenue because of it. (I dont know about the supplies, but would think that would be more than offset.) If they raise media rates..well that is just plain sh***y.
Was just told the other day, our neighborhood does not have a regular "mailman", or carrier because the PO wont put one on this route. So we have all different temps and get very UNregular mail delivery. That kind of pized me off. Why is it the Post office always crying poverty?
[ edited by neroter12 on Oct 30, 2003 03:20 PM ]
|
lovepotions
|
posted on October 30, 2003 03:46:01 PM new
When they talk about how much lost revenue from first class mail they more specifically mean the 37 cent stamps. So many people are using online bill payer services, stamp collecting as a hobby is becoming out of style and there aren't as many avid collectors buying sheets as before.
Many clubs and organizations that used to MAIL newletters now have online versions.
But with e-commerce and Ebay etc etc. They should be making up the difference. BUT UPS and FEDEX are stealing all of their customers with better online interfaces.
In my entire lifetime I had shipped MAYBE 3-4 packages EVER.
Since I started selling online I spend more in postage than the average american does on a house payment.
The USPS really needs to evaluate itself and make a program to better programs for online merchants. As they have it now it is cumbersom, slow and a waste of time if you do high volume mailing.
I think more importantly the USPS and pitney bowes need a swift kick in the butt.
Every now and then some irritated postal clerk will snidly say "You need a meter"
So I thought to my self fine i'll go and get a damn meter.
It arrived. I opened the manual.
It says for supplies you can BUY THEM here.(insert url)
To get 150 tape strips (=300 tapes to print postage on)=$31.99
To get the inck cartridge only sold by THEM $34.99 and prints only A MEASLY 400-600 tapes
Plus the meter rental fee $35
The fabulous scale to make shipping more easy (*rolls eyes*) does not directly connect to the actual meter.
Meaning I weigh it
I typed in the weight and zip on the meter
I print postage on my overpriced purchased strips
As I would need 2 packages of strips a month
1 brand new ink cartidge a month and the rent.
IT WOULD COST ME AN ADDITIONAL $134 A MONTH. NOT TO MENTION THE INCREASED TIME TO DO IT ALL MYSELF. TO SAVE SOME CLEARK A FEW MINUTES WHEN I ARRIVE AT THE POST OFFICE!
Pitney bowes has the monopoly on these supplies as none other are approved by the USPS.
http://www.lovepotions.com
|
ahc3
|
posted on October 30, 2003 06:19:30 PM new
I got the same thing several years ago, about the meter. I thought it might save me time at the post office, which was taking a LONG time. I signed up with Pitney Bowes, for their "free" trial - After that short time, it got very expensive. As you said, the meter strips, the ink which lasted a very short period of time. It became very expensive to create my own postage.
I know there are more options today, but I find printing labels using USPS Shipping Assistant, and applying real stamps is the best. I can ship out 100 packages and spend 10 minutes at the post office. They just hand cancel the stamps, and off they go into the system. Only priority mail over 1 pound needs a zero meter imprint from them...
|
thepriest
|
posted on October 31, 2003 04:38:49 AM new
Hi... rather than contact the post office, try the US Senate committee.
<a href="http://http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Membership"></a>
|
