OT: Freedom of rights

[ToddStrong]

This is a call to any American who doesn't want cuffs on the internet, the link below will inform you of more. Make your own decision and prove this country is still the greatest in the land, the vote is tomorrow.

https://netneutrality.com/

 

[HawkIDrummer]

The devil is in the details...as they say. Not as cut and dried as it may seem.

 

[ToddStrong]

The devil is in the details...as they say. Not as cut and dried as it may seem.

True, everyone needs to educate themselves on both sides. Unfortunately for me I was made aware far too late. The best course is a delay until this is heard thoroughly by both sides and the majority of the peoples wishes be carried out.

 

[HemiHawk]

 

[ToddStrong]

The vote comes down tomorrow, from my limited knowledge Obama put a law into action in 2014 protecting net neutrality and Trump recently repealed it. The head of the FCC is a former Verizon lawyer who desperately wants it gone. The crux is that if your carrier doesn't get the money it wants from sites it will limit it's customers ability to view these sites. For example if you want to use youtube or facebook and they don't pay what your carrier demands you will be limited to using the sites that do pay. Pay to play, which will hike up prices and create even more need for ad space to generate the funds.

The flip side is the government is trying to regulate funding on these sites which may not report their full earnings or worth.

I'm still researching the topic so my knowledge is very limited at this point.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

The vote comes down tomorrow, from my limited knowledge Obama put a law into action in 2014 protecting net neutrality and Trump recently repealed it. The head of the FCC is a former Verizon lawyer who desperately wants it gone. The crux is that if your carrier doesn't get the money it wants from sites it will limit it's customers ability to view these sites. For example if you want to use youtube or facebook and they don't pay what your carrier demands you will be limited to using the sites that do pay. Pay to play, which will hike up prices and create even more need for ad space to generate the funds.

The flip side is the government is trying to regulate funding on these sites which may not report their full earnings or worth.

I'm still researching the topic so my knowledge is very limited at this point.

Don't let a sugary sounding name fool you. (if you haven't figured that out yet about government regs and programs). This isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it actually represent "net neutrality".

 

[HemiHawk]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/13/technology/net-neutrality-vote-preview/index.html

 

[PlutoDroid]

From what I read both sides are claiming the other is trying to monopolize the amount of information that gets out. Like most things regarding the goverment this has turned into a pissing match between dems. and repubs.

 

[Muskie5]

This is a call to any American who doesn't want cuffs on the internet, the link below will inform you of more. Make your own decision and prove this country is still the greatest in the land, the vote is tomorrow.

https://netneutrality.com/

This country isn't going to get any better until people get over this ridiculous notion that we are the 'greatest' in the land. We are not even close.and that is a fact. The only thing we are great at is bombing brown people, incarcerating our own people, and spending 5-10 times as much as anyone else on healthcare. Get a grip. I want this country to be great, but how can you do that when you're under the delusion that you already are or someone is going to 'make it great again'? For who?

 

[bagdropper]

Free football board, free off topic board - net neutrality the subject. Hmmm...

 

[papabeef]

Don't let a sugary sounding name fool you. (if you haven't figured that out yet about government regs and programs). This isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it actually represent "net neutrality".

but we will start paying for what we get now for free.

 

[Muskie5]

I wouldn't pay a red cent to be on this board. I only like it because it's free and it's entertaining....like the Jerry Springer show, lol.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Basically cable companies are losing subscribers to internet, so they want to turn their fairly even current internet plans into tiered premium plans at differing costs and access to make up for it. Just gonna start bundling and packaging websites and internet speed the way they have been doing tv for years. Also gives them the right to restrict/block access to competitor owned websites and news outlets. Sounds wonderful, eh? What could go wrong?

 

[TheGuy9]

This is a call to any American who doesn't want cuffs on the internet, the link below will inform you of more. Make your own decision and prove this country is still the greatest in the land, the vote is tomorrow.

https://netneutrality.com/

I read the article and found it lacking. Just because 80% of people think something will happen doesn't make it so.
I am also amazed that there is this huge out cry about saving net neutrality. I assume that everyone knows that it only became law in June 2015. All the doom and gloom that I hear about wasn't happening then. As I recall I turned on my p.c. and clicked on an icon and was able to do whatever I wanted on the internet.
Answer me this. On June 12th, 2015 did you notice a marked difference in the internet than what you experienced on June 11th 2015? I didn't and I'd wager that the vast majority of the people didn't even know net neutrality went into effect then.
Sometimes I think people make a big deal about something because.... they can. This is one of those sometimes.

 

[Dauminator]

I read the article and found it lacking. Just because 80% of people think something will happen doesn't make it so.
I am also amazed that there is this huge out cry about saving net neutrality. I assume that everyone knows that it only became law in June 2015. All the doom and gloom that I hear about wasn't happening then. As I recall I turned on my p.c. and clicked on an icon and was able to do whatever I wanted on the internet.
Answer me this. On June 12th, 2015 did you notice a marked difference in the internet than what you experienced on June 11th 2015? I didn't and I'd wager that the vast majority of the people didn't even know net neutrality went into effect then.
Sometimes I think people make a big deal about something because.... they can. This is one of those sometimes.

Maybe. You make a salient point. But wasn't the action taken because a survey of the landscape of media forsaw these issues and the measure was meant to prevent them? Media companies are fighting for survival in a way they haven't had to since probably the advent of TV.

 

[Eternal Return]

I thought the issue was that Internet providers, whether Verizon, AT&T, Mediacom, and others, would be allowed to give more bandwidth to the sites they favored and less bandwidth to lesser sites if net neutrality ended. I think I also heard about pay packages for things like social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.), a different pay package for sports-related sites (ESPN, B10 Network, Rivals, Sports Illustrated, etc.), a different pay package for streaming movies (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu), another one for news sites, and so on. In other words, without paying for packages you couldn't get access to those sites if net neutrality ended. That doesn't sound good to me at all. Internet subscriptions cost enough as it is.

 

[thrillpac]

For people that believe we are going to have to start paying for websites I ask this question. Did you pay for websites prior to 2015? While net neutrality has a catchy name that sounds like something we all want, it boils down to this. When Pres Obama pushed this through, it was done so the Feds could control the internet regulations just like they do phones, cable, gas, electricity, etc., taking it out of the hands of the ISPs. Deregulating could allow business to drive ingenuity, lower prices, etc. you know, free market concepts. It basically boils down to whether you side with government knowing best or competition resulting in what's best. Either way, they can't start charging you for going to websites without your prior consent. That would be a violation of federal law.

 

[Eternal Return]

For people that believe we are going to have to start paying for websites I ask this question. Did you pay for websites prior to 2015? While net neutrality has a catchy name that sounds like something we all want, it boils down to this. When Pres Obama pushed this through, it was done so the Feds could control the internet regulations just like they do phones, cable, gas, electricity, etc., taking it out of the hands of the ISPs. Deregulating could allow business to drive ingenuity, lower prices, etc. you know, free market concepts. It basically boils down to whether you side with government knowing best or competition resulting in what's best. Either way, they can't start charging you for going to websites without your prior consent. That would be a violation of federal law.

I've heard and read nothing like what you are describing. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[Johnsoda123]

Maybe. You make a salient point. But wasn't the action taken because a survey of the landscape of media forsaw these issues and the measure was meant to prevent them? Media companies are fighting for survival in a way they haven't had to since probably the advent of TV.

Exactly. Two and a half years ago is an eternity in technology.

 

[Eternal Return]

For people that believe we are going to have to start paying for websites I ask this question. Did you pay for websites prior to 2015? While net neutrality has a catchy name that sounds like something we all want, it boils down to this. When Pres Obama pushed this through, it was done so the Feds could control the internet regulations just like they do phones, cable, gas, electricity, etc., taking it out of the hands of the ISPs. Deregulating could allow business to drive ingenuity, lower prices, etc. you know, free market concepts. It basically boils down to whether you side with government knowing best or competition resulting in what's best. Either way, they can't start charging you for going to websites without your prior consent. That would be a violation of federal law.

By the way, from what I've read, no one will pay for specific sites to those sites, but to Internet providers. In other words, the way cable television bundles packages for sports, subscription movie channels, news sites, etc. If there's a monopoly or near-monopoly as far as Internet subscription providers (like Mediacom) then "basic Internet" packages will be pretty weak.

 

[thrillpac]

By the way, from what I've read, no one will pay for specific sites to those sites, but to Internet providers. In other words, the way cable television bundles packages for sports, subscription movie channels, news sites, etc. If there's a monopoly or near-monopoly as far as Internet subscription providers (like Mediacom) then "basic Internet" packages will be pretty weak.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I didn't mean people fear paying for specific sites. I meant paying ISPs like you suggest. Most people grossly misrepresent what Net Neutrality is actually about because of political agendas. I too have read the exact opposite presented many places. It just isn't completely factual. Proponents of this will naturally say things to try and tear down the other side. In this case, they appear to be using scare tactics.

Did you pay ISPs for specific sites or "bundles" prior to 2014 or 2015? Do you even remember hearing of this being a thing? The reality is that when it was introduced by the previous administration, they labeled it Net Neutrality to make it sound like a great thing. Not being political, but politicians that are left leaning generally like to have more government control over things. That is exactly what was implemented with a very pleasant sounding name. This premise of it was to reign in control of a utility much like in the 1930s and 1940s when electricity, water, gas, etc. were all moved under government regulation.

The removal of net neutrality is an effort to return control back to the free market. Let the providers and competition drive price, technological innovation, etc. Remove the government regulations and control over the internet access.

With government control over internet access, theoretically, the government could control what content is available and what sites can be accessed (think China, N Korea, etc). Obviously that isn't happening now, but that is actually a much more scary concept to me than to allow a free market to drive things. Could monopolies take control and drive up prices? Yes. But that is true with anything. I have a bigger fear of govt regulated utilities driving prices up at a higher rate.

I do believe this is just a government control versus free market issue.

 

[Johnsoda123]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I didn't mean people fear paying for specific sites. I meant paying ISPs like you suggest. Most people grossly misrepresent what Net Neutrality is actually about because of political agendas. I too have read the exact opposite presented many places. It just isn't completely factual. Proponents of this will naturally say things to try and tear down the other side. In this case, they appear to be using scare tactics.

Did you pay ISPs for specific sites or "bundles" prior to 2014 or 2015? Do you even remember hearing of this being a thing? The reality is that when it was introduced by the previous administration, they labeled it Net Neutrality to make it sound like a great thing. Not being political, but politicians that are left leaning generally like to have more government control over things. That is exactly what was implemented with a very pleasant sounding name. This premise of it was to reign in control of a utility much like in the 1930s and 1940s when electricity, water, gas, etc. were all moved under government regulation.

The removal of net neutrality is an effort to return control back to the free market. Let the providers and competition drive price, technological innovation, etc. Remove the government regulations and control over the internet access.

With government control over internet access, theoretically, the government could control what content is available and what sites can be accessed (think China, N Korea, etc). Obviously that isn't happening now, but that is actually a much more scary concept to me than to allow a free market to drive things. Could monopolies take control and drive up prices? Yes. But that is true with anything. I have a bigger fear of govt regulated utilities driving prices up at a higher rate.

I do believe this is just a government control versus free market issue.

Cool. Kind of like the Patriot Act. It's an oxymoron.

 

[Eternal Return]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I didn't mean people fear paying for specific sites. I meant paying ISPs like you suggest. Most people grossly misrepresent what Net Neutrality is actually about because of political agendas. I too have read the exact opposite presented many places. It just isn't completely factual. Proponents of this will naturally say things to try and tear down the other side. In this case, they appear to be using scare tactics.

Did you pay ISPs for specific sites or "bundles" prior to 2014 or 2015? Do you even remember hearing of this being a thing? The reality is that when it was introduced by the previous administration, they labeled it Net Neutrality to make it sound like a great thing. Not being political, but politicians that are left leaning generally like to have more government control over things. That is exactly what was implemented with a very pleasant sounding name. This premise of it was to reign in control of a utility much like in the 1930s and 1940s when electricity, water, gas, etc. were all moved under government regulation.

The removal of net neutrality is an effort to return control back to the free market. Let the providers and competition drive price, technological innovation, etc. Remove the government regulations and control over the internet access.

With government control over internet access, theoretically, the government could control what content is available and what sites can be accessed (think China, N Korea, etc). Obviously that isn't happening now, but that is actually a much more scary concept to me than to allow a free market to drive things. Could monopolies take control and drive up prices? Yes. But that is true with anything. I have a bigger fear of govt regulated utilities driving prices up at a higher rate.

I do believe this is just a government control versus free market issue.

My fears are the opposite of yours. I understand yours. I do. My fears are of privatization because what was free or low-priced under government regulation always jumps in price when goods and services and lands are privatized. I think of it this way: If a beach is public, government owned, it's available to everyone. If the government sells the land to a private developer and it's turned into a resort, now the only way I can get to the same beach is to pay an outrageous sum of money. That's what always happens with privatization. Access disappears ... unless you pay for what was once free and accessible to everyone. Take the gulf coast of Florida. The beaches there are almost entirely blocked from the public by resorts and gated communities.

But because California passed a law (or maybe amended their constitution, I don't know) the beaches that hadn't already been privatized are protected from privatization and remain open to the public for free. I want the free beaches, the free mountains, the free forests, and the free (or low cost) Internet access. Hopefully you can understand my perspective in much the same way I understand yours. We simply disagree on what will happen. I'm basing my perspective on what I've seen in the past when things like public utilities were privatized.

Rock island, Illinois, for example, still has public utilities and their power is cheaper than those that are privately owned. It makes perfect sense why that is: Because the public utilities don't have to charge consumers higher prices to make a profit. There are certain things that should always remain privately owned and controlled and certain things that should always remain publicly owned and controlled. If it's public (government) then you and I have a say in terms of voting, assembling, protesting, petitioning, etc. If it's private and we don't own it then we have no say at all.

The U.S. has always functioned best when it's been a mix of socialism and capitalism. The main reason health care should be nationalized is because it's no longer profitable for insurers and health care providers because individuals can't afford premiums and/or out-of-pocket costs. Before the technology jacked up the price so high, health care was semi-affordable but not all that effective. It's extraordinarily effective now, but it's not accessible to everyone. If you have "Cadillac" insurance you get the best care imaginable, but for those who don't work for giant law firms or other organizations that pay at least part of those hugely expensive insurance plans, they have to get by on insurance plans with extreme deductibles AND narrower access to the range of needed services. When something that is necessary for the well-being of the country and its citizens becomes too expensive to be useful to all but a few, then that's when the government should take over and make changes. It's common sense. The government is ALL OF US whereas private organizations are ALMOST NONE OF US.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

This is the football board, but I am in favor of overturning every single Obama era rule and regulation.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

I wouldn't pay a red cent to be on this board. I only like it because it's free and it's entertaining....like the Jerry Springer show, lol.

Dear Blair,

Please increase the cost of access to this board to "one red cent".

Yours truly,

The board.

 

[trippnschmidt]

This is the football board, but I am in favor of overturning every single Obama era rule and regulation.

politics before country. always. for any reason, even if I don't agree with it. am I right?

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

politics before country. always. for any reason, even if I don't agree with it. am I right?

Given what the progressive left has done, is doing, and wants to do. Absolutely.

 

[trippnschmidt]

Given what the progressive left has done, is doing, and wants to do. Absolutely.

Hopefully your folks had a good week of practice...

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

Hopefully your folks had a good week of practice...

I take pride in practicing well. You have a Merry Christmas now.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

I am going to be so bummed when you come back to HROT. It has been pretty good since you left.

1/1/18 - Make HROT Great Again

 

[*Knockout*Ned*]

Whoa!

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

Wow....keep it classy Ned

 

[*Knockout*Ned*]

Get in the sea nazi scum.

 

[carrierhawk]

I miss the days of party lines. No mobojombo. Oh the good old days.

 

[ChiDoc]

My fears are the opposite of yours. I understand yours. I do. My fears are of privatization because what was free or low-priced under government regulation always jumps in price when goods and services and lands are privatized. I think of it this way: If a beach is public, government owned, it's available to everyone. If the government sells the land to a private developer and it's turned into a resort, now the only way I can get to the same beach is to pay an outrageous sum of money. That's what always happens with privatization. Access disappears ... unless you pay for what was once free and accessible to everyone. Take the gulf coast of Florida. The beaches there are almost entirely blocked from the public by resorts and gated communities.

But because California passed a law (or maybe amended their constitution, I don't know) the beaches that hadn't already been privatized are protected from privatization and remain open to the public for free. I want the free beaches, the free mountains, the free forests, and the free (or low cost) Internet access. Hopefully you can understand my perspective in much the same way I understand yours. We simply disagree on what will happen. I'm basing my perspective on what I've seen in the past when things like public utilities were privatized.

Rock island, Illinois, for example, still has public utilities and their power is cheaper than those that are privately owned. It makes perfect sense why that is: Because the public utilities don't have to charge consumers higher prices to make a profit. There are certain things that should always remain privately owned and controlled and certain things that should always remain publicly owned and controlled. If it's public (government) then you and I have a say in terms of voting, assembling, protesting, petitioning, etc. If it's private and we don't own it then we have no say at all.

The U.S. has always functioned best when it's been a mix of socialism and capitalism. The main reason health care should be nationalized is because it's no longer profitable for insurers and health care providers because individuals can't afford premiums and/or out-of-pocket costs. Before the technology jacked up the price so high, health care was semi-affordable but not all that effective. It's extraordinarily effective now, but it's not accessible to everyone. If you have "Cadillac" insurance you get the best care imaginable, but for those who don't work for giant law firms or other organizations that pay at least part of those hugely expensive insurance plans, they have to get by on insurance plans with extreme deductibles AND narrower access to the range of needed services. When something that is necessary for the well-being of the country and its citizens becomes too expensive to be useful to all but a few, then that's when the government should take over and make changes. It's common sense. The government is ALL OF US whereas private organizations are ALMOST NONE OF US.

This is just absolutely patently absurd, there is example after example of exactly the opposite happening throughout American history. Try picking up a book and thinking for yourself sometime. Look up what Air Travel, energy, shipping, and phone calls used to cost before deregulation in the 70's and 80's. They have all decreased drastically after deregulation opened up competition that didn't exist because that regulation stopped new competition from entering the marketplace due to the expense of compliance. You actually think phone calls would be cheaper and better if they had never been deregulated? Based on what, the post office and the DMV?

You're basically arguing the post office can do a better job than fedex & UPS because "the government is all of us" but fedex & UPS is "almost none of us." What a hilarious joke of an argument. Meanwhile back in actual reality, UPS and Fedex are both cheaper and better than the USPS. It's not surprising at all someone this breathtakingly ignorant thinks we need "socialism in the mix." Also, I know an enormous number of average everyday Americans who have received the best medical care in the world at places like The Mayo Clinic who are lower middle class and have normal insurance, in places health care is nationalized this isn't possible, these types of places like Mayo literally only cater to the rich, your argument is just completely absurd. Where did you get this hilarious stuff that only people who work for giant law firms get this level of care? You're just hilariously wrong here.

 

[IAHawk2011]

This is the football board, but I am in favor of overturning every single Obama era rule and regulation.

This is literally everything that is wrong with this country right now.

 

[Johnsoda123]

This is just absolutely patently absurd, there is example after example of exactly the opposite happening throughout American history. Try picking up a book and thinking for yourself sometime. Look up what Air Travel, energy, shipping, and phone calls used to cost before deregulation in the 70's and 80's. They have all decreased drastically after deregulation opened up competition that didn't exist because that regulation stopped new competition from entering the marketplace due to the expense of compliance. You actually think phone calls would be cheaper and better if they had never been deregulated? Based on what, the post office and the DMV?

You're basically arguing the post office can do a better job than fedex & UPS because "the government is all of us" but fedex & UPS is "almost none of us." What a hilarious joke of an argument. Meanwhile back in actual reality, UPS and Fedex are both cheaper and better than the USPS. It's not surprising at all someone this breathtakingly ignorant thinks we need "socialism in the mix." Also, I know an enormous number of average everyday Americans who have received the best medical care in the world at places like The Mayo Clinic who are lower middle class and have normal insurance, in places health care is nationalized this isn't possible, these types of places like Mayo literally only cater to the rich, your argument is just completely absurd. Where did you get this hilarious stuff that only people who work for giant law firms get this level of care? You're just hilariously wrong here.

You are an idiot. You think UPS and Fed-X are less expensive than USPS? It isn't even remotely close.

Companies that own ISPs now own the internet. They can now slow down your access. Want faster access? Pay me more. Want faster Netflix? Pay me more.

What a jackass you are. You a Russian bot?

 

[ChiDoc]

You are an idiot. You think UPS and Fed-X are less expensive than USPS? It isn't even remotely close.

Companies that own ISPs now own the internet. They can now slow down your access. Want faster access? Pay me more. Want faster Netflix? Pay me more.

What a jackass you are. You a Russian bot?

Yes, the horror of returning to internet rules of TWO YEARS AGO!!! It's not like anyone can switch companies if their current carrier does something they don't like, it's like Nazi's have taken over telecommunications! Maybe you and Ned can go beat up some conservative speakers the next time they come to campus in the name of stopping internet fascism!

 

[IAHawk2011]

You are an idiot. You think UPS and Fed-X are less expensive than USPS? It isn't even remotely close.

Companies that own ISPs now own the internet. They can now slow down your access. Want faster access? Pay me more. Want faster Netflix? Pay me more.

What a jackass you are. You a Russian bot?

He’s also incredibly wrong about the healthcare aspect- the U.S. for the most part doesn’t offer the best medical care in the world. Many countries that have nationalized healthcare have equal or better care at a fraction of the cost. The U.S. healthcare system is an absolute joke.

 

[ChiDoc]

You are an idiot. You think UPS and Fed-X are less expensive than USPS? It isn't even remotely close.

The post office is only cheaper because they run at a loss, which you should include in your comparison but aren't, and for many types of packages and time frames, NO, they still aren't even cheaper than UPS.

The USPS subsidizes companies like Amazon at taxpayer expense, thanks to the magic of government efficiency that drooling idiots like you argue for:


For every Amazon package it delivers, the Postal Service loses $1.46
by Brian McNicoll | Sep 1, 2017, 12:01 AM
An old salesman joke: A salesman says, "We sell below cost." A customer asks how he can do that. "Simple," he says. "We buy below cost."

For a day or so last week, Jeff Bezos passed Bill Gates as the richest man in the world. And that's pretty much how he did it.

Bezos runs Amazon, which is primarily a shipping business. It relies on the U.S. Postal Service to deliver two-thirds of its packages. In many places now, it locates a depot near a post office, presorts the packages, and delivers them to the post office. The Postal Service, which has a monopoly on last-mile delivery, does the rest.

The Postal Service is happy because it can report healthy increases in sales in the package delivery department. Postal employees are happy because it means work seven days a week — the Postal Service operates on Sundays almost solely to deliver for Amazon.

And Amazon is happy because it has a deal that takes advantage of a loophole in the law that gives it a taxpayer-subsidized deal none of its competitors could get or match.

That's how it is that, according to a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. Postal Service delivers the company's boxes well below its own costs."

Bezos can sell shipping below cost because he buys it below cost. He buys below cost because of what the Journal piece termed "an unappreciated accident of history."

The Postal Service has a legal monopoly to deliver first-class mail and non-urgent letters. It is the only entity that can put something into a mailbox or through a mail slot. It is legally obliged to provide the service at the same level and price nationwide. That means, even with mail volume down 40 percent since 2006, the Postal Service still must visit 155 million mailboxes every day.

Since 2007, the Postal Service has been required to allocate 5.5 percent of its fixed costs to package delivery and to incorporate that into its pricing. That figure made sense then, but today, 25 percent of the Postal Service's business is package delivery. And thanks to features of the Amazon deal – such as Sunday delivery, grocery delivery, even delivery from fish markets to local restaurants – the expenses have climbed.

In fact, they've climbed so much, according to a recent analysis by Citigroup, that the Postal Service should be charging Amazon $1.46 more per package than the $2 or so it does now. "Amazon now enjoys low rates unavailable to its competitors," the Journal story said. "It's as if Amazon gets a subsidized space on every mail truck."

It's not just the free ride in the truck. It's the $200 million three years ago to furnish carriers with 270,000 Internet-connected handheld scanners needed for real-time package tracking. It's the $5 billion or more to replace the Postal Service's 190,000 delivery vehicles with new ones better equipped to handle packages.

The Postal Service has followed this formula to $60 billion in losses since 2007. It expects to lose about $6 billion more this year. But first-class mail volume is down, junk mail is about the same, packages continue to grow 8 percent or so per year, and Postmaster General Megan Brennan's position is that "we're obviously looking to get additional customers who are interested in that type of customized delivery."

There is no question the Postal Service must change to survive. What we need from it has changed. We now pay bills online. We email rather than write letters. We evite rather than send invitations. At the same time, we buy online and need the Postal Service to deliver.

But its finances are not in order. The Postal Service has had one profitable quarter in the last five years. Even with monopoly protection on its most valued service, it has fallen more than $120 billion behind in pension and retiree health expenses and has chewed through a $15 billion line of credit from the Treasury.

The Postal Service has made significant gains in automation and other cost-cutting moves. But the deals it is operating under are unsustainable. It's about selling something over and over and over again to your biggest customer — who also is one of your biggest competitors in spaces such as same-day delivery — for $2 when you should be charging 75 percent more.

If you're in a deal where you lose money and your partner profits wildly, maybe deal-making is not for you. When tax dollars are at stake — and they are, regardless of Postal Service protestations — we have an interest in assuring the deals the Postal Service makes serve it and not the richest, or second-richest, man in the world.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...-the-postal-service-loses-146/article/2632857