A Blue-Sky Idea For the USPS — Postal Trucks As Sensors

An anonymous reader writes "The US Postal Service may face insolvency by 2011 (it lost $8.5 billion last year). An op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times proposes an interesting business idea for the Postal Service: use postal trucks as a giant fleet of mobile sensor platforms. [Registration-required link; this no-reg summary encapsulates the idea, as does this paper by the same author.] (Think Google Streetview on steroids.) The trucks could be outfitted with a variety of sensors (security, environmental, RF ...) and paid for by businesses. The article's author addresses some of the obvious privacy concerns that arise."

Comments

Insilvent? So what?

[migla]

What are they gonna do? Dismantle the postal service? Just consider it infrastructure and pay for any loss from taxes. Surely the people of the US don't want to be without a postal service?

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[clarkkent09]

That doesn't work because it's not their money. People run things far more efficiently when it's their money or their bosses money on the line, rather than "everybody's" (i.e nobody's) money.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[clarkkent09]

UPS won't send a postcard from Alaska to Florida for 28 cents, either.
 
You don't know that because right now they are forbidden by law to do so.

What is the real cost of sending that postcard? Of course if you carried just that one postcard by a special flight it would be thousands of dollars, but that's not how it works. A better question is what is the cost of delivering all the postcards in the US divided by the number of postcards? In any case, the real cost of something is the real cost, it can't be avoided. If it costs 48c to send that postcard you can't magically make it 28c by regulation. The cost is just shifted somewhere else, it still has to be paid by someone.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[rolfwind]

Hell no. America has an amazingly secure post system. You rarely have mail stolen (an enforced Federal Crime, USPS have Postal Inspectors that are very good at their job and I say this with personal experience). I know privatized systems in other countries -- THEY SUCK. Stolen packages, no accounting (everyone passes the buck, etc) while Postal workers are people THAT will most likely work there next year, with a good benefits, and do care if they lose their job or pension.

Cut some service, close down some unnecessary offices (I know a few miles from each other) and do some other tweaks. But the PO is Constitutionally mandated service, and it's ridiculous to get rid of it when all it needs are tweaks.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[tyen]

You rarely have mail stolen...

This should be emphasized. I visited a gold mine in the US once. Was astounded when they told us they mail their raw ingots (that contain gold, silver and platinum all mixed together) to their refiner by USPS. They matter-of-factly told us that only USPS had the kind of government-force-backed security and guarantees that made transporting around >$100K bars every day feasible.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[demonlapin]

The jewelry industry uses registered mail for the same purpose.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[transami]

The only reason they are loosing money is b/c Congress won't let them raise prices to what they need to be. Look at the USPS 2009 annual report, the first page brags about being the cheapest postal service in the world. So is it any wonder they are loosing money? If they raised the price of a stamp just 5 cents they'd be in the black again.

No doubt, lobbyists from Fedex and UPS are paying off our politicians to sabotage the USPS. First they will get rid of Saturday delivery, which, contrary to the stated reasons for it, will actually further erode their bottom line. That will ultimately lead to full privatization. Shortly after that happens expect the cost of mailing a letter to quickly approach 10 times of what it costs today in order to pay massive executive bonuses and shareholder dividends.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[segedunum]

I see a lot of people roll out the usual Milton Friedman 'Privatise it!' option to everything, but I'm afraid that a lot of private delivery firms just do not see it as cost effective to deliver to a lot of, mainly rural, areas. It's the same thing here in the UK with the Royal Mail. No matter how much anyone talks about privatisation you can always bet that there will be government subsidies needed to fill the gap needed, because you can't have a functioning economy and communities without some kind of postal service unless you tell everyone to move to areas that delivery firms find cost effective. I can't see that being an option.

When you subsidise private firms to provide a service they don't really want to provide then you get something far worse than anything the government could run itself. It simply doesn't work.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[crunchygranola]

You rarely have mail stolen...

This should be emphasized....

And the government sends secret documents by the U.S. Postal Service.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[tibit]

Perhaps that's part of the problem with USPS: a vastly over-the-top type of service -- it can hardly be cheap. I do understand that such service is good to have, but it should come at a hefty price. I presume that plenty of private companies would be glad to ship $100K bars around for 1% of their value. USPS can't profitably offer that service for anything less, yet they do precisely that. All that government-backed-security costs lots of money. It's not free just because it's law, enforcement costs real dollars.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[jrumney]

Where's my interest in saving you some money?

Food prices.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[edumacator]

Right. And then they would say, I'm not going to spend my money delivering to those people out in the country. The postal service has the responsibility to deliver to every region of the country. A private company doesn't have the same responsibility. We could make it a prerequisite for whoever wins the contract, but then they would raise the prices significantly.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[zach_the_lizard]

Except in government, your revenue stream does not depend on pleasing the customer, so you can fail as long as you like, and still maintain the same level of income (or greater).

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[rtb61]

Wake up. Do you want you post delivered as cheaply as possible or do you want you postal service to be a profitable as possible, you can not have both, profit you fool comes from gouging the consumers pocket.

Government services attempt to provide as much service as possible whilst charging as little as possible, sometimes resulting losses. Corporations attempt to provide as little service as possible whilst charging as much as possible for it, often resulting in multimillion dollar bonuses for corporate executives. Competition is what corporation strive to cripple by forming cartel, buy buying out the opposition and then ramping up prices to pay for it, by lying to consumers, by lobbying for reduced worker rights, by not paying tax, by seeking corporate welfare from the local, state and federal government.

So more efficient letter carriage, drop Saturday deliveries, drop pick up of mail from letter box have localised post boxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_box, just those simply changes will substantively reduce cost. Of course it you really want to do what a for profit corporation would do, simply drop all postal services to rural areas unless they are willing to pay substantially more for the service.

As for corporations as far as they are concerned your money is their money and they will and do lie, cheat and steal to 'er' recover it.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[hairyfeet]

Yeah, why should they have running water and electricity, those filthy hillbillies! Let them shit in buckets and use candles! Oh wait a tick, could it be that increasingly the US government, as well as the states, are moving everything online because it is cheaper than printing and mailing crap, not to mention dealing with the sorting and filing of said crap?

If you wanted to cut a day or two out of mailing letters fine, but I just had to help a nephew fill out all the paperwork for him to start college. We are talking tons of electronic forms and PDF and tons of other eCrap that with dialup would have been frankly impossible to accomplish. That of course doesn't count the fact that having an infrastructure that isn't from the fricking stone age opens up all kinds of new opportunities, like using Netflix instead of blowing through gas going to the nearest Redbox, eLearning and other ways to better yourself like virtual classrooms, and the ability top start new businesses and save on greenhouse gases by the way of eCommerce and Telecommuting.

So lets please step off the "corporation yay!" bandwagon for a minute, shall we? We have been kissing the telecoms booties here in the USA for damned near 30 years now, and even our largest cities have broadband speeds that are honestly shameful compared to the rest of the planet, and much of our rural areas have land lines laid down when fricking Ike was president. If we wait for the "free market" in the case of nationwide broadband we will ALL end up on the short bus to crappytown, left behind while the world advances, while all we will have to show for it is some crappy quality Youtube videos of Telecom CEOs snorting coke off of $1000 hooker asses while having their balls tickled with $100 bills. It is time we treat broadband no different that electricity or water, take the last mile AWAY from the telecoms by laying OUR OWN LINES, and then if they want to compete they can get off their asses and offer better service for less money. That is what the free market is supposed to be about, competition, right?

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[sjames]

I have never had USPS gore my package with a forklift and then try to tell me it was "inadequately packed" so they won't be paying the insurance claim. I can't say the same for other carriers.

Re:Insilvent? So what?

[Kjella]

Right. And then they would say, I'm not going to spend my money delivering to those people out in the country. The postal service has the responsibility to deliver to every region of the country. A private company doesn't have the same responsibility. We could make it a prerequisite for whoever wins the contract, but then they would raise the prices significantly.

Which would then prove that the USPS is an effective organization, that has just been given an expensive mission then? Sure you can get a system that costs half what the USPS does but only does half too, seriously if private companies can't compete in an apples-to-apples bid to take over what's the point? What is wrong with the government negotiating a SLA on behalf of the people of what is to be delivered? These are our requirements. These are our penalties for failing to meet those requirements. Seriously, I've never understood the US on this, giving it all to one company then letting them have free reign is just to ask people to lube up and bend over. Most every such regulated industry here in Norway has strings attached, which is considered fair as long as all bidders compete under the same conditions.

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The easiest thing to do would be to greatly increase the rate for "Junk Mail" (4th class mail or whatever they call it). That "bulk rate pre-metered" stuff that costs next to nothing for a business to send, but still must be routed and delivered just like the payments I mail. I just throw it all away, and I imagine most people do the same. If it is really worth it to send, companies can pay closer to what the normal public pays. This would reduce the annoyance for folks at home while lowering the volume of mail (and raising the per item profit).

Re:Simple Solution

[Fluffeh]

That "bulk rate pre-metered" stuff that costs next to nothing for a business to send, but still must be routed and delivered just like the payments I mail.

That might not actually be the right approach. If the postal service has to make the trip anyway, this bulk stuff can be delivered pretty much when they please. It might actually be making the most profit for them. The standard mail needs to be delivered on time, so the truck is already making the trip around - why not just pump some trash mail into your mailbox at the same time?

It might not be profitable to do those runs as a trip on its own, but I can't imagine that there is a lot of extra cost when pushing three envelopes into a mailbox rather than just one - meaning that carrying all those extra envelopes is almost pure profit.

Re:Simple Solution

[Korin43]

I was under the impression that junk mail was how the USPS made all of its money already. I suspect they've carefully considered the rates for it.

Wrong

[93 Escort Wagon]

Ravnitzky suggests a variety of useful data that could be gathered by postal trucks outfitted with sensors:

detailed weather readings,

Once a day? Not useful at all. There are already tens of thousands of automated weather stations scattered across the country - I bet the author isn't aware of that.

road conditions during storms

I don't see a detailed record of how road conditions are, once a day, on mostly minor roads would help - and the state police already do this for major highways.

road quality (e.g. pothole)

This is not particularly transient - just ask the carriers to phone them in.

gaps in cellular network coverage, sources of radio frequency interference

Um... I don't see the market case, but maybe this one is at least plausible.

and in a homeland security context, detection of chemical or radiological agents.

Again - once a day?

That's Already How It Works!

[waldoj]

Congratulations, you've just described exactly how the USPS works.

Bajillions of people who live in rural areas (like me) pick up their mail at the post office, because the cost of delivery to their homes is prohibitive. Universal service is not, in fact, universal, and never has been. Even UPS won't deliver to my house—I've got to pick up their packages at the post office (!), too.

Also, your example is ludicrous. Have you ever heard of a house so isolated that it's in a "neighborhood" (?) five miles away and yet, mysteriously, this five-mile-long stretch of road, devoid of any homes or businesses, has a 20 MPH speed limit on its road? Because I can't summon any scenario in which that would be the case.

They're not losing money

[perpetual pessimist]

From the postal service's own Inspector General report:

The following paper demonstrates that the current system of funding the Postal Service’s Civil Service Retirement System pension responsibility is inequitable and has resulted in the Postal Service overpaying $75 billion to the pension fund.

The postal service is having money extracted from it each year, channeled to other parts of the federal government pension systems (mostly military). This is to help disguise how bad the federal budget is overdrawn. If the post office were allowed to fund their peoples' pensions the way every other government agency is, they'd be showing a profit.

Re:Privacy concerns

[DavidTC]

Actually, no.

The post office can deliver onto private property.

In fact, believe it or not, it can't be kept out by property owners if a resident wants their mail delivered somewhere. If someone wants their mail delivered inside of a locked apartment building, or even a college dorm that doesn't allow non-residents, and the post office wants to deliver there, the owner of the building cannot keep them out.

In short, if they have a letter for you, and you want them to deliver it to you at a location, and they want to deliver it at that location, they technically can demand to be let through whatever locked doors they want to deliver it to that location, regardless of whose property that is.

This is all mostly moot because the post office doesn't want to deliver mail in such a manner, though, that would be insane. It will often demand that people put up mailboxes on the public right away if they want delivery, and would certainly look long and hard before deciding to deliver mail on private property against someone's wishes.

But it raises an interesting legal point if postal employees are used for anything else while delivering mail.

But we're talking about putting them on postal vehicles, which operate 99.99999% on public roads, and it would be a simple matter to leave them off any vehicles that leave them.

Re:Uhm...

[Grishnakh]

A couple of things: First, it's not your tax dollars, the USPS is not a full government agency, it's quasi-government. It's basically a private company that's wholly owned by the government, but receives no funding whatsoever and has to be self-sustaining.

Second, the USPS is already a viable business venture, except that stupid Congress keeps getting in the way. For instance, one of the reasons they're having problems now is because they need to adjust to the new market realities: the internet is taking over, and people aren't sending letters any more, so with less mail going around, it's not economical to send drivers around to every single address every day without a large enough volume of mail to deliver. This problem could be easily solved: simply cut out one or two days of deliveries (except for Express mail). However, they're not allowed to do that, because stupid Congress has mandated that they deliver mail 6 days out of the week.

The USPS needs to concentrate on the things it does well: it's a reliable way of getting things around for low cost, as long as you're not in too big a hurry. No one's going to miss receiving junk mail on Saturdays or Wednesdays (two days that could be cut). It's good for bulk mail, and also for small packages, now that people are ordering more and more stuff online. You're also more likely to receive your goods intact, as a recent Popular Mechanics article found that, in an experiment, the USPS treated packages far better than Fedex or UPS, who both subjected packages to much larger shocks, and also intentionally beat up packages marked "Fragile". The USPS just needs to concentrate on providing good, cheap, but not necessarily fast service, which is what most people want these days, and they'll be fine.