GameFly Scores In Longstanding DVD Mailing Complaint

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GameFly Scores In Longstanding DVD Mailing Complaint

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 5, 2013 @04:12AM from the everything-competes-with-everything-else dept.

An anonymous reader writes "GamePolitics reports that the Postal Regulatory Commission has ordered [PDF] the U.S. Postal Service to equalize the rates paid by mailers who send round trip DVDs, and concluding (sort of) a dispute that has been underway for more than four years. The new postage rates take effect on September 30th. Some mailers, prominantly Netflix, send their round-trip movie DVDs as 'letters,' but GameFly's gaming disks are sent in slightly bigger envelopes as 'flats' to avoid breakage, and so GameFly has paid a much higher postage rate. GameFly argued that this was unfair discriminatory treatment because USPS was providing special hand-sorting treatment for Netflix disks without charging Netflix for the extra handling. But now there's a new twist: the Postal Service wants to reclassify DVD mailing [PDF] as a competitive product, where the prices would not be limited by the rate of inflation, because it says that mailed DVDs compete with the internet, streaming services, and kiosks such as Redbox. The regulatory agency is accepting responses [PDF] from interested persons until September 11th to the Postal Service's latest comments on its request [PDF]."

147 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

And regular mail doesn't compete with Email at all right?
1. Re:Aaaaand... by jellomizer · 2013-09-05 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly,
  The USPS is loosing out to the Internet, for all the small stuff that it is really good at shipping to us. Letters, DVDs, and small packages. USPS can ship rather well. However most of these things is stuff the internet can do for less, and much much faster.
  So their last breath is to try to make it easier for companies who are shipping media to ship stuff. As to keep their revenues going.
  So $0.46 for a million DVDs is better then $1.00 for 25,000 DVDs. If they can keep these DVD sharing companies going strong, they can keep going for longer.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Aaaaand... by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not really, sure people are sending less mail, but mail isn't the only thing that the USPS delivers. I keep hearing people declare the USPS dead because of the internet, and the only reason they're having financial problems at all is because they were given a decade to fund their pensions 100%, which is more than what even responsible companies do.
  What's more, the internet can't do things like have proper signature requirements, there's no guarantee of privacy like there is with things mailed within the US.
  I know it's popular to badmouth the postal service, but seriously, how are physical things going to be transported without something filling that niche? And the USPS is pretty much the most cost effective way of doing that in the US.
3. Re:Aaaaand... by kelemvor4 · 2013-09-05 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, sure people are sending less mail, but mail isn't the only thing that the USPS delivers. I keep hearing people declare the USPS dead because of the internet, and the only reason they're having financial problems at all is because they were given a decade to fund their pensions 100%, which is more than what even responsible companies do.
  What's more, the internet can't do things like have proper signature requirements, there's no guarantee of privacy like there is with things mailed within the US.
  I know it's popular to badmouth the postal service, but seriously, how are physical things going to be transported without something filling that niche? And the USPS is pretty much the most cost effective way of doing that in the US.
  There are plenty of private carriers that deliver physical things. UPS, FedEX, DHL, others. Typically the private carriers do a better job. In my opinion that makes private service worth paying more for. I haven't used USPS to send things for years.
  
  IMO, using USPS is as much of a gamble as going to vegas - just with lower stakes.
4. Re:Aaaaand... by aardvarkjoe · 2013-09-05 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  There are plenty of private carriers that deliver physical things. UPS, FedEX, DHL, others. Typically the private carriers do a better job. In my opinion that makes private service worth paying more for. I haven't used USPS to send things for years.
  This seems to depend an awful lot on the local post office. In my area, sending packages via USPS is very good -- much more reliable and timely than UPS, and on par with FedEx, though much cheaper. On the other hand, I know people in other places where USPS is so bad that it's completely pointless to use it -- packages and letters are "lost" or destroyed more often than not.
  The result is that if I have something being shipped to me, then I have the sender use USPS. If I'm shipping something myself, though, then unless I know that USPS is reliable for the receiver, I'll use another service.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
5. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  And regular mail doesn't compete with Email at all right?
  I have to call BS on this one. I only ever wrote paper letters when it was required by who I was sending them to (to cancel something for example). Although some of these can in fact be done online now most things involving legal matters must be physically mailed. The thing I am doing less of because of my use on email is making phone calls.
6. Re:Aaaaand... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-09-05 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I still send physical cards and letters to people from time to time.
  In particular to my daughter, who lives on another continent. The least I can do to make up for not being with her full-time is to send her something of myself.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
7. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on where you are. In many parts of the country, the private carriers throw deliveries "over the fence" to USPS for last-mile delivery because it is not worth their while to deliver to a remote address. They get to cherry-pick the most profitable deliveries, and stick USPS with the rest.
8. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  there's no guarantee of privacy like there is with things mailed within the US.
  Please stop smoking crack.
9. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Those other places should get the postal inspectors on them - they are actually very good at internal policing and efficiencies when they're made aware. Tell your friends to get in touch with USPS PIs.
10. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  What's more is that while private carriers exist for profit, the mail service is a democratic institution. It has a universal service obligation: it must try to deliver to every resident. Private carriers like FedEx and UPS have areas they refuse to deliver to, whether because of remoteness (rural) or safety (poor, high-crime neighborhoods). UPS calls these places UDA's: undeliverable areas. They're places where because of the cost of travel or security/losses make it unprofitable. The USPS, which still may have trouble serving these areas, must still try to serve them, and when they don't, it's a failure to serve the public. When the private companies don't, it's a business decision to ignore a demographic.
  And what is social cost of ignoring these areas? Many of these people don't have good access to the Internet, because service or the required devices are unavailable or too expensive. So, they don't have access to become informed citizens - to know more about the issues of the day and the politicians and political candidates who can help them - except by post, even if it's direct mailer political pamphlets. Without the mail service, it's also harder to participate economically, i.e. searching for and receiving goods, especially bargain goods, is very hard. In short, the the effect is that without the mail service, these people of most need and most negelected, would be further cutoff from society.
11. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  When we can deconstruct physical objects into data and reconstitute them at homes and offices, sure. Til then, no, for a variety of purposes.
12. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  GameFly argued that this was unfair discriminatory treatment because USPS was providing special hand-sorting treatment for Netflix disks without charging Netflix for the extra handling.
  GameFly are lying scumbags, they pay more because their mailers weigh more. Netflix's mailer weighs 1 oz and they pay the 1 oz rate. GameFly's mailer is 2 oz and they pay the two oz rate. How is this discriminatory? GameFly are the ones demanding special handling. The rest of us have to pay by the ounce for our mail, so should GameFly.
13. Re:Aaaaand... by Zenin · 2013-09-05 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of private carriers that deliver physical things. UPS, FedEX, DHL, others. Typically the private carriers do a better job. In my opinion that makes private service worth paying more for. I haven't used USPS to send things for years.
  Aaaaand... all those "private" carriers contract with the USPS for much of their final delivery, especially residential delivery.
  
  --
  My /. uid is better then your /. uid
14. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Aaaaand... all those "private" carriers contract with the USPS for much of their final delivery, especially residential delivery.
  That must be why I see them driving up my street and stopping to deliver packages at peoples' doors in a large brown UPS truck while wearing a UPS uniform. They must be USPS workers in disguise! Yes, that makes perfect sense.
15. Re: Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, dumbass. I do get a significant number of packages delivered by USPS after starting out as FedEx or UPS deliveries. I know this because I buy a lot of s-t online and I also get expensive freebies as a product reviewer for some big online company. I keep track of the packages so I can report a problem if something goes missing.
16. Re:Aaaaand... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  What's more, the internet can't do things like have proper signature requirements
  I bought a house last year. I found it interesting that the majority of the documents that I had to sign were signed electronically, on a tablet, with a wireless connection. There were an awful lot of documents that I had to sign this way. So, at least for real estate, at least in my state within the USA, using the internet for signing stuff is now routine.
17. Re:Aaaaand... by Zenin · 2013-09-07 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  "It depends"
  It depends on the class of service (delivery time guarantees, etc), if signatures are required, and the neighborhood (UPS/FedEx isn't rolling a truck deep into the suburbs to deliver one or two packages unless the customer paid extra for guaranteed delivery dates).
  For a lot of folks that don't live in dense cities with lots of online shoppers (ie, still most of the country), it's extremely common for USPS to handle the last mile. FedEx alone sends nearly two billion dollars of business annually to USPS for last mile service. USPS is far more of a business partner with "private" shipping companies than it is a competitor.
  
  --
  My /. uid is better then your /. uid
gamefly wins to lose by Dan667 · 2013-09-05 04:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

sounds like in winning gamefly may have put the nail in their profit margin. Instead of adopting the Netflix mailer and accepting breakage as part of doing business everyone will now have to pay much much higher mailing. Ironically, this also will mean that dvd mailing services will probably start to die which hurts the USPS too.
1. Re:gamefly wins to lose by WillgasM · 2013-09-05 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. I'm one of the few people I know that still uses Netflix for DVDs. I like the service, but it's already hard to justify the cost. If the price goes up, I imagine people will drop the DVD service en masse.
2. Re:gamefly wins to lose by mog007 · 2013-09-05 04:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Breakage is not a big deal for Netflix because brand new movies are not that expensive to replace. Even if they have to pay retail prices, you're looking at 15-20 bucks. Brand new video games are easily more than quadruple that at 50-60.
  Gamefly wouldn't be able to handle those losses.
  
  --
  Learn something new.
3. Re:gamefly wins to lose by MozeeToby · 2013-09-05 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They almost certainly almost never have to replace broken movies. Look at the shelves at the local brick and mortar rental store next time a big release comes out, see the hundred or so copies? 2 weeks later it's 50, 2 weeks after that it's 10. In a year there's only a handful. So Netflix has their stock of the new release which, even taking into account how long it used to take to get some new releases, is much larger than the stock they will need just a few weeks down the road. Breakage gets written off, so long as it doesn't outpace the drop in demand (which I suppose it will one movies are old enough, but that isn't the majority of the business) you never need to worry about it.
4. Re:gamefly wins to lose by OverlordQ · 2013-09-05 04:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  > Look at the shelves at the local brick and mortar rental store next time a big release comes out, see the hundred or so copies? 2 weeks later it's 50, 2 weeks after that it's 10.
  Having worked in a video rental store, you'd be surprised how much those DVDs actually cost from the distributor. And yes, it's more than what you'd pay if you went out to buy it.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
5. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  I like the service
  I have found many of the the disks from Netflix (and previously Blockbuster) to be badly damaged. Between the scratches and mysterious gunk that I have to remove so it doesn't ruin my player the disks often won't play well. I've largely stopped ordering disks because of this.
  Are you somehow not experiencing this?
6. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Dan667 · 2013-09-05 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  I just report a problem and send them back. I would only say 5% of disks have a problem and Netflix will immediately send a replacement so that has been good enough for me.
7. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  1. Movies which come out to rental stores prior to general Sale copies cost a holy shitload. I'm talking several hundred bucks a copy.
  2. This doesn't happen much any more, most companies are starting to release all at the same time.
  But more important than anything else:
  They are different products. Just because the physical disk shares the same physical dimensions does not mean the product has the same value. Gamefly is running a business where they can't accept as many busted disks as Netflix can, so they're trying to find a scapegoat to distract their investors from the fact their business model is starting to fail. They have the choice to either accept higher loss rates with more broken disks, or pay more for the shipping and send it in different packaging. I fail to see why the USPS should be involved at all in this.
8. Re:gamefly wins to lose by WillgasM · 2013-09-05 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  I guess not. I've never gotten a broken disk. I've had one that was lost in the mail, but I'm pretty sure one of my neighbors grabbed it as it showed up on my door weeks later. I've had a couple that were fairly scratched, but nothing my BD player couldn't handle. My computer, however, usually doesn't recognize a DVD unless it's pristine, so I often have to wipe them down with a wet cloth and try several times before my PC will read them.
9. Re:gamefly wins to lose by CODiNE · 2013-09-05 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't heard of this before, thanks for the info. They know you can't get the bulk you need anywhere else so they charge whatever they want for them?
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
10. Re:gamefly wins to lose by AliasBackslash · 2013-09-05 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  USPS is involved because, if you read TFS, they were giving special handling treatment to Netflix DVDs during sorting for no extra charge while GameFly wasn't given such treatment and therefore had to pay for special packaging to avoid breakage.
11. Re:gamefly wins to lose by suutar · 2013-09-05 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  indeed. The only reason I keep it is for the stuff that they don't have subtitled on streaming (or don't have on streaming at all), but more and more often, they have only half the discs in the series anyway. Pfui.
12. Re:gamefly wins to lose by suutar · 2013-09-05 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  They charge more for the ones that are licensed to be lent/rented (even if they don't bother to change the fbi warning).
13. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  sounds like in winning gamefly may have put the nail in their profit margin. Instead of adopting the Netflix mailer and accepting breakage as part of doing business everyone will now have to pay much much higher mailing. Ironically, this also will mean that dvd mailing services will probably start to die which hurts the USPS too.
  That was part of the problem though, Netflix dvd's were receiving special handling by the USPS but not paying for it. GameFly DID NOT have that option.
14. Re:gamefly wins to lose by cpt+kangarooski · 2013-09-05 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in the US, at least, it's perfectly legal to rent ordinary retail DVDs. There are good reasons to go with a distributor, such as early access to copies so that they can be on shelves and ready to go ASAP, but if you're not getting prices lower than if you just got discs retail, and worse if you're locked into a requirements contract which precludes you from shopping around, I don't know if its worth it.
  In any event, it seems to be a mostly moot point now.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
15. Re:gamefly wins to lose by RoknrolZombie · 2013-09-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Been getting around 5 disks from Netflix a month for a few years (sometimes more, sometimes less - their streaming service makes it so that the DVD service isn't as critical for me). During that time I've gotten 1 broken disk - had a crack from the edge almost to the center. I returned it, notified Netflix on their site, and was sent an extra disk from my queue in compensation while they rushed me a new copy of the broken disk.
  There have been a few times when I've gotten a disk that was badly scratched...but only a couple, definitely well under the 1% mark.
  As far as the "gunk"...yeah, I've gotten disks with jelly on them and other things, but again, not frequently. Maybe 1 out of 20 disks? Not terrible IMO considering the volume of disks that they're supposed to process every day.
16. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  My guesses would be licensing for them to legally be able to rent videos, or perhaps they're tied to a distributor for old releases in order to get new releases in store on release day. Regardless, I remember seeing video stores costs around $80 for a VHS title when they were more like $15-$20 new in a regular store -- and that was even for older films.
17. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  sounds like in winning gamefly may have put the nail in their profit margin. Instead of adopting the Netflix mailer and accepting breakage as part of doing business everyone will now have to pay much much higher mailing. Ironically, this also will mean that dvd mailing services will probably start to die which hurts the USPS too.
  The difference is that gamefly takes a much larger hit to breakage than netflix does. Dvd price us $15.00 on average. Games price us $50.00 on average. So the netflix mailing schema is not really an option.
18. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds about right for a quasi government organization. We should just allow UPS and FedEx access to mail boxes and let them cut a deal with netflix & gamefly.
19. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As an ex video store owner I concure that yes when you're a little mom and pop shop you get reamed. But Netflix is like blockbuster. They buy in bulk and get much better rates than we do. In 1992 we were typically paying about $85 for a new release, and customers expected us to have multiple copies. Meanwhile, blockbuster was selling them to consumers at $45. Eventually we went to a model where we'd buy 1 from the distributer (so we'd have it on the release date), and then buy a couple more from blockbuster to backfill our inventory as soon as we could. Even still at $4.00 / day for a new release it takes a while to recover those costs. The averge interest didn't typically last more than a month, so even with all 3 coppies out at 4 / day (and that doesn't always happen) we'd make a max of $360, of which $175 is purchase costs. Now add into that equation the bad VCR that wrecks a tape, the overhead of running a brick and morter business, payroll, etc. We went out of business shortly after Blockbuster got big. We just couldn't compete.
20. Re:gamefly wins to lose by jandrese · 2013-09-05 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm more like 2% of the disks won't play for me, although sometimes they are kind of dirty and I give them a quick wash with water and a soft cloth. I've had a couple that were outright cracked, but Netflix is really good about shipping replacements when you ask. It also depends on your player. Some players are better at handling marginal disks than others, thinks like DVD burners tend to be much more capable of dealing with iffy disks than cheapo standalone players.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
21. Re:gamefly wins to lose by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  They tried using a regular mailer like Netflix, but the breakages were substantially higher. What's more, Netflix was supposed to be paying for the special treatment as the envelopes wouldn't work with the automated machinery.
  As a result of that, Gamefly started using better envelopes to avoid the substantial losses due to breakage in mail.
  Had the USPS charged Gamefly the same as Netflix and provided the same level of service, this would never have gotten to this point.
22. Re:gamefly wins to lose by lgw · 2013-09-05 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  There is no license needed to rent DVDs. It's a persistent urban legend. At least in the US, anything but "phonorecordings" can be rented out with no particular license.
  The old scam used to be that video tapes and early DVDs would sell for triple the "normal" price for the first 2-3 weeks. Since rental places would compete to offer popular titles as early as possible, they'd "volunteer" to get gouged.
  Some rental places do get special licensing, even though they don't have to. I believe Netflix does licensing that lets them print their own DVDs in whatever quantity they need, plus the licensing games for streaming rights sometimes include making Netflix pay more for rentals as well.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
23. Re:gamefly wins to lose by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  You mean drop Netflix in general, their online catalog is complete garbage. I literally spent an hour last weekend trying to find something to watch and wound up giving up because everything I wanted to watch wasn't available for streaming.
  Sure it is cheap, but the selection online blows and if they increase the prices much more, you may as well take Redbox's offer of $8 a month for 4 DVD pickups and streaming.
24. Re:gamefly wins to lose by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Except that UPS and FedEx are usually more expensive than the USPS is and the breakage isn't necessarily going to be lower.
  What's more, the USPS is an amazingly efficient organization over all. How do you think that the USPS keeps their prices from increasing as quickly as inflation? I'll give you a hint, they take automation and efficiency very seriously.
  Then again, I'm guessing you hate all the other services that the US government provides, because being cheated by a corporation adds to the benefits of overpaying and generally being treated poorly.
25. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Dan667 · 2013-09-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  result for gamefly is still the same. Mortal wound.
26. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  You missed his point, and that is as time goes on you don't need such large stocks of each title. The demand drops significantly after a new movie is no longer the new thing. If 20% of DVDs end up busted over a year, so what? At least 60% of the stock has already been sold because the demand has moved elsewhere.
27. Re:gamefly wins to lose by suutar · 2013-09-05 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, good to know. I had thought (based on legend and the existence of disc versions specifically intended for rental) that there were licensing issues. Thanks for the clarification :)
28. Re:gamefly wins to lose by CODiNE · 2013-09-05 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was my thinking, right of first sale should permit whatever use the owner of the disc wants. But as with software titles the "purchase" is really more of a rental with an implied license that's never agreed upon by the buyer yet in full legal force.
  I'm surprised DVD rental places haven't tried challenging this, or maybe they did and lost?
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
29. Re:gamefly wins to lose by lgw · 2013-09-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Right of first sale applies normally to physical movie DVD media. Purchase of a DVD really is purchase of a DVD, and not a license or any such BS, as long as we're talking about a physical disc (or tape) holding a movie.
  CDs and records are different, copyright law specifically excludes music from the normal right of first sale when it comes to renting them out (and other things). Sadly that battle was lost long before digital.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
30. Re:gamefly wins to lose by cpt+kangarooski · 2013-09-05 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Got a case on that? AFAIK everything except phonorecords (that is, audio recordings, such as CDs) and non-console software falls squarely under first sale for rental purposes. Boilerplate notices of dubious accuracy printed on a DVD label are no EULAs.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
31. Re:gamefly wins to lose by avandesande · 2013-09-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  I've had netflix movies delivered that looked like a copy made by Netflix. I think it is legal to have a backup copy of the DVD and legal to use it if the original is destroyed.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
32. Re:gamefly wins to lose by CODiNE · 2013-09-05 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I'm aware ripping your own DVDs is still not legal because of the DMCA, so as I interpret it, right of first sale is substantially reduced in this case.
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
33. Re:gamefly wins to lose by CODiNE · 2013-09-05 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  So I can go buy 10 copies of the latest flick at Walmart and start my own little neighborhood rental business?
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
34. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Solandri · 2013-09-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why should a rental store/Netflix have to pay full price to replace a broken DVD? You paid full price to license the movie, not the plastic disc. If the disc is broken, that doesn't nullify the license you already paid for. You should be able to just send the studio the pieces, pay a nominal fee, and get a replacement. That's what Disney does. If the other studios don't offer a similar service, they should be sued for breach of contract (violating the terms of their license where they give you the right to do certain things with the movie in exchange for your money).
35. Re:gamefly wins to lose by cpt+kangarooski · 2013-09-05 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you're in the US, yes.
  The relevant part of 17 USC 109:
  
  [T]he owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
  Of course, it might not be the best business plan. There aren't a lot of video rental stores left. But if you can make it work, go for it.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
36. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Their selection only sucks if you are expecting blockbuster new releases. That is not what Netflix is for. Netflix has an excellent library of TV shows. You only have to watch about one season behind. It has an excellent library of documentaries. It has lots of independent movies. And it has original series, which are almost as good as premium cable. I don't need new releases from Netflix. If I feel like watching a new release, they are on the pirate bay. I can watch Dr. Who, Orange is the New Black, Arrested Development, That 70's Show, stoner movies, independent movies, documentaries, and stand up comedy specials. I am never at a shortage of stuff to watch on Netflix.
37. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Rakarra · 2013-09-05 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  I like the service
  I have found many of the the disks from Netflix (and previously Blockbuster) to be badly damaged. Between the scratches and mysterious gunk that I have to remove so it doesn't ruin my player the disks often won't play well. I've largely stopped ordering disks because of this.
  Are you somehow not experiencing this?
  I would say only about 5% of the disks I've ever gotten from Netflix have been in that condition. A few of them, some careful wiping got them to work. I can count the number of completely unwatchable disks on one hand, and every time I reported it to Netflix they sent a replacement disk before waiting for the original to come back.
38. Re:gamefly wins to lose by Rakarra · 2013-09-05 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Their selection only sucks if you are expecting blockbuster new releases
  I've found their selection to be equally shitty for new releases and for old. Even rather older or not-as-mainstream titles that I couldn't imagine would cost a lot.
39. Re:gamefly wins to lose by hedwards · 2013-09-06 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  How is this a mortal wound? Gamefly is an incredibly good deal as it is, even if you just play a couple games a month, you've still more than made up for the cost of membership. Even if they have to double their rates, it's still an incredibly good deal.
  The market isn't going to dry up just because of a little postage increase. Netflix is going to be far more affected by this, as people generally watch more movies per month than they play video games. Unless it's an epically bad game like Epic Mickey, you're probably going to want to play for a few days. Whereas the folks watching movies are likely to be watching at least 10 a month.
40. Re:gamefly wins to lose by hedwards · 2013-09-06 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't generally go looking for newer releases for streaming. Even movies from the '70s, '80s and '90s that they should have, they're missing most of the ones I want to see.
  Perhaps you're not lacking in anything to watch, but I'm not exactly looking for obscure lesbian love stories here. The selection of Schwarzenegger films is laughable, not to mention their horror films, missing most of the good ones. And they can't get a license to stream Bill & Ted, seriously?
  I keep hearing people say that the selection is fine, but I can't believe that my tastes are so niche and obscure that there aren't plenty of other people that want the same films. And BTW, if you're torrenting the ones you can't find on Netflix, then of course you're not going to mind the fact that the selection sucks. You still get to watch those movies online. I have to get the disc sent to me if I want to watch those films.
that's silly. by swschrad · 2013-09-05 04:25 · Score: 1

if you pack your stuff to survive the mail/UPS/FumblesRus, then it will be bulkier and should cost more.
another blow to common sense. can't they argue they have added value and get it on the back end?

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
1. Re:that's silly. by Russ1642 · 2013-09-05 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can't even RTFS. They were treating Netflix discs with gentle loving care for nothing extra but were charging GameFly extra for packaging their stuff so it didn't break when the post office treated it like trash. They should not only have won their case within minutes but had every penny of over-payment returned.
2. Re:that's silly. by jandrese · 2013-09-05 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't Netflix spend years working closely with the Post Office to refine their DVD mailing business down to an art? It's not like the Post Office volunteered to put all of that extra effort into it.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
3. Re:that's silly. by BitZtream · 2013-09-05 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they did, that's the whole point GameFly was making. The USPS gave netflix special treatment for free. Not only did they not give it to GameFly, they ALSO charged GameFly more.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Ridiculous by Hatta · 2013-09-05 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The postage rates should be based on the size and weight of the package, the origin and destination, and nothing else.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Ridiculous by Russ1642 · 2013-09-05 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I can't believe the post office fought this one. They should have given in immediately considering it was such a plainly apparent claim.
2. Re:Ridiculous by jd.schmidt · 2013-09-05 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Basically that is the problem, the prices do not reflect true delivery costs by government mandate. The USPS is mandated to provide certain types of services at a certain cost no matter what.
  Effectively Netflix got low prices because they knew how to get their packages classified as protected mail. Also they really DID work very hard to make their packages as easy to sort and deliver as possible. They spent a lot of time working closely with the USPS to make a package that was easy for them to sort, they even went so far as to hire a bunch of USPS personnel to consult on how to do this.
  One more point, CDâ(TM)s are super cheap, the costs are controlled by the publishers, so they can make or break Gamefly and Netflix.
3. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Regulating the methods a business may choose for pricing its services seems like a strange position for an anti-regulation person to take.
4. Re:Ridiculous by Guppy06 · 2013-09-05 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Nothing else" means "no special handling." Sorting equipment for letter-class mail expects paper, which unlike DVDs can be curved and bent with no ill results.
5. Re:Ridiculous by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, they didn't. Netflix envelopes have been hand sorted for most of their existence. I think they did eventualy change the format to go through the machines, but they weren't designed specially to reduce costs. The USPS just chose not to charge the cost of the hand sort.
6. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  USPS "media" rates are very low - useful to ship boxes of books when moving, for example, if you're doing a car move. But, they assume you're shipping books, etc., and the boxes used are relatively small & heavy...
  "Flats" are used to ship non-letter-size mail (e.g., letter- or legal-size "flat" document carriers) otherwise through the mail sorters. They may also need to be hand-canceled in some cases. Justifies the different rate.
  If Netflix can do their mailers so they go through the 1st-class sorting route, then more power to them. If Gamefly can't/won't, then (it was) too bad for them.
  Looks like a Pyrrhic victory.
7. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  The USPS just chose not to charge the cost of the hand sort.
  I don't know if it was USPS choice to hand sort at no cost. If it was I would look into kickbacks for Higher Up USPS managers. But I think they had to take the mail for a fixed price due to federal law and they where forced to hand sort it because the automatic machines needed bendable letters(I'm guessing most of the equipment is from the 80s and 90s, if not earlier.). Am guessing Game Fly convinced the USPS that it really wasn't legally obligated to accept a DVD/CD as a letter because it's not bendable in the same way.
8. Re:Ridiculous by radarskiy · 2013-09-12 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  USPS screwed up the specs for the machine-sortable mailers. They were *supposed* to be machine sortable, and if Netflix get those specs they were supposed to get the cheaper rate. It turned out that even meeting those specs they still needed hand sorting, but Netflix said that was a problem for the USPS. Since Netflix met the spec they argued that they should get the lower rate for that spec over the current valid term and should only have to revalidate mailers against a corrected spec at the end of that term. See in part the Audit report from USPS Inspector general: http://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2013/MS-AR-08-001.pdf
Reclassify as a competitive product? by SirGarlon · 2013-09-05 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny

So, the Postal Service says DVD mailing competes with Internet streaming and ... that means they want to charge *more*?
"Competitive." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
1. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Bandwidth of a postal truck loaded with DVDs is still more than what is available to most people... the latency is measured in days but the throughput is crazy high.
2. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the summary, but not the article, I got the impression it would be less. The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery and can charge whatever price they want. In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al.
3. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Here are some hard numbers. It is for FedEx but I suspect that USPS numbers would be similar.
  http://what-if.xkcd.com/31/
4. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-05 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Bandwidth of a postal truck loaded with DVDs is still more than what is available to most people... the latency is measured in days but the throughput is crazy high.
  Yes, but how many games do you play in a week? How many movies do you watch in a week? It doesn't matter if the throughput is crazy high if the demand fits inside the bandwidth available for instant gratification. "You could rent 500 movies and play 60 games through us in 3 days, versus only 5 movies and 2 games online, so we need to charge more for the service" is not going to work.
  And what does this do to non-returnable optical disk deliveries?
  Seems to me that if businesses really want to keep going on this model, the solution is simple: switch from large breakable optical media to SD/microSD cards and rent customers the appropriate player if needed.
5. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by Guppy06 · 2013-09-05 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Competitive." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  It means they can comply with the order without overcoming the financial/regulatory inertia involved in juggling funds earmarked for "market dominant" services. Otherwise the USPS will have to provide special services now with money they won't be able to touch for at least a year.
6. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by youngatheart · 2013-09-05 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA:
  
  by reducing the price for a two-ounce First-Class flat-shaped round-trip DVD mailer to the price of a one-ounce mailer First-Class letter-shaped round-trip DVD mailer
  They see the DVD mailing as competing with the internet option, therefore giving them cause to support DVD mailing by discounting the price.
  I'll tell you the truth and its up to you to live with it.
7. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by RoknrolZombie · 2013-09-05 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the summary, but not the article, I got the impression it would be less. The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery and can charge whatever price they want. In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al.
  If this were even remotely true then the USPS going bankrupt a few years back is bullshit. Since they were in fact going bankrupt and since they had to get Congressional approval to raise their rates, I would say that calling them a "monopoly" is disingenuous at best. Their prices are fixed, their costs are not. They have an expectation to provide a service at a rate that is significantly lower than FedEx or UPS - this is what has been causing them so much grief in recent years. UPS and FedEx are making money hand over fist and still are able to come close to the price of USPS with far better service. If the USPS raises their rates, they lose even more money.
  I'm no supporter of Government programs by and large, but the USPS is one of the most well designed Government programs in existence. If only we could have maintained that standard with literally ALL of the other Government programs, we wouldn't (as a country) be broke right now.
8. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by suutar · 2013-09-05 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like they deal with two categories of stuff: things for which there's a market (e.g. parcel delivery), with competition, and for which they're allowed to set their prices as "what the market will bear", and things for which they're the sole supplier (first class letters) but which have regulations limiting what they charge (and which may be subsidized by their other operations). Getting DVDs moved from 'first class letter' to something with competition may raise their pricing ceiling.
9. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  Are you trying to say “Monopolies” are a synonym for “Bloodthirsty pirates who are only interested in booty?” because that is not what monopoly means. There are a lot of monopolies out there that lose money.
  Case in point, USPS. In exchange for a monopoly they are heavily regulated. I am a free marketer and I think the USPS service does a decent job for the money. There are a lot of other cases out there like that.
10. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by RoknrolZombie · 2013-09-05 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are you trying to say “Monopolies” are a synonym for “Bloodthirsty pirates who are only interested in booty?” because that is not what monopoly means. There are a lot of monopolies out there that lose money.
  No, actually, I was correcting you where you were wrong. Namely when you said "The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery" - which is demonstrably false. You can send your letters via FedEx and UPS if you like. Also "and can charge whatever price they want", which is also demonstrably false since the USPS has to petition Congress in order to raise rates. I could have corrected you on this: "In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al." but figured I didn't need to bother...stamps cost the same price, regardless of what city/state in the US you're in.
  Now, if you're talking specifically about "special pricing" for major companies, I know that this has historically been the case. Sears and Monky Wards catalogs, for example, used to cost the USPS an absolute fortune in shipping due to mass and weight. IIRC there were "special prices" for them because they were driving the economy - essentially, Government blessed. I don't see how the Netflix (or GameSpy) models are relevant in regards to that, as the circumstances as well as the difficulties in shipping are vastly different...apples to oranges. Did Netflix get special pricing? I don't know, but IIRC the last time the USPS was in front of Congress asking for money they had stated that one of the only reasons they were even able to CONTINUE doing their work was because of the amount of money they were getting from DVD rental services. I could be wrong on some of these points though - memory is a funny thing...
  
  Case in point, USPS. In exchange for a monopoly they are heavily regulated. I am a free marketer and I think the USPS service does a decent job for the money. There are a lot of other cases out there like that.
  I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here, but if you read the last paragraph of my last post you'll see that I agree with you on this point.
11. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  For me, the time it takes to download a new game is not much less than the time it takes to ship a game from the next town over. What's more, while I'm waiting for the game to arrive, I'm not having to deal with the increased load on the network. What's more, I'm lucky enough not to have a cap, for those on a cap, the download size makes a difference.
  I feel for those that have 1.5mbps connections around here as their only option. I'm lucky enough to have one that's nominally 5mbps, even though it doesn't feel like it.
12. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by hedwards · 2013-09-05 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  The reason for the USPS financial problems is that the congress mandated that the pensions be 100% funded within 10 years. The reason for that was to protect the competition that wasn't able to compete on price or service.
  And they have a monopoly, it's just on the use of mailboxes. They're the only ones that can legally leave things in mailboxes, everybody else has to use their own box or leave it on the doorstep.
13. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Namely when you said "The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery" - which is demonstrably false. You can send your letters via FedEx and UPS if you like.
  Let us look at this closer. What do you mean by “letter”.
  FedEx and UPS offer “express mail” or package shipments, but I can’t find a non-urgent letter service – which is what the USPS has an explicit monopoly on. Court cases have been fought over this and you cannot directly compete with the post office on plain vanilla service – it must be differentiated in some way – such as being “express”.
  As to the point that I was trying to make – you argued that the USPS can’t be a monopoly because it is losing money and well run. My point is that neither of those conditions defines what a monopoly is – is the ability to offer a exclusive product or service. (And how you define what category a service belongs to is a always evolving argument.)
14. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  I am a free marketer and I think the USPS service does a decent job for the money
  For rural deliveries, UPS and Fedex use USPS for the last leg because it's cheaper than sending a truck themselves.
15. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Huh – that is an interesting point that I have not thought about.
  Checks UPS financials, find pension obligations are overfunded. Checks FedEx financials, find them overfunded as well.
  So maybe not.
  I will admit 2 points. First, I suspect UPS an FedEx use define contributions (401(K)s) while the USPS uses define benefits (traditional pensions). Second the USPS uses good accounting for it’s pension liabilities which cannot be said for many – either private or public.
  But I think the point still stands. Pension liabilities are real costs and should be accounted for. Better to account for it now rather than use fake accounting hide them.
16. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by RoknrolZombie · 2013-09-05 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  I was arguing that the USPS isn't a monopoly because 1) there are other businesses that provide the same service and 2) other businesses CAN provide the same service. If they don't, that's not the fault of the USPS. The USPS has no exclusivity for taking a letter from point A and taking it to point B...what they do have is a lot more Government oversight that prevents them from competing on the same level as the actual businesses that could provide the service. I do agree with you that the category of service is always changing and that nailing anything down according to those definitions is pretty point. The other side of my correction was that you stated they could "charge whatever they want", which is also completely false. If they could charge whatever they wanted they would not be having the financial problems that they've been having for the last 20 years. That's all - no more, no less. But since this entire discussion seems to be about a difference in opinion as to the definition of "monopoly", we can take a look at that:
  
  monopoly
  noun: monopoly;plural noun: monopolies;noun: Monopoly
  1.
  the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
  "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
  Can we at least agree that what they are providing is a service as opposed to a commodity? Good.
  As a SERVICE, what is it that the US Government provides to the USPS that is a barrier for entry for any other entity? From the definition, I don't see any barrier to entry...anyone with the drive and desire to provide a better service than the USPS is welcome to do so.
17. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by operagost · 2013-09-05 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  FedEx and UPS are required to charge a minimum amount for letters, which means USPS can always undercut their price. USPS also has the exclusive privilege of delivering to a mailbox; everyone else must deliver to the door or some other receptacle. Those are the USPS monopoly powers.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
18. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by RoknrolZombie · 2013-09-05 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  In an effort to continue arguing with everyone I have stumbled across the following:
  
  As do the Post Office departments in many countries, the United States Postal Service has a legal monopoly on delivery of non-overnight letters.
  from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly (yeah, not the best but good enough for me).
  Soooo....I'm afraid that I must admit defeat or else become a Government employee. Since they aren't fans of pot smokers, I will tuck my tail between my legs and shamefully exit this thread :p
19. Re:Reclassify as a competitive product? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  The barrier you are looking for is the Constitution, Congress, and the Federal courts. The USPS will sue you out of business.
  The (narrow) monopoly for letters (i.e. non-urgent) is explicit.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
  http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/1999/3/cpr-21n2.html
  You are looking at “Express mail” – something that the courts have defined as something different then letter delivery.
  Quick question – do couriers, telegrams, and phones compete with USPS? Kind of – they all carry information – yet they are different. You may argue that we are splitting hairs – I am telling you the Federal Courts have already split those hairs.
o man by Laxori666 · 2013-09-05 04:49 · Score: 1

Why this need be regulated? Just pay people to send your packages. If they are charging too much then find someone who is doing it for cheaper. If nobody is doing it for cheaper, and it is possible to do it for cheaper, then someone will start doing it because there will be profit motive.
1. Re:o man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Because a *government* agency is giving a *private* company preferential treatment. Surely someone who's as in love with the free market as you are should see why this is Bad.
2. Re:o man by SirGarlon · 2013-09-05 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Tell that to Congress. They're the ones micro-managing the Postal Service and setting arbitrary rates. Those rates, BTW, are not sufficient to fund the Postal Service pension system at the level Congress demands, which is why the Postal Service is in crisis.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
3. Re:o man by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Because the US Constitution gives the USPS a monopoly over letter delivery (in exchange for universal service) so it does not matter if you could do it cheaper or better. Ergo no profit motive. (Unless you bypass the USPS by delivering the movies over the internet, hence the move to make it "competitive".) Hence the regulation.
4. Re:o man by Laxori666 · 2013-09-05 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Aye, my point was to have this not be a government agency. Or at least make it legal for private companies to compete in this market.
5. Re:o man by Laxori666 · 2013-09-05 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Aye, my point was to remove that government-enforced monopoly (the only kind of monopoly that ever lasts). Aren't monopolies supposed to be bad?
6. Re:o man by AnotherAnonymousUser · 2013-09-05 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's plenty of cases where a well-regulated monopoly performs better than independent competition, usually when there's a particular resource in question that needs to be exploited or perform at a consistent level, and plenty of circumstances arise where you'd rather that control not be a purely profit-driven organization.
7. Re:o man by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Look up “Natural Monopolies”. There are quite a few cases where monopolies can last forever. Or if not forever then for decades. I have strong free market tendencies but I do recognize that there are market failures and those need to be regulated.
  I do think the Post Office makes a strong argument for a monopoly in exchange for universal service.
8. Re:o man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why this need be regulated? Just pay people to send your packages. If they are charging too much then find someone who is doing it for cheaper. If nobody is doing it for cheaper, and it is possible to do it for cheaper, then someone will start doing it because there will be profit motive.
  This needs to be regulated to ensure universal service. If UPS had to deliver letters, it's unlikely that they would drive to every house every day. Many times the price of the stamp nowhere near covers the cost of shipping. Doesn't it boggle your mind that someone in Orlando can send a letter to remote northern Alaska for less than 50 cents?
  The free market system doesn't work, unless you don't value universal access to mail delivery or near everyday service regardless of the volume of mail you receive.
9. Re:o man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Private companies already can - they just can't use the mailbox that you set out for the USPS. If you want to start your own mail carrier, you are allowed. You just have to have a completely separate system.
  There's nothing stopping UPS from delivering letters to your door, just not to your mailbox.
10. Re:o man by serviscope_minor · 2013-09-05 05:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Those rates, BTW, are not sufficient to fund the Postal Service pension system at the level Congress demands
  Quite. For those who missed it, the rates are entirely fine to find the pension scheme. Naturally government run stuff has to be bad (for some reason) so they mandated the most insane pension scheme ever (funding pensions for people quite a few years away from being born) just so the USPS would "fail". Even so, due to the strength of it the crisis is not terminal, which does go to show how good it was.
  I'm assuming that congress is wrecking the USPS for the same reason Parliament is wrecking the Royal Mail, namely so they can prove their flawed ideology that all government run stuff must be bad and use that as an excuse to sell it off to some of their cronies.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
11. Re:o man by ImprovOmega · 2013-09-05 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming that congress is wrecking the USPS for the same reason Parliament is wrecking the Royal Mail, namely so they can prove their flawed ideology that all government run stuff must be bad and use that as an excuse to sell it off to some of their cronies.
  Except you can't sell off the USPS without a constitutional amendment or a revolution because, you know, supreme law of the land and all that.
12. Re:o man by lgw · 2013-09-05 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on non-urgent letter delivery, and they've gone to court to enforce it before. IIRC they've even sued random businesses for sending non-urgent mail by FedEx, because that violates their monopoly (this was a story from the early days of /.).
  The law stops UPS from delivering letters to your door.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
13. Re:o man by SirGarlon · 2013-09-05 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  The Cato Institute (a conservative think tank, for those who don't recognize the name) disagrees with your assessment that the Constitution gives the Federal government a monopoly on postal service. If what you say were as simple as that, wouldn't FedEx have been shut down by the real Feds?
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
14. Re:o man by lgw · 2013-09-05 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, the Post Office really needs to be released from government control. The problem is: it has a monopoly, and so like a utility company needs some regulation. The monopoly is probably a reasonable trade-off for offering mail delivery to sparse rural areas, and the overall good for dependable mail delivery to everyone is certainly worth some subsidy, but something needs to be done to let the post office set whatever price it wants for stamps.
  Would anyone be unhappy if the price of postage went up to the point that bulk spam mail stopped? I'd happily pay extra for each bill and Netflix DVD for that tradeoff!
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
15. Re:o man by Laxori666 · 2013-09-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, far more practical than ideology. I suspect they are wrecking the USPS because they can make money that way. They can use the money supposedly being saved for the pension scheme today, or borrow more money using the pension scheme as collateral.
16. Re:o man by Laxori666 · 2013-09-05 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason it has a monopoly is because it's illegal for anybody besides the USPS to deliver first class mail. Raise the legal restriction and you can bet that FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc., will rush in to fill the gap.
17. Re:o man by lgw · 2013-09-05 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason it has a monopoly is because it's illegal for anybody besides the USPS to deliver first class mail
  That's the definition of "monopoly", not the reason for it. The reason for it is that rural mail costs more to deliver than urban mail, but we want the same postage rate for all first class mail. Without the monopoly, someone could offer cheaper urban-only service making the whole thing fall apart.
  But I do think we could have the regulation without the monopoly.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
18. Re:o man by nedlohs · 2013-09-05 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not at all.
  The constitution empowers Congress "to establish Post Offices and post Roads" but it does not require them to do so.
  If you think it does then you must also think these debates about Syria are silly, since the same section empowers Congress "to declare War" so they have to do so, right?
19. Re:o man by Laxori666 · 2013-09-05 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  No, you can have a monopoly without it being illegal to have competitors. If you're the first person to produce a new kind of product then you have a monopoly on that product until someone else joins the market.
  
  If the USPS made money before the ridiculous pension fund thing came into play, then a private company would also make money charging the same rate for all mail. Maybe they would do it that way. Or you'd have some companies doing urban-only, some doing rural, etc. Besides why is it such a big deal for rural mail to cost more, if it would get to that? it'd be something to factor in to the cost of living in a rural area.
20. Re:o man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why it was written into the Constitution as a fundamental federal government function, no?
21. Re:o man by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe.
  The Constitution grants the right to create and regulate – it does not require the USPS to be a monopoly. The USPS is not part of the federal government – “merely” a federal charted corporation.
  Also, the postal service is not natural monopoly – or if it is one it is a weak one. I have seen plans where the postal service is privatized. Some of these plans even keep universal service. It used to be that the postal service had to be tightly integrated to offer the quality of service required. Technology now lets us deaggregate most of these functions.
  But these would require huge changes and risks to the current system which works fairly well.
22. Re:o man by brianerst · 2013-09-05 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, a libertarian think tank.
23. Re:o man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Package shipping is not letter delivery. The constitution mandates a monopoly on letter delivery. USPS just ships packages because it jives well with the letter delivery service they are required to do.
24. Re:o man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Technically, a mentally deficient stink tank. Libertarian = crock full of shit with vomit on top of it.
How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by wrackspurt · 2013-09-05 04:55 · Score: 2

Canada Post has seen drastic drops in volume. How much longer before federal governments just pull the plug and let postal services die and be replaced by private business. What reasons are there for federally funded postal services to be continued?
1. Re:How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by alexander_686 · 2013-09-05 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Universal Service.
  I know that is important for rural USA. I would think it would be even more important for Canada which is even more rural. (Urban areas are a different ball game.)
2. Re:How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by Russ1642 · 2013-09-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  If they targeted parcel delivery properly they could stay afloat. How about offering services we want such as simply holding my packages at the post office and emailing me when they arrive so I can pick them up on my way home from work? Instead, they try to deliver to an empty house and then you can't pick up the package until late the following workday. It's ridiculous. They complain about a changing market affecting their business but they've done very little to try to keep up with the changes.
3. Re:How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  I think that's what the GP is saying: Get rid of rural service and we can finally let those dumb country people either die out or get with the program and move closer to civilization, meaning all the cool, trendy people in urban areas won't have to live in fear of ever having to visit flyover country and all their stupid cows and horses and boring agriculture junk. Then the world would be so much more awesome, and there can't possibly be any negative long-term effects they didn't think of!*
  *: THIS POST IS SARCASTIC.
4. Re:How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by Mitreya · 2013-09-05 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  What reasons are there for federally funded postal services to be continued?
  Plenty of rural areas will get no postal service (or once-a-week service at exorbitant prices by UPS/FedEx). That's reason enough. Oh, and USPS isn't federally funded, imagine that (self sufficient, according to wikipedia, anyway)
  UPS and FedEx outsource to USPS for delivery on "unprofitable" destinations.
5. Re:How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Whoa - USPS is *not* federally funded, they're funded through postage (and the other items they sell).
  Congress mandates they can't set rates competitively for certain products; hence this whole article.
  The closest I can think of is the BBC for such a weird government/not-government setup.
6. Re:How Long Before Postal Services Die Out? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  Write your congressperson - they generally aren't allowed to change and adapt (as a normal business) because they're hampered by certain crufty Congressional mandates. Yes they're USG, no they're not federally funded; merely federally mandated. It's one messed up system, but they're actually quite good at what they do, when they're allowed to do it.
Competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 04:59 · Score: 0

Netflix develops a mailer that gives them an advantage, so instead of adopting a better model GameFly sues and then screws it up for everyone. I hope GameFly is bankrupt within a year.
1. Re:Competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Netflix develops a mailer that gives them an advantage, so instead of adopting a better model GameFly sues and then screws it up for everyone. I hope GameFly is bankrupt within a year.
  Well duh.
  That's what happens when governments (and government agencies like the Post Office) get big and powerful enough to pick winners and losers.
  Remember what happened here the next time you want the government "to solve a problem". Or even better, the next time you're in a voting booth.
Pete Holmes Gamefly Games by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-09-05 05:13 · Score: 1

Hard not to think of these when Gamefly comes up: http://ibrill.tumblr.com/post/22589153484/all-the-video-games-peteholmez-mentioned-in-his

Haven't quite mastered Lego Human Centipede yet.
What happened to common carrier? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:16 · Score: 0

It should be based on weight and distance, what business is it of the USPS what is in there?
As long as it is not hazardous.
Will they charge more for new games, than for movies that are out of copyright?
Will they enforce copyrights or Pr0n restrictions?
1. Re:What happened to common carrier? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  It should be based on weight and distance, what business is it of the USPS what is in there?
  As long as it is not hazardous.
  Will they charge more for new games, than for movies that are out of copyright?
  Will they enforce copyrights or Pr0n restrictions?
  Are they going to open the envelopes?
  Is this the beginning of a wet dream for the NSA?
No paper requirement, no bending requirement by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:39 · Score: 0

Sorry, but no. There is no requirement for letter-class mail to be paper nor be bendable.
At least no requiment on the sender. The USPS may want it that way for THEIR OWN convenience.
1. Re:No paper requirement, no bending requirement by Guppy06 · 2013-09-05 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but no. There is no requirement for letter-class mail to be paper nor be bendable.
  http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/101.htm#1039555
A can of worms? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:50 · Score: 0

...because it says that mailed DVDs compete with the internet, streaming services, and kiosks such as Redbox.
If the DVD isn't available (legally) at a streaming service, a (legal) mailed DVD isn't really competing with the internet, is it?
How are the USPS planning on checking whether all those mailed DVDs are available for streaming or not?
Who cares by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-09-05 06:31 · Score: 1

I get my movies through a tube. That's right, a Senator Ted Stevens reference, Altavista that biatch. It's about as current and relevant as a DVD mailer company complaining about the cost of postage stamps for hand delivered snail mail.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Well, not entirely.... by King_TJ · 2013-09-05 06:37 · Score: 1

From a Huffington Post article on the subject last year:
"Much of the red ink in 2012 was due to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion."
So pension issues aside, the USPS was BILLIONS in debt in 2012 anyway. Potentially fixable? Sure ... but let's not pretend it was a well managed and profitable business until Congress came along with the crazy pension idea. That was just an attempt to drown it for good, which hasn't quite worked yet.
lay down with dogs, get up with fleas by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:38 · Score: 0

The privately owned USPS deserve what ever ill comes from Congress. They put Lysander Spooner's competing service out of business by getting their friend's in Congress to make it illegal for any one else to deliver "regular mail". The USPS asked Congress to step into their business, and ruined other people's business as a result. What goes around, comes around.
they never change (much) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:52 · Score: 0

Yes! Let's jump on board soon to be obsolete technology!
can't see the logic by Spudley · 2013-09-05 07:03 · Score: 1

But now there's a new twist: the Postal Service wants to reclassify DVD mailing [PDF] as a competitive product, where the prices would not be limited by the rate of inflation, because it says that mailed DVDs compete with the internet, streaming services, and kiosks such as Redbox.
Uh.... so let me get this straight.... it sounds like the postal service is explicitly trying to kill off its own customers.
Where is the logic in that?

--
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Absurd premise by fnj · 2013-09-05 08:13 · Score: 0

Breakage? BREAKAGE? Snort. Have you ever tried to break a DVD? I have. It wouldn't play and I got mad at it, OK? I gripped it with two pairs of heavy duty pliers and twisted and tortured it. I bent it 90 degrees and it didn't break. It may have been ruined by me applying force comparable to driving a car over it with rocks underneath, but it didn't break. I finally succeeded and came within a hair's breadth of killing myself with razor sharp fragments. It took almost superhuman force. I could only manage it by pure rage.
Granted, it's a moot point. It's pretty damn easy to scratch the damn things so that they are ruined. But a larger envelope doesn't do crap to prevent that. If the P.O. can gouge through paper, it can just as well gouge through sturdier cardboard - and it often does.
1. Re:Absurd premise by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-09-05 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I've had my share of cracked Netflix DVD's. Not snapped in half, just internal cracks. Don't know how it happens (thermal stress, maybe?) but it does.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Bigger envelopes, why not pay more? by mattack2 · 2013-09-05 09:12 · Score: 1

If GameFly is sending "in slightly bigger envelopes", why shouldn't they have to pay more?!
If they were "essentially" the same as Netflix's packages, then yes, they should presumably pay the same rate (excepting for huge volume discounts perhaps).
Slow and Lacking Distribution Points by dozr · 2013-09-05 13:12 · Score: 0

When they can get me a Game to Vermont in under a week, I might do business with GameFly again, as of now almost 14 days turn around, they are hardly competitive. Netflix can get a DVD to me in 2 days.
1. Re:Slow and Lacking Distribution Points by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  Even games don't want to go to Vermont.
cheap jordan shoes jordan shoes wholesale by gaobiele · 2013-09-06 17:49 · Score: 1

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) (Discount Air jordan shoes) $36, (Air Max shoes) $35, (Nike shox shoes) $36, (Handbags) $39, (Sunglasses) $16, (wallet) $18, (Belt) $17, (T-shirts) $20, (Jeans) $37, (NFL/MLB/NBA)Jerseys $25, ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ )
Game and DVD distinction experience by videoTHL · 2013-09-08 18:03 · Score: 1

Back when media like movies were heavier than a CD/DVD, the Post Office offered a service called Media Mail, that was a reduced rate I think originally for library-type materials, perhaps for the promotion of education or such, and I sold many movies on eBay and shipped them this way. Video game cartridges would never be allowed under this, despite obviously being media, and I would always get turned down and be forced to ship video games with regular postal rates.

When video games eventually turned into actual digital video discs, literally written onto a DVD despite not being a "DVD" in the sense of watchable on a DVD player, I also got turned down from mailing them as Media Mail because I didn't say "DVD" in the sense of a movie, so I just started saying DVD instead of video game, because the actual media itself is the same disc with different media on it.

For some reason the USPS insists on differentiating between movie DVDs and video game DVDs. I soon discovered however, that it was actually cheaper and faster to mail such a lightweight disc First Class instead of the typically-slower Media Mail way, and the distinction became largely irrelevant for me, but it appears the USPS has still not learned anything since those days!