Post by val2525 on Mar 23, 2015 0:57:19 GMT
Interesting article:
www.savethepostoffice.com/we-deliver-amazon-postal-services-new-priority
The whole article is interesting (and Ina has a blurb on it today in eCommercebytes). I thought the section about whether or not allowing the Amazon packages to trump delivery of higher priced mail being legal or not was interesting:
What's fair?
While no one has filed a complaint with the PRC about the Amazon NSA, there may be reason to question whether the deal violates one or more of the statutes in postal law addressing matters of discrimination and equity.
For example, 39 U.S.C. 101(d) says, “Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.”
Along similar lines, 39 U.S.C. 403(c) states, “In providing services and in establishing classifications, rates, and fees under this title, the Postal Service shall not, except as specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails, nor shall it grant any undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.”
The PRC addressed the issue of discrimination when it initially approved the Amazon NSA back in October 2013, but that was before the agreement went into effect. Now that it's possible to see how implementation is actually affecting the mail, perhaps there's reason to complain.
GameFly has repeatedly cited these statutes in its fight with the Postal Service over its complaint that Netflix has been getting preferential treatment, and the court has upheld the claim.
In the Amazon case, one could argue that some users of the mail — like those who ship Priority — are being discriminated against because they are paying more and getting less than Amazon.
Another aspect of the legal angle has to do with how costs are apportioned. Several parties in PRC cases have questioned whether competitive products — which includes the Amazon Parcel Select deal — have been priced to provide sufficient contribution to the Postal Service’s institutional costs. If not, then market-dominant products may be unfairly subsidizing competitive products.
The incident Barbot relates would seem to indicate that Amazon is receiving something better than Priority mail service on a product that is priced substantially lower. Under the circumstances, one wonders if the Postal Service is meeting the attributed costs of the Parcel Select product, let alone the institutional costs.
The issue of attributable costs was also addressed when the PRC first reviewed the Amazon NSA. The PRC's order on Docket MC2014-1, which approved the deal, indicates that the Commission can follow up on the matter as part of its annual compliance review, now underway, but the only information made public is that the deal is good until October 29, 2018. The data on costs and revenues are classified as non-public.
www.savethepostoffice.com/we-deliver-amazon-postal-services-new-priority
The whole article is interesting (and Ina has a blurb on it today in eCommercebytes). I thought the section about whether or not allowing the Amazon packages to trump delivery of higher priced mail being legal or not was interesting:
What's fair?
While no one has filed a complaint with the PRC about the Amazon NSA, there may be reason to question whether the deal violates one or more of the statutes in postal law addressing matters of discrimination and equity.
For example, 39 U.S.C. 101(d) says, “Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.”
Along similar lines, 39 U.S.C. 403(c) states, “In providing services and in establishing classifications, rates, and fees under this title, the Postal Service shall not, except as specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails, nor shall it grant any undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.”
The PRC addressed the issue of discrimination when it initially approved the Amazon NSA back in October 2013, but that was before the agreement went into effect. Now that it's possible to see how implementation is actually affecting the mail, perhaps there's reason to complain.
GameFly has repeatedly cited these statutes in its fight with the Postal Service over its complaint that Netflix has been getting preferential treatment, and the court has upheld the claim.
In the Amazon case, one could argue that some users of the mail — like those who ship Priority — are being discriminated against because they are paying more and getting less than Amazon.
Another aspect of the legal angle has to do with how costs are apportioned. Several parties in PRC cases have questioned whether competitive products — which includes the Amazon Parcel Select deal — have been priced to provide sufficient contribution to the Postal Service’s institutional costs. If not, then market-dominant products may be unfairly subsidizing competitive products.
The incident Barbot relates would seem to indicate that Amazon is receiving something better than Priority mail service on a product that is priced substantially lower. Under the circumstances, one wonders if the Postal Service is meeting the attributed costs of the Parcel Select product, let alone the institutional costs.
The issue of attributable costs was also addressed when the PRC first reviewed the Amazon NSA. The PRC's order on Docket MC2014-1, which approved the deal, indicates that the Commission can follow up on the matter as part of its annual compliance review, now underway, but the only information made public is that the deal is good until October 29, 2018. The data on costs and revenues are classified as non-public.
