http://auspost.com.au/changes-to-your-letters-service.html?i…
Australia Post is increasing the price to send a letter by 43%. Letters will now cost $1 and take substantially longer. More money for worse service! And I do believe that increase is well above inflation. Discuss.
Maybe the Priority Label is so that the mail sorting machinery can read it, and sort the letter into the Priority Bin??
I doubt it can read a 50cent stamp and know that it requires special treatment!
Try thinking things through first!!
If their systems can detect articles bearing insufficient postage, it can surely detect the presence of stamps equalling to $1.50 for a priority service.
I doubt that their systems could even detect that. Their database of postage stamps in circulation would be ginormous let alone their image recognition being able to sort through that. If they did it would be technology more fitting for ASIO to recognise faces in large crowds.
"more fitting for ASIO to recognise faces in large crowds."
Chances are … though I doubt they would want that common knowledge.
@JH100: ASIO Rep: "Relax citizens, our facial recognition technology is no more advanced than what Australia Post use for stamps, you have nothing to fear!"
@JH100: Saying I don't care about my privacy because I have nothing to hide is like saying I don't care about free speech because I have nothing to say.
But then how does Australia Post guarantee that their stamps never expire? AP would need to put expiry dates on stamps if they were not able to recognise stamps 'x' years back.
Technically, any stamp AP has ever issued is still valid for postage, which would indicate that although AP's technology might or might not recognise each and every stamp they've issued, there would be an invisible notation somewhere on the stamp which renders that stamp (and the article it is affixed to) eligible for carriage.
Seriously ???
It's not like Aust Post has scanners for mail sorting and redirection which can read printed and hand-written envelopes ? or do they ?
(Yes they do, and these machines can sort a hundred thousand per hour that includes interpreting the hand written addresses)
They must have little elves which hand sort every letter and these little elves would require extra special training to notice 50c stamps.
Perhaps you yourself should think things through first and avoid being ignorant !
"Mr Fahour also defended his salary of $4.6 million a year - the highest paid public servant in Australia - saying 75 per cent of Australia Post's activity was commercial logistics and it was a "highly successful business". The latest annual report revealed 409 managers and executives at Australia Post were earning more than $195,000 a year"
The "highest paid public servant in Australia" part feels like an intentional mislead whenever it's written, to be fair his salary is entirely paid out of the proceeds of the business and not by the tax payer, however if his salary was lower the extra money would go back to the taxpayer.
If his salary was lowered the money could go to pay rises for the blue-collar Auspost workers.
And maybe they could employ more parcel delivery guys and not contract it to guys that won't knock on my door
AusPost being described as a "Business" should ring alarm bells. The fact that it doesn't, is the reason the problem exists
He's not a public servant…Having said that, getting paid even $1m is an absolute joke!
What an absolute disgrace and joke, must be following Telstra's lead. Hope their is a massive backlash. Did you hear Mr Fahour got upset b/c he couldn't get his Maserati into the Bourke St carpark?. How about people in remote areas that still rely on this?
Telstra is private, Australia Post is Public
and both suck ass due to their effective monopoly in the industry they operate in. Just goes to show, it's not a question of public vs private, it's a question of what sucks ass vs what doesn't suck ass, and in this case, they (TelstrASS and ASStraliaASS PostERIOR) both suck ass.
ASS.
The front page phenomena strikes again! (that post was well into the negatives last time I checked)
At least Telstra is getting faster every year, though expensive. Whilst with Auspost we pay more for slower delivery, and pay double for same speed. Faster was never an option.
People in remote areas rely on Mr Fahour getting his Maserati into the Bourke St carpark? Woah, I had no idea the country was being mismanaged THAT badly ;-)
Really? You haven't been following politics for the past few years? :P
I'm perfectly fine with the increase. How many times do you send a letter? Auspost has been making a loss on letter services for many years now because postage is too cheap. This loss is paid by the taxpayers.
By charging a higher price on the letters, it's making the users to pay more and taxpayers to contribute less.
I might not send many letters as a person but as a business I most definitely do. That is a significant increase. It is now going to cost $3 to send large letters which is a $0.90 increase (48%) not to mention it is going to be slower. To send at the same speed is going to now cost $5.50 which is a $3.40 increase (162%).
Now you think this doesn't affect you but in fact it does, because as a business I would have to pass on the costs down to you as the consumer.
The main issue I see is that there are other huge inefficiancies that will be left untouched while we pocket this one. In the end I bet that from the tax payers perspective very little money will be saved.
I'm also all for getting users to pay. In which case city postage should be much less. The problem is that those of us in the cities are cross-subsidising people in the bush where it might cost over a hundred dollars to deliver a single letter.
Unfortunately, I can't agree with you on efficient businesses surviving. The joke that is mygov, that the ATO is now using wouldn't have survived this long if it wasn't paid for with our taxes and the fact that we have no choice except to receive letters via it. Interestingly, I recently got a bill from the ATO (a week after they paid me a refund, due to their mistake), with a 2 week payment period, only to spend 12 days trying to get mygov to reset my password. On that occasion I was lucky because I had no idea what the letter from the ATO was about.
I don't recall the last time that it took a dozen phone calls and hours wasted trying to tear open a paper envelope. Here endeth the whinge
Businesses don't have to pay normal rates on postage. If you are indeed a business owner, how are you not aware of this?
only very big business get that discount with their own stamping thing
In NSW driver's licenses are set to go electronic too. Enjoy the identity theft that follows. If you want to talk about everyone paying, start here.
@newdad:
"might cost over a hundred dollars to deliver a single letter."
You realise they don't deliver to letterboxes outside of towns right?
At the moment you still have to present a plastic printed license as proof of Id. When that requirement is gone and your proof is electronic, it'll be easier to steal.
@syousef: Will it be easier though? Given how easy it is get a fake ID now eg. http://www.fakies.com.au/.
Yes it will be easier. We're not talking about fake ID. We're talking about identity theft. That requires getting hold of the person's details - which will be much easier for hackers. Making up a fake ID to get into a club is not the same thing at all!
@syousef: which brings me back to my first point: that licences are already electronic. so hackers already have access to all the info? I think we might be arguing in circles…
They're not electronic and widely circulated electronically. Not talking in circles at all. You just fail to understand the differences between now and what's proposed.
@syousef: No, they're electronic. e.g. if I activate a telstra pre-paid phone online, telstra can verify my driver's licence via the government provided 'document verification service' http://www.dvs.gov.au/. Auspost also use the same service to validate your drivers licence when redirecting mail. I hope you don't need any more proof that driver's licences are electronic.
If a hacker hacked the DVS (or any other central government database) then all licence details are theirs.
Is your point that mobile phones are less secure than a government database? I am no security expert but currently I can use my phone to get an ATM to give money to anyone via the Commonwealth Bank App (no identity fraud needed!). Does this seem risky to you? It seems extremely risky to me. But clearly the banks see less risk with mobile phones than myself and they can afford to employ the smartest people on the planet.
The banks don't see less risk with mobile phones. They're just willing to take that risk for the business it brings in and they're willing to do other things to mitigate it.
I don't know the Comm Bank app but I Bank with Westpac and they use SMS codes to verify/authorize transactions. No good to you if you lose your phone but as long as you notice and report it you could halt that kind of activity pretty quickly.
as a business I would have to pass on the costs down to you as the consumer.
I don't see any problem with charging customers who want paper a premium. Practically all my service providers send electronically and they will charge more if I want paper, and I do not.
Physical goods that fit the size requirements can still be sent as letters now days (e.g. I just sent a 4g USB stick the other day). Many items online are calculated as postage at these prices. Those significant increase in the postage of small sized items will have an impact on the cost of items online IMO.
You might want to investigate electronic means. In my workplace we hardly ever physically post anything anymore but we sent out a lot of letters. I might send out one a week physically but about 15 letters in PDF sent through email.
Do you have an eParcel contract? I am also the business customer and the price change doesn't effect my pricing contract.
New price hikes are for letters, not parcels.
but i bet after the price increased and they covered the so called loss we might still need to contribute on other losses of Australia Post..means, there's no way we can escape it..unless if we stop sending letter and stop using Austpost? FYI my lost parcel enquiry was lodged in 1month ago, yet, they haven't reply to any of my email asking for update.
By charging a higher price on the letters, it's making the users to pay more and taxpayers to contribute less.
Not necessarily. You're assuming that they're charging a constant total amount.
Letters are losing money. I support drastic changes to maintain a mail network as long as it is still regular, timely, and accessible.
Just upping the cost of letters and slowing the delivery time just seems like it is delaying the inevitable.
are they losing money or losing profit?
I assume you're asking whether 1) they're actually making losses in the letter business or 2) if their profits are declining.
The answer is they're losing money. "Letter volumes fell 7.3 per cent with losses in the mail business growing to $381m as Australians switch to digital alternatives". http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/australia-post…
If you take away the losses from the letter business, Australia Post makes $159m.
Yet the insist on keeping the monopoly on letters? No that makes no sense. Open it up to competition.
The competition (emails) has already obliterated AusPost; I'd be hard pressed to find someone who wants to invest in a dying concept.
Low cost parcel delivery; there's something to invest in.
NO that's not competition. Competition is letting other carriers send letters. Why not open it up and find out if anyone would be interested in investing in "a dying concept". Letters are parcels. Just small light ones.
@syousef: AusPost is obligated to continue to deliver letters. Honestly, if AusPost had a choice, AusPost would be more than happy to completely stop the letter delivery service.
The increase in postage is to an attempt to reduce asking government for funds. AusPost used to make profits, now the letter delivery service is dragging the whole business down.
@syousef: Are you serious? Letter delivery service making a profit in Australia in 2015 (soon to be 2016)?
china post may be the only organisation that can make a profit if they were allowed to by ap.
So let them…or anyone else who can do it that you haven't thought of. Surely that's better than our prices skyrocketing and AP still making a loss!
@syousef: Are you joking?
How do letters have more in common with parcels than emails?
Letters are predominantly text, as are emails. Parcels are predominantly hard goods. People send letters and emails to communicate infomration. People send parcels to transport goods.
I think it's irrelevant that letters are going up in prices, everything should go paperless, the quicker, the better.
Both letters and parcels are a physical medium.
People have been talking up paperless for decades now but there are times when a physically printed copy is better.
If you want to get rid of paper, start with junk mail like advertising flyers. I get a ton of those on my letter box no matter what I do.
@syousef: Ad flyers are not comparable, they are not individually addressed so no sorting or handling is required, and are distributed in bulk to every mailbox, so the costs are low. So that comparison is neither here nor there.
One of the primary drivers for paperless office is environmental concerns. Flyers are very relevant.
The other is storage of paper which is costly compared to electronic storage.
@syousef: Ad flyers have little to do with offices. They are distributed mostly to homes. The ones that evade the no junk mail sign on my mailbox go straight into the recycling bin near the mailboxes. A pity they put it into my box in the first place, but hey, it's a market economy so they must think it worthwhile to get more customers that way.
When did we start going into the debate about offices? We were talking about snail mail which businesses still use to communicate with holes.
You think it has no impact because it goes into the recycling bin??? If so please change your name.
And since we're talking about a market economy let's get back to the point. The monopoly on small envelopes is an artificial anti-market restriction.
@syousef: But you were the one who brought up ad flyers. Or don't you remember writing this:
If you want to get rid of paper, start with junk mail like advertising flyers. I get a ton of those on my letter box no matter what I do.
What do ad flyers have to do with offices and letters, that's what I was questioning. Even the local real estate agents here don't send out letters, they engage casuals to drop their flyers. So I have an endless supply of one side blank paper.
Convince your MPs, as I said.
What do ad flyers have to do with offices and letters, that's what I was questioning.
You brought up going paperless, did you not? Last I checked they were made of paper. They also go into the letterbox, and some are posted though I grant you not the majority.
Have you ever interacted with your local MP? Waste of time unless something is in it for them.
@syousef: The advantages of paperless go far beyond just saving paper as you well know, so it's not just a matter of saving trees. So ad flyers are not that relevant to letters.
I actually did get a reply from my state MP when I asked him why my strata documents had to be sent by mail and he promised to reform the strata regulations to allow electronic delivery of meeting minutes, etc. It had been already in the works, but required agreement from a quorum of the strata holders at the moment. The new regulations would allow the manager to decide to use electronic delivery.
But the Auspost obligation is a harder one to crack. Just witness the queue of people lining up to pay bills and you'll see that there is a segment of the population scared of the Internet. Might be easier to lower the limit for the monopoly to say 100g, which would cover most letters and allow others to compete for the small packet market.
Politicians are excellent at promising things.
I don't understand why you wouldn't want to just remove the monopoly altogether. If there's no market it will quickly become evident.
@syousef: I think there are arguments involving not disadvantaging some segments of the community, so the letter carrier obligation. But that's a whole bigger discussion.
Actually I wouldn't be that cynical. Sure he didn't actually do anything but he did tell me the changes were in the pipeline.
I think there are arguments involving not disadvantaging some segments of the community
Yep so make it unaffordable for all. Nice logic there from our illustrious politicians.
Actually I wouldn't be that cynical.
Give it time. You will be too.
@syousef: I'd happy to appoint you as Auspost CEO, then it's your problem, that's how cynical I am. I quite happily don't give a XXXX. Might cost me perhaps 50c extra per year. :P
How are letters a physical medium? Letters are simply information with physical media as a carrier. There are many ways that information can be carried - including via email, text message, phone call, snail mail, writing on the wall, speaking to you directly…etc.
Nobody actually cares about the piece of paper the information is printed on, thus, it is irrelevant and is wasteful and should be eliminated.
Parcels are inherently physical medium because you can't really email someone a phone or laptop, can you? You can't give someone a phone or laptop via the text message, can you? Do you see the difference?
Your argument about ad flyers is irrelevant, this isn't a discussion about ad flyers. That's like trying to reduce the emissions of cars and then you going and saying that the emissions of aeroplanes are still higher - it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, which is the fact that:
1) Less and less letters are being sent, which means that prices need to increase to absorb fixed costs
2) If you're complaining about increasing letter postage prices, then send emails instead
How are letters a physical medium? Letters are simply information with physical media as a carrier.
You could say the same about a Big Mac. It's just calories with a physical media as a carrier. Both your statement and that one are nonsense.
There are many ways that information can be carried - including via email, text message, phone call, snail mail, writing on the wall, speaking to you directly…etc.
And I hope you understand the difference between a phone call and a letter or you'll be too much work to talk to.
Nobody actually cares about the piece of paper the information is printed on, thus, it is irrelevant and is wasteful and should be eliminated.
Yes people care about the physical paper. For legal and other reasons email still can't be used for some letters. Also envelopes also carry vouchers, electronic cards etc. When used for cards, the letter is very much a small parcel.
Parcels are inherently physical medium because you can't really email someone a phone or laptop, can you? You can't give someone a phone or laptop via the text message, can you? Do you see the difference?
I have a couple of dozen small items a year mailed to me in regular envelopes. What you're failing to understand is the difference between a small item and a large one. I can't send you a house by small parcel either. It's a physical good.
Your argument about ad flyers is irrelevant, this isn't a discussion about ad flyers
YES SIR! Did you read the discussion about going paperless which prompted the discussion about flyers? Or do you think you get to decide the parameters of the discussion because you say so?
That's like trying to reduce the emissions of cars and then you going and saying that the emissions of aeroplanes are still higher - it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, which is the fact that:
Again, you don't get to set the parameters of the topic being discussed.
1) Less and less letters are being sent, which means that prices need to increase to absorb fixed costs
My entire point is that the monopoly Australia Post holds over these letters should be broken. Then let the market decide. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't say letters aren't economcial to send and no one wants to send them but support Australia Post holding the monopoly. If Australia Post holds this monopoly then prices itself out of the market you're not protecting anyone's ability to send letters are you? And if your stated position is that they should be elminated as too expensive and wasteful this is actually a good one to let the market sort out.
2) If you're complaining about increasing letter postage prices, then send emails instead
Ok, I'll ask my Bank to email me my credit card and that small package of 1m of ribbon my wife bought for her craft will be much cheaper if she just has them emailed. Oh and if a lawyer ever sends me a letter to cease and desist I'll just explain I don't read letters anymore and he should have emailed me - I'm sure that'll get me out of trouble. eye roll
Why don't you understand that just because YOU have no use for regular mail, that doesn't mean other people don't?
You could say the same about a Big Mac. It's just calories with a physical media as a carrier. Both your statement and that one are nonsense.
How can you possibly deny the fact that people send letters to convey information? Why else would you send a letter, you're not sending paper to people, you are sending information.
Yes people care about the physical paper. For legal and other reasons email still can't be used for some letters. Also envelopes also carry vouchers, electronic cards etc. When used for cards, the letter is very much a small parcel.
Yes and this accounts for what percentage of all letters sent?
YES SIR! Did you read the discussion about going paperless which prompted the discussion about flyers? Or do you think you get to decide the parameters of the discussion because you say so?
Of course, this is a topic on Aus Post and letters, what does it have to do with ad flyers and how are ad flyers relevant to Aus Post increasing prices on letters being sent?
Again, you don't get to set the parameters of the topic being discussed.
And you do?
My entire point is that the monopoly Australia Post holds over these letters should be broken. Then let the market decide. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't say letters aren't economcial to send and no one wants to send them but support Australia Post holding the monopoly. If Australia Post holds this monopoly then prices itself out of the market you're not protecting anyone's ability to send letters are you? And if your stated position is that they should be elminated as too expensive and wasteful this is actually a good one to let the market sort out.
I'm not saying that the monopoly should not be broken. Where have I ever said that? All I'm saying is that we should eliminate sending letters where possible. Regardless of whether Aus Post is a monopoly or not, the prices on letters will only increase each day. If you pay a postman $100 and he sends 100 letters, that's $1 per letter, if he now only sends 50 letters, that's $2 per letter. Yes, by all means allow competition with Aus Post, but it won't change the fact that over time, the cost of sending letters will go up.
Ok, I'll ask my Bank to email me my credit card and that small package of 1m of ribbon my wife bought for her craft will be much cheaper if she just has them emailed. eye roll
Again, how often do you get bank cards? Once every 3 years isn't it? eye roll $0.33 per year, seriously?
Why don't you understand that just because YOU have no use for regular mail, that doesn't mean other people don't?
What you don't seem to understand is that just because it's now more expensive doesn't mean that it's unfair.
How can you possibly deny the fact that people send letters to convey information? Why else would you send a letter, you're not sending paper to people, you are sending information
Big Macs get sold in a box. You're not conveying the box. Most physical goods have packaging. Even information can be packaged (e.g. DVD or CD).
In any case it's a straw man. I didn't say that letters do not convey information at any point.
Yes and this accounts for what percentage of all letters sent?
I couldn't tell you what percentage. It doesn't matter, there's still a need. If there's no need, then why protect it with a monopoly? What I can tell you is I have older relatives who won't touch email and can't use a computer or phone to save themselves. Fobbing them off with "go send an email" doesn't cut it.
Of course, this is a topic on Aus Post and letters, what does it have to do with ad flyers and how are ad flyers relevant to Aus Post increasing prices on letters being sent?
You can't be bothered reading so I'm not sure you'll read this either. Talk of letters led to talk of elimination of letters led to talk of paperless societ and wasted paper led to talk of flyers which also end up in your letter box. Similarities to mail got brought up. What exactly is the difficulty you're having grasping this?
And you do?
Yes if I want to widen the discussion I can do that. You don't get to tell me to shut up. Again what's the difficulty here?
I'm not saying that the monopoly should not be broken. Where have I ever said that? All I'm saying is that we should eliminate sending letters where possible
Again you've missed half the discussion above and the very point I was making. If you end the monopoly and that ends up raising prices the volume of letters will naturally decrease. So end it and let the market decide. If this is being used as a disincentive to send physical letters, there are better ways to do it and greater obstacles to overcome - like law not recognising email as being equivalent to mail, lack of encryption of email, complexity of current solutions for signing email etc. We're a long way off eliminating letters. A PDF sent in the clear between mail servers is not secure.
Regardless of whether Aus Post is a monopoly or not, the prices on letters will only increase each day. If you pay a postman $100 and he sends 100 letters, that's $1 per letter, if he now only sends 50 letters, that's $2 per letter
What kind of logic is that exactly? You fail to take into account that you need less postmen, that they'll deliver to fewer addresses and traverse less geography. I don't think you understand the mail business at all.
Yes, by all means allow competition with Aus Post, but it won't change the fact that over time, the cost of sending letters will go up.
That's fine if it does but it won't be set by a single company who's CEO is considered overpaid by the public and who have an unfair monopoly stopping any other competition from even trying.
Again, how often do you get bank cards? Once every 3 years isn't it? eye roll $0.33 per year, seriously?
What you don't seem to understand is that just because it's now more expensive doesn't mean that it's unfair.
No it's not once every 3 years. How many people have just one card sent to them in the mail per year? I've had at least 6 sent to just me this year that I can think of off the top of my head (not all bank cards). I also don't directly pay to receive the mail (though I'm sure the cost is covered by my patronage). That isn't the point at all. The point is that the MONOPOLY is unfair, not that the price increase is. What's unfair is how it's being managed. What's unfair is that people are paying for delivery and end up carded for parcels by this same company, who then tells you the solution is to get a parcel locker so that you're always carded. If you ask most people they're not happy with the service or efficiency of Australia Post. So it may be if another player enters the market those prices would have a one off adjustment. But we'll never know because the government won't end the monopoly.
By the way mail in the U.S. costs 49c…it did when our dollar was around parity too.
I think we can both agree that we should end the monopoly, but you say things which I think are fundamentally untrue.
If this is being used as a disincentive to send physical letters, there are better ways to do it and greater obstacles to overcome - like law not recognising email as being equivalent to mail, lack of encryption of email, complexity of current solutions for signing email etc. We're a long way off eliminating letters. A PDF sent in the clear between mail servers is not secure.
You're talking about email encryption when letters are perhaps the least secure method of communication? How hard is it to fish a letter out of someone's mailbox?
What kind of logic is that exactly? You fail to take into account that you need less postmen, that they'll deliver to fewer addresses and traverse less geography. I don't think you understand the mail business at all.
Let's say there are 50 houses on a street, it doesn't matter if all 50 houses need letter delivery or only 20 do, the postie probably still has to traverse the entire street regardless, unless somehow all of the houses which need postage are conveniently located at the start of the street (which they probably won't be).
You're talking about email encryption when letters are perhaps the least secure method of communication? How hard is it to fish a letter out of someone's mailbox?
If you're a criminal in Russia or China? Pretty hard.
More importantly running around from physical mailbox to physical mailbox would take time so it's not economical for large gangs to run around stealing mail hoping something will be worthwhile is in the box. Now compare that to to social engineering theft of email, which can be done in bulk while sitting behind a computer screen using automated tools that clever criminals have built in many cases. As soon as they have your password your mail can be quietly siphoned until you realize something is up and change it.
Oh and good luck prosecuting across multiple jurisdictions IF you can track them down in the first place.
It's a bit like placing your letter box in the lounge room of every second scammer on the planet and saying "have at it, if you can trick me you can have what's in here".
Let's say there are 50 houses on a street, it doesn't matter if all 50 houses need letter delivery or only 20 do, the postie probably still has to traverse the entire street regardless, unless somehow all of the houses which need postage are conveniently located at the start of the street (which they probably won't be).
Sure if you're saying 20 out of 50 houses require mail. But which is it? Are they rare and not required and about to die out? Or are 20 out of 50 houses on a street going to need to be visited?
Sure if you're saying 20 out of 50 houses require mail. But which is it? Are they rare and not required and about to die out? Or are 20 out of 50 houses on a street going to need to be visited?
I don't see how it's hard to understand that when less of something is being sold, the price has to increase to cover for the fixed costs which are now divided amongst less units.
If you're sending a million letters, the cost per letter is going to be less than if you're sending a thousand letters, is that really that difficult to understand?
I don't see how it's hard to understand that when less of something is being sold, the price has
to increase to cover for the fixed costs which are now divided amongst less units.
If you're sending a million letters, the cost per letter is going to be less than if you're
sending a thousand letters, is that really that difficult to understand?
I understand. I just don't think you have your numbers right - the factor of 1000 is a ridiculous exaggeration at best. Not all the costs are fixed. You don't have to hire as many people, have as large a fleet of vehicles etc. Also since you're out there delivering parcels there may be ways to combined parcel and post delivery for greater efficiency. How many houses does a van pass to deliver just one package? I still get a lot more letters than I do parcels.
AusPost used to make profits, now the letter delivery service is dragging the whole business down.
But postage, especially one that is owned by the government, isn't a business. It is an infrastructure.
Roads are also bad profits unless you toll them.
The reason why we have a flat rate postal system is to encourage outward growth, something that worked very well for the British empire. It doesn't necessarily mean that we copy the postal concept but at the very least, if we are going to sand-bag the postal system, an replacement infrastructure needs to be put in.
@tshow: Owned by the government = paid by the tax payers (i.e. all of us) when that organisation is not making profit. AusPost used to bring in money for the government, now it is asking government for money.
If tax payers are willing to inject more funds into Australia Post on a regular basis, then the postage increase could be halted.
Alternative services: e-mails, Internet (Instant) messaging services etc…
why don't they just treat everything as a package? i don't get why there needs to be a services line for letters and packages separately. a lot of people don't see how bad this ploy is to just make more money.
Packages are very expensive!
Sure, pay package prices and get carded. :P
It'll now cost you $6.50 to ship a $13 dollar SD card.
So you're not at home? No probs, Please drive 6km down to your nearest post office to pick up your SD card. Have nice day.
Oh man, does this mean that anyone who bought $0.70 sheets will have to go back and get $0.30 stamps now?
If only they released a forever stamp, I am now putting 3-4 stamps on an envelope in tinier denominations in order to use up the old $0.60 stamps I bought a few year ago.
They're profiting from parcel post, can't they subsidise letters with that? Their monopoly on letter mail sub 250g requires them to keep it affordable for all Australians.
can't they subsidise letters with that
Would you run your business that way?
Personally I have perhaps sent only one letter in the last year. Everything is going electronic, there's no reprieve from that.
That's how Woolies is running their business.
But the difference between AusPost and Woolies is that AusPost is chartered to provide a valuable public service, delivering mail, for which they don't have any competition. If it was a regular business, it should be run like a regular business, but it's not because there are mysterious invisible hands meddling about.
You have a contradiction there. Auspost is losing money on letters so you are already getting subsidised. Which implies that nobody is willing to do it cheaper. Perhaps you should call for a category of small items that is not time critical. And that in fact was one of the suggestions, a premium rate for letters that are delivered without delay, and every other day delivery for the rest.
@greenpossum: You make sense, except for this
Which implies that nobody is willing to do it cheaper
They cant do this regardless of cost/price
The prevailing CSO allows Australia Post to maintain a legal monopoly over domestic and international letters weighing less than 250 grams,
That's how Woolies is running their business.
And that's why Woolworths shares are down 35% in 2 years…
@syousef: Who would possibly want that business though?
Keep in mind any letter with the correct carriage has to go anywhere it is addressed for a government regulated price.
That could be outback Australia or Lichtenstein. It is a massive logistical problem to take on for a business concept that is dying.
Just read the link. I'm fairly sure the price rises were common knowledge for most because it's been publicised for quite a few months now.
It seems odd though that you have to buy a Priority label for 50c containing what looks like a QR code, and affix this adjacent to the stamps. It would've been much easier if you could just add a normal 50c stamp instead.