Hacker News Reader

USPS is NOT obligated to deliver to every address. My parents live about ten miles from one of the larger cities in California. UPS and FedEx will happily deliver to their address, but USPS doesn't. As a consolation prize, USPS offers them a discount on PO boxes.

Indeed.

More information:

https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/postal-service-and-its-obligati...

> But frequency of delivery is the only obligation that is clearly articulated in the Postal Service’s current USO. In fact, the USO is based on a hodgepodge of various legal requirements and regulations that, in most cases, provide only broad guidance. For example, while public access to postal services is another important component of the USO, there’s nothing about how many access points, such as collection boxes or post offices, must exist.

Nothing there about delivering to every address.

https://facts.usps.com

> We’re proud to provide secure, reliable and affordable service to every address in the United States, plus its territories and its military and diplomatic installations worldwide.

They say they provide postal service to every address in the United States, so if they are lying, then we as citizens should do something about it. I'm just going off the usps facts website, and what they claim.

> service to every address

Doesn't say delivery to every address.

Forcing some addresses to rent P.O. Boxes is still serving them.

"You cannot dismantle the only mail service that is OBLIGATED to deliver mail to every address. "

You can if you obligate other national carriers to do that.

The fact is the world has changed dramatically in the last few decades and the kinds of things that are sent are completely different, demands are different, technology has changed rapidly. I don't get anything other than junk mail from the public service, I wish it would stop.

I think an optimal solution might be to actually semi-privatize the USPS, by floating a small % ownership (say 10%) on public exchange, letting them set their own prices and strategy, which would remove recent Republican meddling - and - also remove their impetus as well, as it would be a 'self sustaining' entity, still mostly owned by the Government.

Having a % float would provide some measure of market feedback, this is a tactic used by some very wealthy families to give external measures to their CEO's and have some degree of accountability. I believe Bertelsmann uses this kind of setup.

Aside from that, it could very well be possible to require private carriers to have the same, national coverage in order to be considered 'national carriers' a status which they should have to have to be able to bid on certain contracts etc..

'National Carriers' could have access to things like mail boxes in buildings, and other things, possibly even co-use of USPS facilities, much like government has required last-mile fibre operators to share their gear with competitors (i.e. CLECs).

Something like that could work.

Ah I feel your pain. Their tracking system is on point though. It's kind of interesting watching a package bounce around randomly across the country.

> You cannot dismantle the only mail service that is OBLIGATED to deliver mail to every address.

It doesn't, though. I lived ten years at an address they wouldn't deliver to. I had to rent a PO Box in the nearest town to get USPS mail, whereas UPS and FedEx delivered right to my door. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it isn't true.

This does not compute. They have the legal obligation to deliver to all addresses. Do you have an address that has been assigned by your county? Have you registered the new address with your USPS?

Your mailbox might not be at your drive way, or on your front step, but a mailbox cluster in a central location.

From the USPS (emphasis mine): > We’re proud to provide secure, reliable and affordable service to every address in the United States, plus its territories and its military and diplomatic installations worldwide.

The only situation I know of where the usps will refuse to deliver is if there is some sort of danger, eg a biting dog. A neighbor had to get a P.O. Box because of this.

Guessing: Perhaps his residence wasn't an address.

My residence was an address. It was a house with a house number on a named road.

> Do you have an address that has been assigned by your county? Have you registered the new address with your USPS?

Yes, it's a hard address which the fire department, for example, can use. And the USPS knew about it.

> Your mailbox might not be at your drive way, or on your front step, but a mailbox cluster in a central location.

My mailbox was in a post office miles away from my house, which I had to pay for. I've since moved.

That computes for me when I lived in a rural area. A lot of commenters came to tout this:

> They have the legal obligation to deliver to all addresses. Do you have an address that has been assigned by your county?

While that might be true, in practicality it was not. It took me months at two different locations to get USPS to stop screwing things up or to give me access to a cluster. I think a lot of people here have had great experiences with USPS and are unable to imagine geographies where the system doesn't work too well.

I have lived at a non-delivery address for the past 5 years. The “every address” myth seems to be propagated by people who support USPS and conflate “we deliver to people all over the US” with “every address”.

That sounds similar, but is significantly different, and can be a major pain when dealing with people or businesses that believe the myth, and try to send important paperwork to a physical address, which may end up in our P.o. box if the USPS person handling it recognizes the name and can match it to a box number.

Putting both the physical and P.o. box addresses into an address block, in that order, works well, but then shippers can balk at finding a box number. (see also “Falsehoods programmers believe about addresses, etc.”)

If it is a myth, it is propagated by the USPS.

They will deliver for every mail address. USPS designated non-deliverable addresses are typically new addresses that haven't been added, or as another commenter posted, an address that is unsafe to deliver.

Now, delivering to your mailbox might be a central mail hub that is part of your community/neighborhood, and not directly to your door, but that is still your address's mailbox.

What's the difference between a mail address and a street address?

Here's evidence for my claim:

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/t/when-usps-does-not...

My friend, you are living in the past. My parents live in a golf community in Arizona (shocker :). It is not a gated community, just windy streets where all the houses were built by the same developer. It is not some unincorporated area, it's in Scottsdale, a major city, and the houses were built around 2000. There are no vicious dogs nor is there anything dangerous about delivering mail to people over the age of 50. It is not a rural area, it's suburbia. The USPS will not deliver mail to their door, they only deliver to a set of postboxes for the whole community about a mile away. My parents have to drive their car to the where the PO boxes are each day. Everyone in the community does. I worry what happens if they get too old to drive, as they wont be able to get mail. I asked my parents about it and they said this was common in this part of Arizona to cut costs -- like the USPS gave up on solving the last mile problem. When a housing development is built on, say, 100 acres, the USPS just picks one area and says "we'll only deliver here" and that's where they build the mailboxes for all the people that will live on that hundred acres, even if it's like 5000 people. If someone is foolish enough to send a package to them that doesn't fit in the small mailbox, my parents will get a slip to pick it up from the local post office, which of course requires a farther drive.

Meanwhile Fedex, Amazon, UPS deliver right to their door. The quality and level of service of USPS is atrocious, and all over America they are cutting back on their last mile commitments while private companies continue to deliver right to the door.

I'm not living in the past, that has been how it has been for decades. In new communities they create a hub or mailroom. It isn't typically the post office that designates that, it is the HOA. They don't want ugly mailboxes in front of everyone's house. An old boss of mine successfully lobbied to get mail delivered to the house since everyone was pissed at having to drive a mile or further to the club house to get their mail.

Since around 2013, though, the USPS HAS mandated new communities get a single mail hub, but it still satisfies their rule of delivering for every address.

You just made my point exactly with your last sentence:

"Since around 2013, though, the USPS HAS mandated new communities get a single mail hub, but it still satisfies their rule of delivering for every address."

This in no way satisfies delivering to every address. It is a clear break from this commitment.

No, it has always been this way. As long as I have been alive new communities (gated and non, apartments/condos, and houses) have opted for their own mail room. The USPS has just decided in the last 7.5 years to go along with what was already standard practice. If you build a new house outside of a community/neighborhood and properly have your address registered you will get mail delivered.

You can also require TO home delivery (but you will have to fight your HOA), if you are elderly or infirm. The handful of times HOAs have allowed this, there has typically been backlash toward the resident (anecdotes, not data).

This is obscuring the difference between a community choosing to have reduced service and, since 2013, the postal service mandating that service be reduced.

No, it has not always been the case that the USPS mandated a reduced level of service to new housing developments. That is a big deal. They are effectively saying that they are not going to support door to door delivery to any housing community in America, regardless of what that housing community wants.

But the end result is the same, the resident doesn't have the choice (except in a few circumstances) to get mail delivery to their door. Their choice is the same today as it was 30 years ago, move into a neighborhood and get mail at a central mailbox, or don't move to a neighborhood.

Living in NYC, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Houston, TX, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Webster, TX, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Pasadena, TX my mail wasn't delivered to my door.

My cabin in a small town in Colorado, mail is delivered to a letter box attached to my door (well used to, I have told the USPS to refuse all mail). My house in a small town in upstate NY, mail is delivered to the letter flap in my door. My friend who lives in a neighborhood in NJ built over 30 years ago, has to drive to get his mail because the community board chose no mail boxes.

The end result is the exact same, the USPS just decided to codify exactly what was already happening, so that they could standardize how they were supposed to use those mail rooms.

You are overly simplifying the cause and effect, mailbox down the road != usps delivering mail to everyone, thus I'm living in some fairy tail land that no longer exists.

Not it is not the same. Saying "the USPS will never again deliver mail to the door of any new development in the US" is not at all the same thing as saying "some developments can opt out of mail delivery to their door".

You honestly do not see the difference between these two statements?

> If you build a new house outside of a community/neighborhood and properly have your address registered you will get mail delivered.

This is false, based on my own experience and the experience of others:

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/t/when-usps-does-not...

https://smartystreets.com/articles/po-box-only-zip-codes