No surprise there, then.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted

Yes, that was the original idea. But since then, e-mail has been invented. The result is that the vast majority of communications that used to be done by paper delivery are now done by email. The rump - which I have caricatured as Granny's birthday cards - is not enough to keep the universal delivery service viable at a single stamp price that anyone is prepared to pay.

RM know this perfectly well. For decades they have employed some of the most intelligent people in the universe to inform their policy, one of them being Richard Hooper, who published a report on the topic in September 2010:

formatting link
view

But knowing about this trend isn't the same as stopping it happening. Obviously it can't be stopped. So RM is now in a phase of managing the decline of paper letter delivery, with as much support from government as it can get. In the meantime it has to make its other activities more profitable.

Reply to
Big Les Wade
Loading thread data ...

In message , harryagain writes

Our magnificent Post Office is now a charity shop (with a small area at one end where you collect the parcels and signed-for stuff. The sorting and the little red vans still operate from the back). The Post Office counter is across town where the parking is worst, in the back of a sweet-shop.

Reply to
Bill

I take it that you are referring to RM's dropping share price because they can't compete with the competition, or something like that.

They get no sympathy from me, as they are too damn expensive to send anything more than a standard letter.

Reply to
BobH

In message , Tim Streater writes

Car tax now mostly on line, pensions mostly paid into bank accounts. I use letter post so infrequently that a universal service is of no interest to me. About 80% [1]of people who live in rural areas have chosen to do so why should I pay for their mail deliveries - or their broadband or their bus services etc?

[1] Survey by NFU Insurance.
Reply to
bert

The price differential between RM/PF and others can be astonishing. A recent parcel, very light and something like a pizza box in shape, RM/PF offered £11.99 (IIRC - or at least close to that), Hermes £3.79.

However much I might want some aspects of the RM/PF service to continue in existence, that level is not something anyone can ignore or swallow.

Reply to
polygonum

For all its hysteria on this (and everything else), there seems to be a pretty close correlation between the price of a stamp and the Daily Mail - both were 3d when I was a child in the early 1960s.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

Why should the rural dwellers pay for your street lights, policing of the town centre binge drinkers,

Broadband is a bad example, rural dwellers pay the same subs for a generally much poorer service:

formatting link

Nov 2013 average speeds: Urban: 31.9 Mbps Sub-urban: 21.8 Mbps Rural: 11.3 Mbps

If you are thinking of the rollout of FTTC, that has been paid for by BDUK and county councils but covers both builtup and rural areas. Note that builtup areas tend to get FTTC first and rural areas second or even not at all. Many places are stuck with ADSL2 ("up to 8 Mbps") and even then whole villages may only get 2 Mbps or less. iPlayer no chance...

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Or pay more if you're in an exchange area classed as "market 1".

Reply to
Andy Burns

iplayer desktop works fine on slow links (just select download rather than stream). If that doesn't work then bypass the restrictions on pirate bay and download a torrent version of the program you want.

Reply to
dennis

So move.

Reply to
bert

Share were discounted by around 25% at the time of the float (or even more than that, depends who you believe), so I would let the shareholders lose a little more before entertaining any change to their obligations.

Reply to
JoeJoe

I'm not really much interested in their shareholders. Only in the service provided.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

That's one of the benefits of privatisation. No interfering politicians throwing taxpayers money at it.

Reply to
bert

Really? Lots of once publicly owned now privatized companies get taxpayers money thrown at them.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Not sure why you refer to them as "publicly owned". They were wholly owned by an entity called "the Government" and the public had no say in the matter.

You mean "publicly owned", as in by members of the public (with some exceptions, where that "Government" thingy has bought up all the shares).

Reply to
Tim Streater

Collins GEM English Dictionary public n. the community, people in general. ?adj. of or concerning the people as a whole; for use by everyone; well-known; performed or made openly. ?publicly adv. ?publican n. person who owns or runs a pub. ?public house pub. ?public relations promotion of a favourable opinion towards an organization among the public. ?public school private fee-paying school in England. ?public-spirited adj. having or showing an active interest in the good of the community.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

No the utilities, and not the telecoms companies other than to provide broadband and mobile phone access to winging ex-townies in rural areas - which is where I came in.

Reply to
bert

I take it you haven't understood this thread?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Thanks for confirming my point. And private fee-paying schools in England are so-called because at the time they were established, they were the only place that poorer [1] members of the *public* could go to get an education.

[1] I.e. those that couldn't afford to pay a tutor.
Reply to
Tim Streater

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Perhaps you should get yourself a decent newsreader.

Reply to
bert

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.