Small publications, and our democracy, in jeopardy

This has been mentioned before, I think, but these rate hikes for small publications will take effect in July if something isn't done.



http://action.freepress.net/freepress/postal_explanation.html

Edited to try a catchier subject.... ;->

And that's just what they're trying to do to non-mainstream media within the country, while giving Time Warner a nice bag of extra money. (Need I mention that Time Warner is the author of this travesty....?)

There's still M-bag, for over 11 lbs. Of course, it's a *lot* more expensive than it used to be. (mutter, mutter ....)

guess which I chose?

What makes sense with these rates?

The book rate is not supposed to be a function of the way it travels, it is a function of the content of what it is - INFORMATION.

and the new international rates are going to kill him.

This issue is the print version of net neutrality.

They're going to soak the small publications so Time Warner can have lower rates. They don't care if they put small publications out of business. They don't care if we have non-corporate publications at all.

This is so *not* what the Founders had in mind, and so dangerous to our democracy.

You'd think the post office would be exempt from corporate influence.

I was wondering if the USPS was simply considering this alongside the T-W proposal and I read this:

<snip>
In an unprecedented move, the agency that oversees postal rates in the United States has approved a plan that would unravel much of what the founders accomplished. Earlier this year, the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) rejected a postal rate increase plan offered by the U.S. Postal Service. Instead they opted to implement a modified version of an extraordinarily complicated plan submitted by media giant Time Warner. (Click here to read the decision and click here for a timeline).

Although there was a formal review and comment process -- to be fair, the PRC did everything by the book -- the matter was so complicated and unreported that the general public played no role whatsoever, and publications that could not afford significant lobbying and lawyer fees faced high barriers to effective participation. <>



Good link, thanks.

Thought I'd get more interest for this, but oh well. I called my Congressperson and am going to try to talk to an actual person I might persuade to take this up.