Single bits might be trival, but the volume is far from single.

Regardless, Netflix doesn't bear the cost of delivery. Imagine if USPS couldn't charge Amazon for delivery.

> Imagine if USPS couldn't charge Amazon for delivery.

Imagine if USPS charged both Amazon and its customers for delivering the same package.

I think, in a way, USPS does.

Which way, specifically? Do you have details? Have you ever sent someone a package and then they had to pay to get the package as well?

It's a quasi-gov "agency" which means taxpayers are paying, however indirectly; those same taxpayers are also paying to use the service.

It's part of the US government but does not receive taxpayer funding.

"Zero tax dollars used. The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations."[1]

"The USPS in its current form runs like a business, relies on postage for revenue and, for the most part, has not used taxpayer money since 1982, when postage stamps became “products” instead of forms of taxation. Taxpayer money is only used in some cases to pay for mailing voter materials to disabled and overseas Americans"[2]

1. https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/

2. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-pos...

Replace "USPS" with UPS or FedEx and it comes out to the same thing - either sender pays, or receiver pays, but never both.

So USPS finances their own pensions?

There's also the phrase "for the most part."

Finally, USPS is a gov sanctioned monopoly. So there's the cost of that.

I understand what USPS is or is said to (hooefully) be. But all things considered, the taxpayer is paying in some way.

I'm no expert on any of this stuff. From what I can tell from searching online, the USPS is required to fund their own pensions[1]

> "for the most part."

This was explained. The government pays to mail voting materials to some people. How is that different from any branch of government buying some stamps to mail some letters and packages?

Their "monopoly" gives them the exclusive right to put things in mailboxes. In return, they are legally required to serve every single part of the country equally, at the same price. They also can't set their own prices.

I have no earthly idea how much this "monopoly" costs taxpayers and it hasn't stopped UPS, Fedex et al from providing plenty of competition. I think taxpayers, especially in remote and rural communities, are coming out ahead in this bargain but again, I'm not an expert.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with net neutrality which is where this discussion began. Pretend USPS doesn't exist - does UPS or Fedex charge the sender and receiver for shipping the same package?

1. https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume

How do they not pay for the cost of delievery? They pay for internet connectivity like everyone else. And they even have caching servers installed at most ISPs to optimize their bandwidth.

This is about the telcos wanting to double dip.