The revised postal law of December 2006 ended the long debate: the decision
was that the USPS needs to focus on its core mission of delivering the
mail; no further ventures into nonpostal businesses. Congress was clear
on this subject.
Congress defined a transition period of 2 years within their new law to determine the fate of the previously
existing nonpostal services. Alternatively, some people read the new law
as Congress as having avoided this difficult question and delegating to
the Commissioners to decide. The exact words are below, in summary: The
new law directed the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to review the EPM
service to determine if it there is a public need for the USPS to provide
the EPM service. The new law also has a type of "sour pill",
if the EPM is "grandfathered" then future regulatory review is
reduced - the Postal Service is allowed to compete more freely.
The web page below and its set of links summarizes the set of documents
that comprise the proceedings of this EPM review before the Postal Regulatory Commission.
In chronological order, the proceeding at the Commission to determine if
the EPM service should be grandfathered or terminated :
New Legislation passes
- December 2006 - background
In summary: the USPS may not pursue any new nonpostal services, but existing
services may be "grandfathered" if there is a public need. You will see this section of the law quoted often in these proceedings
(excerpt from the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, Public Law 109-435):
(2) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit or require that
the Postal Service provide any nonpostal service, except that the Postal
Service may provide nonpostal services which were offered as of January
1, 2006, as provided under this subsection.
(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall review each
nonpostal service offered by the Postal Service on the date of enactment
of that Act and determine whether that nonpostal service shall continue,
taking into account—
(A) the public need for the service; and
(B) the ability of the private sector to meet the public need for the service.
(4) Any nonpostal service not determined to be continued by the Postal
Regulatory Commission under paragraph (3) shall terminate.
(5) If the Postal Regulatory Commission authorizes the Postal Service to
continue a nonpostal service under this subsection, the Postal Regulatory
Commission shall designate whether the service shall be regulated under
this title as a market dominant product, a competitive product, or an experimental
product.
Opening with a debate about jurisdiction of PRC
This is not a very important subject at this point and the expedient reader
can skip to the "testimony" in next section.
The USPS argues that the EPM is a "non, nonpostal" service and therefore not subject to the review of the Commission.
PRC Orders the USPS to comply and continue with the review of the EPM.
USPS accepts that the EPM is subject to the "grandfather" clause of the new PAEA;
Testimony phase
- June 9 2008 USPS describes the EPM service
USPS describes the EPM service (see page 10) for the purpose of the PRC review based on PAEA criteria.
This same description will be copied into the sworn statement which will
be entered by the USPS 2 weeks later.
USPS enters the sworn statement to describe the EPM service. The description of the EPM service is a brief
2 pages in length and duplicates the attorney's previous description.
- July 30 2008 Interested / outside parties enter their statements for the
record
CON / against the EPM program : DigiStamp describes why the EPM service should be terminated. This is DigiStamp's initial statement in these proceedings. 27 pages long and 23 pages of appendix. (stored as a MS WORD document)
PRO / for the EPM program : Epostmarks describes the value of the EPM service. 14 pages long with an appendix.
- August 20 2008 is final entry of statements and rebuttals.
DigiStamp rebuttal (stored as a MS WORD document)
Epostmark rebuttal
Interesting to consider what is not here in the record. For example:
- The USPS has not offered the testimony of any current customers.
- The UPU has not entered testimony
- Authentidate has been silent.
- The USPS did not enter a rebuttal to DigiStamp's testimony.
Comments of others in support of USPS EPM
- Microsoft enters their support of the EPM program
- The honorable state senator of Maryland enters her support for the EPM program
- The honorable state representative of Delaware enters her support for the EPM program
Legal Briefs
- September 10 2008 Initial legal briefs are entered
Postal Service Brief
DigiStamp Brief
Epostmarks Brief
Comments of Epostmarks, Inc., Endorsed by Microsoft Corp., Striata, Goodmail Systems, Inc., GovDelivery,
Inc., and Iconix, Inc. on the Value of Electronic Postmark Platform and
Applications
Public Representative has a page about the EPM service in his brief.
Reply Briefs
- September 30 2008 the reply Briefs and was the final submission before decision is rendered.
Comments of the Information Assurance Consortium (IAC), against the EPM program. At this point in the proceedings this
is the only entry, besides DigiStamp, that does not endorse the EPM program.
Postal Service Brief
DigiStamp Brief
Epostmarks Brief
Public Representative makes no direct references to the EPM service.
Post-briefs phase, additional EPM related events
Another thread of statements arrises related to licensing
Decision of the 5 PRC judges
- December 20 2008 or earlier
Related information
An OP-ED article USPS EPM Program Undercuts Time Stamp Security / Industry
Another source of information is the "public representative"
that was appointed by the PRC. He is an attorney at the commission: Robert
Sidman robert.sidman@prc.gov (202) 789-6827
Details of the older DigiStamp complaint about the USPS EPM (2004 - 2006)
I found this paper interesting, especially pages 419+ Preserving Universal Postal Service as a Communication Safety Net
|
