very small mailer”) and that mailers in this market therefore have varying costs “widely and characteristics.” Id. at 5. The Postal Service responds by asserting that the Commission has previously recognized the definition of in section 102(6) to be very Postal Service “product” Reply Comments-Revised at 3-4. The Postal Service notes further that it routinely enters into Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) that combine different products into a single new product. Id. at 4. The Postal Service also argues that the Mail Classification Schedule language prescribed as part of the remedy in the complaint proceeding in Docket No. C2009-1 a round-trip DVD product,” and that the only “created difference between the product proposed by the Postal Service in this proceeding and the market dominant round-trip DVD product allegedly created by the Commission as a remedy in Docket No. C2009-1 is that the proposed product would be classified as a competitive product. Id. The Postal Service is correct in asserting that the proposed Round-Trip Mailer qualifies as a under section 102(6). Section 102(6) defines as “product” “product” “a postal service with a distinct cost or market characteristic for which a rate or rates are, or may reasonably be, applied.” The Commission has previously found to be “product” broadly defined as long as it has distinct cost or market characteristics. The Postal Service’s practice of combining products under NSAs reflects the breadth of the definition. “product” Although it disagrees with the Postal Service’s characterization of its prior action in Docket No. C2009-1 as having a round-trip DVD product,” the Commission “created recognizes that the complaint proceedings in Docket No. C2009-1 have created a context” in which the Round-Trip Mailer proposal must be assessed. “unique The Commission therefore rejects Netflix’s arguments that the proposed RoundTrip Mailer cannot qualify as a section 102(6). “product”
very small mailer”) and that mailers in this market therefore have “widely varying costs and characteristics.” Id. at 5. The Postal Service responds by asserting that the Commission has previously recognized the definition of “product” in section 102(6) to be very Postal Service Reply Comments-Revised at 3-4. The Postal Service notes further that it routinely enters into Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) that combine different products into a single new product. Id. at 4. The Postal Service also argues that the Mail Classification Schedule language prescribed as part of the remedy in the complaint proceeding in Docket No. C2009-1 “created a round-trip DVD product,” and that the only difference between the product proposed by the Postal Service in this proceeding and the market dominant round-trip DVD product allegedly created by the Commission as a remedy in Docket No. C2009-1 is that the proposed product would be classified as a competitive product. Id. The Postal Service is correct in asserting that the proposed Round-Trip Mailer qualifies as a “product” under section 102(6). Section 102(6) defines “product” as “a postal service with a distinct cost or market characteristic for which a rate or rates are, or may reasonably be, applied.” The Commission has previously found “product” to be broadly defined as long as it has distinct cost or market characteristics. The Postal Service’s practice of combining products under NSAs reflects the breadth of the “product” definition. Although it disagrees with the Postal Service’s characterization of its prior action in Docket No. C2009-1 as having “created a round-trip DVD product,” the Commission recognizes that the complaint proceedings in Docket No. C2009-1 have created a “unique context” in which the Round-Trip Mailer proposal must be assessed. The Commission therefore rejects Netflix’s arguments that the proposed RoundTrip Mailer cannot qualify as a “product” section 102(6).
Order%20No.%202306.docx