Forum: Author Hangout

According the Wikipedia the USPS abbreviation for Kansas is KS, the story I was reading that triggered this post has Ks, and MO in the same sentence while referring to two places. I've seen other US authors use two capital letters for a state abbreviation, so the Ks with the small 's' was very confusing.

Wikipedia is not a definitive source. (though it is often convenient on-line.

The postal codes for the states can be uses in either format, AA or Aa, both are acceptable to the post office.

That said, I will agree that authors should generally identify the full name for abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms, the first time they are used.

The state postal codes are used so much in print news reporting and other text based media that we are so used to seing them, we likely use them without even thinking about it.

Most newspaper and wire service style books do NOT use the postal abbreviations. The majority spell out any state name with 6 letters or less, i.e., Texas or Alaska, and use the standard abbreviations that were in place before the postal service started the two-letter abbreviations. They use, for example, Tenn. for Tennessee, rather than TN. They use Calif., for California, rather than CA.

Most newspaper and wire service style books do NOT use the postal abbreviations. The majority spell out any state name with 6 letters or less, i.e., Texas or Alaska, and use the standard abbreviations that were in place before the postal service started the two-letter abbreviations. They use, for example, Tenn. for Tennessee, rather than TN. They use Calif., for California, rather than CA.

The AP does have a style guide for state abbreviations. And incidentally to that, the postal code for Alaska(AK) came from the first and last letter of the AP abbreviation for Alaska at the time: Alsk.

The postal code AA is currently used by the Military, and AS is now claimed by American Samoa, but I imagine both were available to Alaska at the time they picked AK.

Is that short for "American Army"? I'm not sure the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard would appreciate their appropriating their code.

If it is, it certainly goes back to before the Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine Corps existed. The USPS goes all the way back to 1775, It was created by the continental congress even before the original articles of confederation were adopted. I'm not sure if we even had a navy that far back.

However, that isn't the answer. There are actually three "state" abbreviations for the US Military.

AA - Armed Forces Americas (except Canada).
AE - Armed Forces Europe, Mid East & Canada.
AP - Armed Forces Pacific.

http://pe.usps.gov/text/pub28/28c2_010.htm

However, readers should not have to conduct research to know where you're talking about, you should use the full name.

Just because the full name is used does not guarantee the reader will know what you are talking about. 'The Gap' is a good example. While I agree that use of full names is better than abbreviations, I do not have problems with abbreviations if I can figure out their meaning from the rest of the text.

I often think Ernest's position about local slang goes overboard, but in this case I will agree.

There are, indeed, extremely common US Post Office abbreviations that almost everybody in the US uses (two letters, no periods), but even then there are occasions for confusion -- LA (Louisiana or Los Angeles), NY (city or state). There was even one time where CA was not obvious -- the author is Canadian and uses Canadian conventions, but he meant California (CA is the ISO code for Canada, and yes, I've been in places where people use ISO country codes in conversation).

Since very few people use state codes in conversation, I think it would be fitting to spell the names out (or use appropriate regional terms).

but even then there are occasions for confusion -- LA (Louisiana or Los Angeles), NY (city or state).

I'm not aware of anyone in the US who uses NY for the city, when they mean the city, most use NYC.

I'm not aware of anyone in the US who uses NY for the city, when they mean the city, most use NYC.

The only time I would use NY for the city is in the form NY, NY. Otherwise I would use NYC.

The New York City Police Department uses NY to mean the city in NYPD

The exception that proves the rule.

Except the State of New York wouldn't call a state level law enforcement agency a "Police Department" as no state does to my knowledge. (Closest they get is "State Police") Likewise there is no state level "Fire Department" so FDNY(Fire Department - New York) is New York City.

In those cases, people are simply expected "to know" that the "New York" being mentioned is the city, not the State.

ISO country codes in conversation).

What is an ISO country code?

What is an ISO country code?

I think it's the two letter codes that are used for the country domains on the internet.

What is an ISO country code?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1

US for the USA
FR for France
GB for the whole of the UK
DE for Germany
etc.

GB for the whole of the UK

That doesn't make any sense, Great Brittan is only a subset of the United Kingdom.

That doesn't make any sense, Great Brittan is only a subset of the United Kingdom.

Copy+Paste from the link I provided:

The codes are chosen, according to the ISO 3166/MA, "to reflect the significant, unique component of the country name in order to allow a visual association between country name and country code". For this reason, common components of country names like "Republic", "Kingdom", "United", "Federal" or "Democratic" are normally not used for deriving the code elements. As a consequence, for example, the United Kingdom is officially assigned the alpha-2 code GB rather than UK, based on its official name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (although UK is reserved on the request of the United Kingdom). Some codes are chosen based on the native names of the countries. For example, Germany is assigned the alpha-2 code DE, based on its native name "Deutschland".

And on topic:
Every author should ask themselves: Would I know that abbreviation if I was not from here?
What's the abbreviation for Bavaria? Bourgogne? Silesia?
If the answer is "I don't know" or "no" then do not use that abbreviation.

Every author should ask themselves: Would I know that abbreviation if I was not from here?

What's the abbreviation for Bavaria? Bourgogne? Silesia?

If the answer is "I don't know" or "no" then do not use that abbreviation.

Or do as suggested and the first time it is used put the full words in brackets to let people know what it is, then you can continue to use the abbreviation/code/acronym throughout the rest of the story.

If it is posted in one go or in a relatively small time frame I'd agree IF the word is really that long and complicated that it needs abbreviating, otherwise I'd say forgo the abbreviation.
My thinking behind it is is simple: Why make a story harder to read/understand? Just to shave off a few characters?

For this reason, common components of country names like "Republic", "Kingdom", "United", "Federal" or "Democratic" are normally not used for deriving the code elements.

Then why is their code for the United States of America US? U=United S=State. Both of which violate the above rule.

Then why is their code for the United States of America US? U=United S=State. Both of which violate the above rule.

You did read and understand the qualifier "normally", right?
Now as to your example: Take away "United", take away "States" and all that remains is "of America". Since America (or the Americas) is quite a bit larger than just the USA and US/USA is already a commonly used abbreviation it became the exception that proves the rule or the ISO creators were too lazy to come up with something else.

TO show how often any postal code gets confusing, every time Amazon.de sends me earning statements, I think "Wow, someone in Denmark really likes my books!"

That isn't a Postal Code, it's an Internet Country code Top Level domain.

What is an ISO country code?

The ones used by the internet. when you go to a .co.uk or co.ca or co.us domain for example. :)

That's not correct. The ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB, but you don't get .co.gb, for example, as a domain.

The ancient county is Lancashire. However, the postal code LA is used for an area based on the city of Lancaster.
Postal codes take no notice of county boundaries.

I have never seen a US based author use two letter state names other than the standard postal codes.

Rubbish! You JUST SAW one! EB just mentioned an example where an author used "Ks" instead of "KS"!

Even if you are correct that the standard two-capital-letter codes are (for practical purposes) used universally within the US, that is NOT the point EB was making!

His quite valid point was a plea to writers:

Please think of your readers and tell them what the abbreviations, acronyms, and slang mean.

EB cited an example which MANY READERS would certainly not know. How many readers from outside the US (approximately one-third of SoL readers) would know what state was meant by 'MO'? My guess is about the same percentage as for the residents of Montana.

EB puts it down to authors being "too damn lazy to write the full state name." I think it's just another typical example of mindless arrogance by imperialist Yankee dogs.

I think it's just another typical example of mindless arrogance by imperialist Yankee dogs.

What breed of dog is that? Boston Terrier?

What breed of dog is that? Boston Terrier?

The native breeds have been all but wiped out. They are all mongrels now.

Rubbish! You JUST SAW one! EB just mentioned an example where an author used "Ks" instead of "KS"!

Nope. Ks is an accepted form for the Kansas postal code. As I said, all the postal codes are accepted in both all caps (AA) and mixed case (Aa).

Mind you, I couldn't find a list on the USPS.com website

I DID FIND their list at http://pe.usps.gov/text/pub28/28apb.htm.
Their standard codes only use capitals.

Like postal services everywhere, they do not refuse to attempt to deliver mail that is incorrectly addressed, and they would start with the most likely mistake when someone used an invalid code. If they found an invalid code like "Ks", their first guess would probably be that the correct code is "KS".

According to the wikipedia article which is citing the USPS they only use capitals for their two letter code.

Wikipedia is not a definitive source.

The USPS can refuse to deliver mail that is addressed incorrectly.

They will deliver mail with the state code in a Aa format. As far as I am concerned, that is definitive and anything that says otherwise (except an official USPS document) is mistaken.

I've recently been fumbling with the local Post Office

I can't find a good reference for it, but I recall a story from either the 90s or the 00s where a half dozen or more postal employees were caught with years worth of undelivered mail stacked up in their houses and garages. This wasn't one or two addresses either, it was mail bags with all the mail for a given route/day undelivered.

If you use the street address of the business instead of the P.O. Box, they'll return the letter. Our checks and thank you cards are routinely returned, even though two of the businesses are on the same street as the Post Office (and there are only 3 buildings on that street too!).

The US postal service haemorrhages billions of dollars a year.
Like all other postal services they are no longer considered a service, but a business, and businesses have to be profitable.

For many years the Posties at Australia Post would re-direct incorrectly addressed mail, and the fact is it soaks up a lot of time to do so. Which is why it costs so much for an official mail redirection.

If people want their mail, they need to advise people what their correct postal address is. The other option is they can pay for a redirection to their postal address if there is no delivery to their street address.
People want their Postal service to be efficient, but they don't want to pay for it.

The difference is the bulk posting of junk pays the post office more for the service than a stamp does.

The difference is in the sorting and lodgement. Generally if it makes it to the Delivery Centre slightly off addresses can still be sorted to the correct address by the Postie.
A really incorrect address might actually have the correct address barcode, so it will be machine sorted to the correct address.
Wrong postcode, suburb, state without a correct machine readable barcode will end up at the incorrect Delivery Centre will usually be returned as undeliverable.

That doesn't explain the times I got junk mail with no state or postcode on it delivered while real mail with the suburb and state but no postcode gets returned to sender.

Without seeing the mail I can't know, or the mail centre, but the fact is the machines are better at sorting machine coded mail than human readable mail. If it doesn't make it to the correct mail centre there's a good chance it will be returned to sender by the centre that does get it. If the address is correct, missorts are usually re-directed to the correct centre.

Also, the junk mail sent out without any address, just a note to put one in each mailbox, is always delivered because the post office says they're required by law to deliver it.

Yep.
If you don't want it, put a "No Junk" or No Advertising Material" sign on the letterbox. It won't stop Political or Religious junk, but it will stop the usual rubbish.
Posties hate delivering junk- if they don't have to they won't.

...the post office box had a copy of the junk mail in it.

That can be stopped, but I think you have to pay extra for that to occur. Once again Political/ Religious junk is exempt.

At one post office I got so fed up with the crap local junk mail I started throwing it back through the mail box to fall on the sorting room floor

I can understand them getting pissed off a you dumping mail they didn't deliver back at their offices.
Australia Post generally only delivers standard letter & sometimes large letter junk. There are some catalogues (eg Alltools), but that's it.
90% of all junk is delivered by letter box stuffers. ie people paid to walk around a shove handfuls of catalogues in letter boxes by marketing companies. It's a pain in the arse when you can't get letters in a letterbox because it's full of crap.

Never once did they bother telling the companies sending the junk it was all being tossed in the bin unread, because they didn't want to lose the income from it.

As I mentioned above, most junk isn't delivered by Australia Post- you need to take it up with the company that produces the catalogue.
Most delivery centres get the Posties to update their rounds every 6 months or so that the number of No junk/Advertising points is fairly close to accurate.

As I mentioned above, most junk isn't delivered by Australia Post- you need to take it up with the company that produces the catalogue.

It is delivered by the post office in the US. In fact, it is illegal for anyone to place anything other than post marked mail or stamped outgoing mail in a residential mail box. There is one exception, for Sunday newspapers (because USPS does not deliver on Sundays).

https://about.usps.com/news/state-releases/tx/2010/tx_2010_0909.htm

Most people in the US with rural (curbside) mailboxes who get newspapers delivered install a separate box on their mail box post for newspapers.

In fact, it is illegal for anyone to place anything other than post marked mail or stamped outgoing mail in a residential mail box.

If only that were the case here.
Especially with banks of letterboxes for blocks of units- jam packed with junk mail, and piles of it all over the ground.

If only that were the case here.
Especially with banks of letterboxes for blocks of units-

It wouldn't help you. Our post office has special rates for bulk mail addressed to resident. The advertisers deliver tuck-loads of one item and the post office sees to it that everyone gets one.

It wouldn't help you. Our post office has special rates for bulk mail addressed to resident.

We get the same here, but luckily it's mostly just letter sized with the (very) occasional catalogue.

The letter box stuffer rubbish though...
When my parents lived in Wellington in New Zealand for a few years they had a couple of wood fired heaters. They bought a brick sized mold- you put in wet paper and compressed it down to get a block of paper the size of a large house brick.
They used to get so much junk mail that they just about halved their wood use by making these bricks out of junk mail.

There is one exception, for Sunday newspapers (because USPS does not deliver on Sundays

Back when I delivered newspapers I was instructed to never put anything into a customer's mail box. The newspaper provided a post mounted box for any customer that did not want the paper left on the porch.
When I delivered phone books, I was told that the company could be fined if we put the book in the mailboxes.
This is in the USA.

Back when I delivered newspapers I was instructed to never put anything into a customer's mail box.

Makes sense, it would be a nightmare to try to take advantage of the exception. The risk of mistakes is large and the benefit is small.

Never once did they bother telling the companies sending the junk it was all being tossed in the bin unread...

Mark it "Return to sender - Refused" and drop it in the outbound mail slot. Then it is officially posted and is supposed to be processed.

Actually, the postage on span is MUCH lower than what retail customers pay, but they purchase in bulk.

Here in Australia the amount of postage is reduced for bulk mailouts. That's the case for any customer- those mailing out rubbish don't get better rates than anyone else mailing out the same quantity of items of the same size & weight.
Addressed bulk mail carries a higher premium than unaddressed bulk mail, due to the greater amount of processing involved.

Few local companies list P.O. box numbers, as they're advertising to bring in customers, not to get spam. The only way to get the P.O. box is to call them up, but most employees, and even several owners, have no clue what P.O. box they use.

So obviously they don't want to receive mail.

The US postal service haemorrhages billions of dollars a year.

USPS is actually a profitable service, if one discounts the politically vindictive burden imposed upon them by a Congressional vendetta: USPS is the ONLY 'business' in the US that was ordered to pre-pay its employee pension plan 75 years in advance within a very short time span, a crushing burden that--on the books--shows the USPS as always in the red.

USPS is the ONLY 'business' in the US that was ordered to pre-pay its employee pension plan

Weren't they also tasked with paying any federal pension that an employee had previously earned but not yet drawn, such as ex-military or epa, which increased the burden....but of course freed up federal money.

The USPS can refuse to deliver mail that is addressed incorrectly.

They will deliver mail with the state code in a Aa format. As far as I am concerned, that is definitive and anything that says otherwise (except an official USPS document) is mistaken.

You are saying that they will bin any letter being sent to the UK? From the look of it we cannot use Ldn, Bhm, S Devon, Bfst, and how about UKP and DEM and EU and UE and (from memory) SID which are legally enforceable abbreviations. How about USM? that's close to home

I think that there are two people here who would immediately translate osv into etc. but there are tens of millions who would immediately recognise that very common abbreviation

OK so you don't know those don't use American abbreviations.

You are saying that they will bin any letter being sent to the UK?

They have specific addressing specifications for international mail than are used for domestic mail.

http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immc1_008.htm

If the address isn't written to their standards, they can bin it and you don't have any recourse.

You are saying that they will bin any letter being sent to the UK?

They have specific addressing specifications for international mail than are used for domestic mail.

http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immc1_008.htm

If the address isn't written to their standards, they can bin it and you don't have any recourse.

and how does a holidaymaker know it is UK and not GB or should it be the other way round - I don't know? OK so I am being pernickety but the other abbreviations I used? Several of them are officially and internationally recognised but you would need to be in that business to automatically recognise them. Of course MXN you should guess but an ILS (not instrument landing system!)?

and how does a holidaymaker know it is UK and not GB or should it be the other way round - I don't know?

Ask the local postal service what their requirements are?

Certainly, if I were on a trip to the UK and needed to send mail back to the US I would check with the UK postal service for their requirements for sending international mail. I would not expect there to be universal standards for such things.

sejintenej

Of course MXN you should guess but an ILS (not instrument landing system!)?

Isn't MXN the crystal faced Superman villain who does everything backwards? ;)

ROTFL Mexican pesos and Israeli shekels are the answers - international currency abbreviations like USD and AUD

which are legally enforceable abbreviations.

By whom? Certainly not by any body with authority over the USPS.

sejintenej

which are legally enforceable abbreviations.

By whom? Certainly not by any body with authority over the USPS.

Donald Trump might like the USPS to run heaven but it ain't necessarily so - we have to live with (at least) the English reading population on this site.

We are discussing abbreviations (by implication) in stories on SOL and someone was moaning about the American habit of using two capital letters. I repeat my last line (below the bit you quoted)

OK so you don't know those don't use American abbreviations.

OK so you don't know those don't use American abbreviations.

And I don't particularly care, since what I was replying to was about USPS address requirements.

If you bother to go all the way back to the top of the thread you will see that I commented that

1. The abbreviations complained of are standard postal codes for the US states
2. These postal codes are used fairly ubiquitously in the US in non postal test based media as a short form of the state names, so a US based author may have used them without realizing it, or without thinking about the fact that they are abbreviations.

You are saying that they will bin any letter being sent to the UK? From the look of it we cannot use Ldn, Bhm, S Devon, Bfst, and how about UKP and DEM and EU and UE and (from memory) SID which are legally enforceable abbreviations. How about USM? that's close to home

OK so you don't know those don't use American abbreviations.

Personally, I don't mind unknown abbreviations because when I look them up, I learn something new. The same can be said for any terminology that the reader is unfamiliar with, not just abbreviations.

In the cases of an incorrect zip, they're more likely to return the letter rather than decipher the state code or address.

Mechanized postal sorting machines depend on the zip code; increasingly the 5 + 4 code is preferred, to the extent that business/mass mailers are required to use the 5 + 4 code. (IE, 98277-2364) If the optical scanner cannot read the zip code (missing, illegible, or incorrect) the piece is rejected for possible hand sorting.)

How many readers from outside the US (approximately one-third of SoL readers) would know what state was meant by 'MO'? My guess is about the same percentage as for the residents of Montana.

MO is Missouri, Montana would be MT. Most of the US population, and certainly anyone who regularly sends mail to Missouri addresses would know this.

MO is Missouri, Montana would be MT.

That whooshing sound is what was very obviously a joke going straight over your head.
I KNOW that MO is the code for Missouri, but my guess is many who live in Montana would not!

That whooshing sound is what was very obviously a joke going straight over your head.
I KNOW that MO is the code for Missouri, but my guess is many who live in Montana would not!

No, the people in Montana would clearly know their state codes as "MT" it is the people from outside of their state who are likely to make that mistake.

I KNOW that MO is the code for Missouri, but my guess is many who live in Montana would not!

Perhaps, but I doubt that it would be more than 10% of the population of Montana. After all, everyone in Montana would know that Montana is MT.

After all, everyone in Montana would know that Montana is MT.

I very much doubt that. Your opinion of the American education system is obviously much higher than mine.

I very much doubt that. Your opinion of the American education system is obviously much higher than mine.

It has nothing to do with the education system, it has to do with the postal system.

MT is neither an acronym or an abbreviation, it is a Postal Code. Everyone in Montana that uses the mail (everyone except very young children) has to know that the postal code for Montana is MT.

Everyone in Montana ... has to know that the postal code for Montana is MT.

You may be right. Perhaps all the uneducated complete morons who used to live in Montana fell over, landed in an envelope, and ended up living in Missouri.

Perhaps all the uneducated complete morons who used to live in Montana fell over, landed in an envelope, and ended up living in Missouri.

More likely:

1. Even they know the correct postal code for their own state.

OR

2. They never existed outside of your fevered imagination.

Life's too short to be bothered with anyone who ALWAYS insists on having the last word.
I am returning to my practice of responding to EVERYTHING you post quoting me with, "I refuse to respond to ANYTHING you post that quotes me".

Few Americans send personal letters anymore, and they use online bank accounts to send virtual checks

Most of the poor and uneducated (and even a lot of people who aren't poor or uneducated) don't have bank accounts , so no on-line banking, and no virtual checks.

Now you know why dedicated check cashing store front operations are so popular/ubiquitous. They generally won't cash personal checks, most of their business is cashing paychecks for people who don't have bank accounts.

Most of the poor and uneducated (and even a lot of people who aren't poor or uneducated) don't have bank accounts , so no on-line banking, and no virtual checks.

Here in Australia the only way to receive any money from the Government is to a bank account.
Even for Medicare (public health care) which used to allow you to go to the office & get cash for small amounts or cheques (or post out cheques) for larger amounts will now only pay money to a bank account.
There are very few checks used these days.

For shipping packages, anyone with an ounce of sense uses UPS.

UPS and FEDEX generally require addresses in the same format as required by the Post Office.

Yes, but they're fully staffed and well-funded, which the USPS isn't. Thus any attempts to figure out mistaken addresses are done purely by machine

Not always, if it makes it out the door for delivery, it is possible a residential carrier on a regular route in particular will often catch and correct an addressing error(across the street, next door). But it has to get to them first.

UPS and FEDEX generally require addresses in the same format as required by the Post Office.

I've had things shipped by both UPS and FEDEX which were delivered to the local USPS. My first encounter with this method of 'delivery' resulted in the packages being returned as 'address unknown' since it did not have a PO Box number and we do not have home delivery. Now anything I order online gets both mailing and physical addresses.

I've had things shipped by both UPS and FEDEX which were delivered to the local USPS.

Yeah, I've started seeing that too, where certain packages will travel via FedEx or UPS until it gets into my home town, then instead of going to FedEx or UPS, it goes to the USPS and the mailman then turns up with the package later on.

it goes to the USPS and the mailman then turns up with the package later on.

The problem where I live is that unless you have home delivery (which is only available if you do not live in-town) the USPS returns any package without your PO box number.

since it did not have a PO Box number

It is my understanding that UPS and FEDEX will not deliver to a P.O. Box address.

They won't, but they have no problem with dropping the package at the post office for final delivery. Unfortunately, not every post office offers delivery to a street address and if the only delivery address is the street address, the post office will mark it 'undeliverable - address unknown' and return it to the sender.

Unfortunately, not every post office offers delivery to a street address and if the only delivery address is the street address, the post office will mark it 'undeliverable - address unknown' and return it to the sender.

I really think these comments need to specify whether you're referring to USPS, or a different country.
In the USPS system, postal boxes (a P.O. Box number) are OPTIONAL, are physically located in a Post Office facility, and are RENTED on an annual basis. Failure to pay/renew the rental charge results in loss of the post office box, and loss of the address. All US residents are entitled to a physical street or rural free delivery (RFD) address. This may include additional "numbers" such as an apartment number as part of the address, or a box number as part of the address in a residential subdivision which provides outside mail deposit structures containing multible key-lock boxes for mail delivery convenience.

Incorrect.
The ONLY option where I used to live was to a PO Box. It was free of charge, but there was no roadside/household delivery available for those within a certain distance of the USPS office. My next door neighbors who were 10 miles away didn't have an option either.

Even the BBC doesn't use BBC English any more. Too white and middle class.

Okay, so I meant the Southern English accent.
I would accept 'Australian English' is different, but only if your list of different versions of English already includes about a dozen regional variations within the British Isles.
I am asked quite frequently by Asians if I am English. My accent is very typically Australian. It seems Asians tend not to notice my elongated vowels, but do notice the correctness of my grammar.
My point is 'Australian English' is far closer to the predominant Southern English accent than most northerners from within Britain. If you don't classify what they speak as being different from 'English English', it does not make sense to classify Australian English as anything more than just another regional variation of British English.

When are you Aussies going to man up and become a republic? :)

OUCH!
The difficulty is not a lack of support for becoming a republic, it is a lack of consensus for how to select the new Head of State.
There are advantages to having a Head of State who is seen as being above politics - a figurehead who only acts in very rare situations where an "impartial" umpire is needed to resolve a deadlock. None of the alternatives seriously suggested so far have been able to replicate that.
It is also very difficult to get changes to Australia's Constitution approved. It requires a referendum with a majority of the entire country, plus a majority in a majority of states, meaning majorities in at least 4 of 6 states.
The majority of Australians do not think the current system is ideal, but it has not been fixed because they do not think it's broken either.
Many republican supporters anxiously await the reign of King Fruit-Loops, and are hoping for a change then.

Please, someone tell me to shut the hell up!

Why, I'm finding your replies to be fascinating.

Please, someone tell me to shut the hell up!

Will do, but you will have to wait at the end of a very long queue. :-)

though we haven't passed any in a Very long time!

Because the government decided it could just make the constitution mean what it wanted without any need for amendments.

Sounds like how we handle Constitutional Amendments in the U.S.

Nope.
We have one national vote.
As I understand it, the requirement in the US is an amendment requires the approval of the federal Congress plus some number of state legislatures.

the requirement in the US is an amendment requires the approval of the federal Congress plus some number of state legislatures.

It is more complicated than that, although as far as I know all amendments have followed the congress plus state legislatures approach. It is constitutional to have a convention to pass amendments and then state legislatures to approve them. "Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

I believe it's 75% of all 50 states (i.e. at least 38 states have to approve it by a sizeable majority), at which point it's effectively forced on the Federal government.

You are correct on the 75% of states needed to ratify an amendment. However, it's still not forced on the federal government.

For an amendment to be put forward for ratification, it must first either be approved by 2/3rds of both houses of Congress or 2/3rds of the state legislatures must call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments.

While a constitutional convention could bypass Congress and force amendments on the Federal Government, the procedure has never been used before. And since the process for holding such a convention is not spelled out in the constitution, there is no telling what could happen if one ever does get called.

I believe it's 75% of all 50 states (i.e. at least 38 states have to approve it by a sizeable majority), at which point it's effectively forced on the Federal government. (It's been a while since we've had one, so I may be hazy on the details.)

Thus it's 50 state votes, as opposed to a single national vote (the national vote puts it on each states agenda to vote on).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
26th Amendment was ratified in 1971 after just 3 months and 8 days. (Making the minimum Federal requirement for the right to vote 18 years of age... The way its worded, states could allow persons under the age of 18 to vote, if they wanted to)

27th Amendment was ratified in 1992, 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days after being proposed by Congress. (Making it so Congressional pay raises take effect AFTER the following election cycle)

The Equal Rights Amendment "failed" (expired) in 1979, and expired again in 1982 after being given an extension.

The Voting Rights Amendment for Washington D.C. failed in 1985.

There are 4 "zombie" amendments still out there. One from 1789(regarding congressional apportionment, irrelevant now even if ratified), another from 1810(stripping citizenship of anyone accepting "a title of nobility" from a foreign nation), the third from 1861(an attempt to lure the Confederate states back to the Union peacfully, would have protected slavery from what became the 13th Amendment in 1865), and the fourth from 1924(child labor; rendered moot by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 surviving a Supreme Court challenge). (Congress didn't provide an "expiration date" for the amendments, so they will remain an option for ratification until someone finds a way to kill them, and bothers to do so)

And the Tea Party is allegedly a handful of states away from Convening a "Convention of the States for the Purpose of Limiting the Power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government"

One of Fergies kids would be ideal, since she's an Aussie

I never knew she was an Aussie. That explains a lot - and saves the Brits for having to apologise for her!
Seriously, one of her kids? That would lower the IQ of the whole continent by several points. On the other hand, you may receive a donation from the country for taking one of them. Ever thought about both?

The ALP is where all the Aussie socialist, communists, and our equivalent of the US Democrats hang out, and they're the political arm of the ACTU which is the peak union body, thus they must do as the union tells them to as regards policy.

For the benefit of Non-Australians ...
The ALP is a slightly left-of-centre party with a history going back over a hundred years. It is so well trusted by voters that in the recent past, in EVERY Parliament in the country, it has been both voted into office as the government, and then returned to office by satisfied electorates at following election(s).

By: @Ross at Play

For the benefit of Non-Australians
The ALP is a slightly left-of-centre party with a history going back over a hundred years. It is so well trusted by voters that in the recent past, in EVERY Parliament in the country, it has been both voted into office as the government, and then returned to office by satisfied electorates at following election(s).

By: @Ernest Bywater

Ross, the ALP is the political arm of the ACTU, just look at their Constitution, it's also the only party to have a Prime Minister who was in the middle of committing treason when he got voted out - and is now seen as the great leading light of the party. It's also the same party that wasted ten billion dollars of Defence budget so the then Minister of Defence could look good in a photo opportunity for gear we didn't want and couldn't use. They're also the ones who want us to take in more migrants while also reducing out carbon footprint - but haven't found a way of building more houses homes or shipping food to cities without increasing the carbon footprint.
The fact they can get re-elected shows how good they are at spreading BS around.

Can we agree that at least one of us is a raving lunatic, seeing only what they want to see, and anyone who reads our latest posts (quoted in full here) will know who, or they, are?

Support equality.
Why can't both of you be raving lunatics?

Why can't both of you be raving lunatics?

I EXPLICITLY stated that others WOULD recognise that if it were so.

Quote shown with my minor alterations in bold font
My : Can we agree that at least one of us is a raving lunatic,
Your: Well, since I stated proven and provable facts, We'll have to leave it up to others to decide where we (both) stand on the sanity line.

I only need to state one simple fact, which may be easily verified by anyone - wikipedia has results of all recent Australian elections.
In the last TWENTY YEARS there have been FIFTY ELECTIONS held in Australia for the one federal, six state, and two territory parliaments.
The leader of the ALP was sworn in to head the government after THIRTY-FIVE of those elections.
That is NOT a misprint! 70% of all elections in the country over the last 20 years have been won by the ALP.
The very sensible citizens of our fair land trust the ALP to govern sensibly - MOST of the time.

Now, can we agree to disagree about Australian politics and leave it out of this thread, so we can go back to talking about how to write better?

NOT YET!
If you were as interested in talking about writing as you are about making sure you get the last word then YOU would not have made that last post.
I HAD BEEN prepared to drop it after stating one simple fact, but YOU were the one who chose to continue.

It can also show how dumb voters can be.

WELL? What alternative do you suggest instead of democracy? Communism? Fascism? Bywaterism?
If you think Australian voters are so dumb and the ALP are a force for evil, where else would you prefer to live? Make sure you check out the level of payments for the invalidity pension and carers' benefits before answering that one!
Democracy is not perfect, but it generally works (as good as you could hope for) PROVIDED one party never becomes entrenched in power.
Australian voters are not dumb, they are VERY SMART. They regularly throw out governments of either side once they start becoming incompetent. That usually happens about ten or so years after they come to power. The voters consistently do that in every parliament in the country.
I would agree our governments (both state and federal) are often awful, but also I feel blessed to come from a country which I think has consistently had (in my lifetime) governments that are usually moderate, and among the most competent and clean in the world.

WELL? What alternative do you suggest instead of democracy?

A parliamentary democracy isn't a true democracy - that requires the populace to be consulted via referendums. The arrival of the internet makes that feasible but you can bet your bottom dollar the political elite will oppose it until their dying breaths (which won't happen until I rule the world and line up all such sleazebags against a brick wall). Look how they're trying to undermine the Brexit referendum - even our unelected judges are using their political leanings to try to derail it.

AJ

The arrival of the internet makes that feasible

No, direct democracy still isn't feasible. People would quickly tire of all the petty little shit that they have to vote on and every single issue will get taken over by those with a vested interest.

Donald Trump has promised to curb lobbyists.

Only those with opinions that differ from his.
Those that support him aren't lobbyists.

We desperately need apolitical, elected judges :(

Elected judges are even more political than appointed judges.

Perhaps we can combine two of your ideas and create a world where nothing ever goes wrong ...
1. A true democracy where everyone has the same rights.
2. Everyone has the right to choose which scumbags get lined up against the wall.

That way, there's little incentive for generations to continue the same atrocities and corruptions.

Instead they are incentivized to invent new atrocities and corruptions. :)

Here, being a judge is virtually a job for life.

US Federal judges are appointed for life. They are vastly less political then elected state judges. Of course, if there is serious misconduct by a Federal judge, they can be impeached by Congress.

Or, we could create a perfect forum - where nobody ever raves on about their delusional political views ...
Give everyone here the right to ban one other person.

We desperately need apolitical, elected judges

In Washington (state, not DC) we have elected judges. To get elected you need to be political. They don't run as members of political parties, but who recommends them in the voters' pamphlet helps people figure out what party they support. There are some municipal judges who don't have people listed as supporting them in the pamphlet, so not all judges are "political" but if they live in Western Washington they are democrats or socialists and in eastern Washington, Republicans. It costs money to run for any office. To get people to help pay campaign costs, you need to support issues that attract donors. Non-political elected officials (including judges) is one of those oxymorons, like military intelligence. (Does anyone know why my spellcheck wants me to spell it as oxymoron's?)

Does anyone know why my spellcheck wants me to spell it as oxymoron's?

Because 'spellcheck' is itself an oxymoron, thus it is obliged to misspell that word?
I recently started using the software at speelchekk.com. It at least lives up to all its claims about what it will do.

Do tell. More details please.

I thought everyone would get the joke - a spelling checker so bad it misses two spelling mistakes in its own name, 'speelchekk'.

(though the U.S. was with black's 3/5th vote!).

Pet peeve here, as it has become a VERY popular "talking point" over the past 8 years for some reason.

When the Constitution of the United States of America was being drafted, and they came to determining representation in the House of Representatives(and later, the Electoral College), the decision was to base the representation upon population.

However, the "free states" in the north(and some of the southern delegates as well) took exception to that idea. Because if they did a "full count" on the slaves, then it would create a powerful incentive for the South to either import, or breed, more slaves so they could pad their margin as it was. Considering that everybody knew nobody in their right mind was going to give a slave the right to vote.

So they started to haggle, the slave owners wanted the slave to count fully towards the Apportionment formula. The Abolitionists, you know, those guys who felt slavery was immoral, because they viewed slaves as human beings, not property. They took the position that the slaves shouldn't be counted at all, because they were being treated as property, not people.

Needless to say, they went several rounds on the issue, and the "compromise" was that 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted for the purpose of apportioning Seats in the House of Representatives. So thus we then end up with a slave(black) literally counting as "3/5ths of a person." Which isn't actually what the Constitution says by the way, it's more in line with how I phrased it above.

The slaves only counted as 3/5th of a person because the "SJW's" of that era made it so. And in this case, I think it was better than the alternative(full count).

Basically, people have no freaking clue as to the history behind what went on there. Most of the people who think they're expressing something profound when they bring this up only advertise their ignorance on the matter.

I'm familiar with how the compromise was developed, but we were discussing whether any 'true' democracies existed, so I was pointing out that the North wasn't any more democratic than the South was before the Civil War.

You need go no further than the matter that up until after the Civil War, the states decided who had the right to vote. Which in many states translated into landowners. (Ironically, and contrary to popular knowledge, this did mean that Women actually did on occasion have the right to vote, typically so long as they owned land, but other provisions were made in some states that were even more liberal in this regard. Of course, property rights being as they were, if they married, it defaulted to the husband and their personal voting franchise vanished.)

But yes, the US started out with a very restricted voting franchise that slowly broadened over time. While other "historical democracies" often had a very narrow band of eligible voters, and they never grew their ranks. The US, and the UK+its territorial possessions are somewhat unique in that respect. They typically grew their voter franchise without requiring a violent government overthrow in the process, normally at least. :)

I know some of those Colonial Transitions were more violent than others. (Such as our own here in the States, or for that matter, how you consider the Civil War in all of this. It was fought over slavery, but it resulted in black men getting the right to vote if nothing else thanks to the 14th Amendment; of course, so did every Citizen of the US who was Male, over the age of 21 at that time, and hadn't done something to lose that right.)

Not quite correct though any history text below college or university level (perhaps even advanced degree level) likely won't have the facts.

The US Civil War was fought over a number of, mostly, economic issues, slavery was one of those issues but not the principal one. Slavery was used as the rallying point for public consumption.

how you consider the Civil War in all of this. It was fought over slavery,

It was also a proxy war, between the French (north) and English (south), with the competing countries financing, supplying munitions, troops and beneficial trade. I would agree that economic reasons were probably the underlying cause, and not slavery.
History taught in schools of the country tends to be written by the victors, but objective history tends to be written by outsiders.

but objective history tends to be written by outsiders.

Objective history tends not to be written at all. Just because a given writer is an outsider, doesn't mean that the writer doesn't have an agenda or biases.

It was also a proxy war, between the French (north) and English (south), with the competing countries financing, supplying munitions, troops and beneficial trade.

Not so much, the British were pretty lukewarm about supporting the Confederacy from the onset. Their main interest was maintaining their ties to the cotton trade from the South. But between Operation Anaconda and the Emancipation Proclamation, they decided to largely keep clear.

The Monroe Doctrine suited their interests, and they didn't need to get themselves engaged in a Naval War with the Nation spearheading that charge.

The US Civil War was fought over a number of, mostly, economic issues, slavery was one of those issues but not the principal one. Slavery was used as the rallying point for public consumption.

Yes, it had major issues that were economic in nature. Such as Trade Tariffs enacted to help "protect/foster" the industrialization of the North, with the South bearing a lot of the expense due to their extensive foreign cotton/tobacco (export) trade giving them a ready means of importing foreign goods. Sometimes they suffered due to retaliatory tariffs against their goods as a consequence of the tariffs protecting the Northern Industries.

There were elements of State's Rights in the mix as well.

However, it seemed that Lincoln's personal position on Slavery was their catalyst for secession. Given that he won the Presidential election. So while the other points are valid enough, Slavery was the "triggering issue" that set off the proverbial powder keg. It wasn't the only reason, but it was the decisive one.

We desperately need apolitical, elected judges :(

How can someone that is elected be apolitical?

EDIT- Dominons Son beat me to it.

I have suggestions but I don't know whether they'd work in practice. But we need a method of making the judiciary accountable.

(To paraphrase Churchill) I think the method of judicial appointments for life is the worst way to do that, except for all the other ways that have been tried from time to time.

The benefit, though, is

You must have misinterpreted my post to have included the word though in your comment.

There is famous quote from Churchill which means - whatever problems democracy may have, everything else ever tried has been worse.

I totally support judicial appointments until retirement. That is the only method that allows judges to be truly apolitical. Sadly, once appointed, they do not all choose to behave apolitically.

But Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court are political bodies.

That is certainly so in US, but definitely NOT so in other countries.
It's hard to see how that happens (I see it largely as a product of the political culture of those countries), but there are countries where the decisions of courts are overwhelmingly apolitical, i.e. based on applying the facts of a case to the law, as written, and precedents.
The evidence for that is in some countries politicians very rarely bring any decisions of, and appointments to, any courts into the political debate.

Trial judges? Certainly. But Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court are political bodies.

Except trial judges mostly, based on what happens in Washington State, want to be promoted to higher courts, and often the more obvious ones who stand out to politicians who appoint them, or to voters who elect them, do get to move up. Trial judges whose impartial decisions offend don't often get to advance. Political activity outside court also helps improve visibility. Or sometimes nepotism helps judges to advance. If they don't know who you are its unlikely you will be appointed (or elected) to a higher court. Higher courts tend to come with more pay and sometimes longer tenure so it isn't unlikely that apolitical trial judges understand the way to higher court involves some politics.

It seems to me that the UK and US judiciary are more and more exceeding their legal purview and making political decisions.

Are they?
Or is it just a case of making legal decisions, based on the law as it stands, that have political ramifications?

Such as the case of a recently elected Senator here in Australia. Turns out he was an undeclared bankrupt. There were proceedings set to be taken against him to have him declared which he tried to have blocked or thrown out. They weren't.
His case was heard, and he was found to be bankrupt. Someone who is insolvent or bankrupt cannot serve in the Senate.
So now there is all sorts of carry on over who should or shouldn't replace him, should or shouldn't there be a by election held etc.

None of the decisions by the judges involved were political decisions. They were decisions based on law, that just happened to have significant political ramifications.

Maybe instead of not having judges involved in decisions that have political ramification, it would be better if politics weren't involved in the law (not possible, I know. But it's just a thought).
And the fact is there will be cases involving constitutional matters that will have significant political impacts- but their decisions should be based on the law regardless of the political fallout.
As you say, if the political effect is negative enough, maybe the law needs looking at- or maybe greater deterrents are required to deter people from involving themselves in such behaviour.

If a country's top judges can't come to a unanimous decision of what the law requires,

Seriously?
You expect different people of different backgrounds, education and upbringing to all have the same interpretation of laws that have been repeatedly amended and clarified?

they should pass the matter back to the elected representatives of government to pass clarifying legislation.

Which will just lead to even great ambiguity and confusion.

Many laws originally were quite straight forward in their intent and wording. But along come those that wish to argue about the intent and the letter of the law, so changes are made to clarify things. Which gives yet even more ammunition for those that wish to argue about the intent and the letter of the law, so more amendments are made in order to clarify things. Which results in even more opportunity for people to argue against. Rinse and repeat.

Are they?
Or is it just a case of making legal decisions, based on the law as it stands, that have political ramifications?

We have Supreme Court Justices who have openly talked about looking at judicial decisions made in international courts "to give guidance" on her interpretation of U.S. Law. And no, she wasn't referencing decisions that might have treaty implications.

Many laws originally were quite straight forward in their intent and wording. But along come those that wish to argue about the intent and the letter of the law, so changes are made to clarify things. Which gives yet even more ammunition for those that wish to argue about the intent and the letter of the law, so more amendments are made in order to clarify things. Which results in even more opportunity for people to argue against. Rinse and repeat.

Seems to me the best solution is to take them back to the original 'plain and simple' wording. No exceptions. No 'interpretations'. The 'clarifications' cause more confusion than they clear up.

If they can't then 1) What confidence can we have that lesser judges are capable of making correct decisions?

Lesser judges are dealing much mush lesser cases. Less facts, less laws, less fingers in the pie. Even so, people are people and no matter what the data given, not everyone will come up with the same conclusions given the same data in the same way.
Hence the ability to appeal.

And one of the reasons for cases once they have reached the High Court of Australia to be heard by (or up to) the Full Bench- 6 of the Justices of the High Court plus the Chief Justice of Australia for a total of 7 Judges.

2) It blows 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' completely out of the water because the law ceases to be absolute and becomes entirely dependent on the judge so everyone is ignorant of the law.

Since when have all laws been absolute?

Breaking in to someone's house without their consent is against the law. A criminal act.
But if you were to break in to a house that was on fire to help someone that you knew was in the house, even though they didn't call for help, it would be unlikely to result in charges of breaking and entering.

Cases which reach the highest court have frequently worked their way up from lower courts, and all too often the verdicts alternative between the parties as the case works its way up.

Welcome to the real world.
What is it you desire? Absolute law, or Justice? Personally, i'll go for Justice.

Like many other things, you only tend to hear about the failures of the legal system, not the vast majority of the times when it works.
Could it be better, hell yes. But it could be so, so much worse.

How unlikely is 'unlikely'?

Extremely.

The law shouldn't be a gamble.

No it shouldn't. But as people are involved, there will always be the human factor involved. Variability is one of the results of that.

@awnlee jawking

Cases which reach the highest court have frequently worked their way up from lower courts, and all too often the verdicts alternative between the parties as the case works its way up..

Welcome to the real world.

As I see it there are three problems.

A)The interaction of justice and politicians;

Grant's example of a senator being thrown out because he was an undischarged bankrupt exemplifies how things SHOULD be. In the UK the Prime Minister has just been told by the courts that she is wrong - she might not like it but she is subject to law.

B) Lack of common sense. Somewhere in the early 1980's the courts proclaimed that nobody could give any form of charge, mortgage or lien on their bank balance even if that was to support an otherwise legal transaction (IATA v British Eagle). They could charge anything imaginable provided it was not cash or cash equivalent! I never really understood their thinking despite long study. Absolute consternation; we lost our security for many loans. Many many years later in BCCI n°6 (I think it was case n°6) the courts reversed that ruling and sense prevailed.

C) Poor drafting of laws. As an example in 1948 a law was passed covering all aspects of company law. Attached to it was an addendum of examples of company formation documents. For the near 40 years that that law remained there were a few court cases about the meaning of a specific few words in the addendum but the act itself was and remains a model of clarity. (I won a substantial bet on exactly those words) IMHO those cases revolved about local use of language though no doubt I will be shot down in flames. Such clarity is rarely if ever seen now..

Another example of lack of clarity is the argument that Britain's signing of the Treaty of Rome (leading to membership of the EU) was in itself illegal and contrary to the Constitution.

What is it you desire? Absolute law, or Justice? Personally, i'll go for Justice.

Like many other things, you only tend to hear about the failures of the legal system, not the vast majority of the times when it works.

Could it be better, hell yes. But it could be so, so much worse

there will always be the human factor involved. Variability is one of the results of that.

but we must keep justice and government totally separated, government not being able to control the courts save through proper decently worded legislation.

Don't you think it strange how the High Court and Supreme Court came up with completely different reasons for needing a parliamentary vote on Brexit?

NO!
While I don't doubt judicial activism is increasing in the UK, this case is not an example of that.
The appeals courts were asked a political question, for which there were no precedents to guide them. The eventual answer was: the Parliament must decide; the Government cannot decide without consulting them. That seems the most apolitical judgement the courts could have found.
I share your concern, but think the Westminster model is, by far, the least bad model ever tried.

We should agree to disagree.
I would be content if superior courts always decided the Parliament must decide whenever the written law and precedents were unclear.
As for your solution of electing judges, I think experience shows that always results in much more interference in politics by the judiciary.

I do not want to debate Brexit, but in general I would say the best way to make decisions is leaving them to an elected bunch of 600 odd party hacks, most of whom are incapable of performing a real job.

Ross at Play
I would be content if superior courts always decided the Parliament must decide whenever the written law and precedents were unclear.
Awnlee Jawking
The UK doesn't have a written Constitution, and nobody has written down a complete version of Common Law, so good luck with that.

Firstly, there are judges sitting in the House of Lords who are quite capable of drawing the attention to weaknesses in legislation; sometimes they get their way, sometimes not.

The UK suffers from too many laws which are not codified as is done in some other countries. I did a Freedom of Information enquiry and was given access to what they reckon is every parliamentary and ministerial act etc. still on the books going back to about 1150. (and each one showed where clauses had been removed subsequently!) Magna Carta is famous but only one of its many clauses has not been cancelled!

The problem is jurisprudence - decisions and interpretations given to those acts. That side of it is too immense to think about and judges employ staff fulltime to simply search previous cases for precedents.

Constitution: I don't know how and where this arises - some is law, some is custom which must have been commented upon previously.

Common law: to write this down in full would be close to impossible and irrelevant to most people. Who, apart from the few, wants to know the local "law" governing bait diggers on Pendeen Sands?????

It is parliamentary law (act) which says that the Stannary Courts can decide that laws passed in Westminster shall not apply in the Duchy of Cornwall but it is Common Law which covers the appointment of the Stannary Court; crazy!

ended; PC gone down!

And one of the reasons for cases once they have reached the High Court of Australia to be heard by (or up to) the Full Bench- 6 of the Justices of the High Court plus the Chief Justice of Australia for a total of 7 Judges.

Another difference between the US and Australia, cases that go before our Supreme court are always heard and voted on by the full court, excluding the odd recusal now and then.

Someone elected by a write-in campaign because they refuse to run. Probably the best possible person for the job. :)

Anyone who desires the authority of elected office is unworthy of it. :)

Nor did you argue about the NBN waste of money.

The only waste of money is the Coalition gutting it to make the NBN include wireless, satellite & Fibre to the Node. It should all be Fibre to the premises.

The first 80% of the money spent on the NBN by Gillard and Rudd was wasted simply because all it did was duplicate existing high speed Internet services to people in the cities instead of providing any services to people who didn't already have it.

Yep, because it couldn't just be done as a public infrastructure programme, it had to be done as a business and so it required a return on investment.
Putting in the necessary infrastructure for all the places that had no existing broadband access would have been the ideal way to go- unfortunately since the NBN is a business it was necessary to start it in places that already had higher speed internet in order to get a start on the return on investment.
It would have been so much better as a straight out government infrastructure project, but there was no chance of that ever occurring.
So they went with option B.

I forgot to add: Even the original NBN plan was never going to be fibre to the premises outside of the major cities where they already had fibre in the street, the bulk of the country was always getting a wireless node service.

Not so.
The original plan was for Fibre to the Premises for the majority of households, including many smaller towns, villages and communities that already had landline services.
Yes there were (and still are) many places that don't have such services and wireless/microwave was meant to be the main method for connecting them, then even those were wound back to satellite.

prior to the NBN legislation Telstra had a plan in place to run a fibre optic trunk into my current town, and offer highspeed Internet in late 2013.

Which would have been wonderful for you, but they had no plans for 100,000s of other people all around the country that still had little more than (occasional) dialup services.
Telstra had no desire to put in better infrastructure not just because of the NBN, but because of them having to make it available to other Telcos at rates they (Telstra) didn't consider appropriate.

The only places those plans called for fibre to the premises was in the the cities where fibre to the street already existed.

Here in Darwin the NBN Co spent the last couple of years either using existing telecom runs or digging their own throughout not only the CBD but also the suburbs and then running fibre in them. Once that was done, then they were able to run fibre to the premises.
There was no existing fibre other than the main backbone to the main & sub exchanges, and a couple of spur runs in the CBD.

As to the Telstra plans, they had multi-years plans based on what they could do with the money they had available to work with. Thus they only planned out what they knew they could afford to pay for.

Yep, and the fact is huge regions would be on little more than dial up for years to come, and others on ADLS1 with no chance of improvement for decades.

NBN Co will be the only organisation to own any landline phone services within Australia and thus do awaya with all competition on landline services.

There is no competition for landline services even now. Most people that have a landline these days only use it for Internet, not phone.

We will finally be where we should have been with the initial privatisation of Telstra (which shouldn't have been done IMHO).
There should have been the network/infrastructure portion, and then the retail portion.
The only competition these days is in Mobile, and even so that is very much only for city & larger regional centre based populations. For everyone else, it's Telstra or a provider that uses their network as the other Telcos are all about a return for their investors, not providing as much coverage for as many people as possible.

and that's still the situation under NBN several years later.

And that all boils down to the political wrangling over the whole thing.
If it had been done the way it was initially planed before all the compromises, and was done purely as an infrastructure programme, not as a business in it's own right, those that had next to nothing would now have excellent internet & phone services, those that had poor or crappy phone lines & internet would also have (or be close to having) excellent internet & phone services, and those in the cities & larger regional areas would still have the benefits of ADSL2+

Given the scale of the project, it was always going to take a minimum of a couple of decades to roll most of it out (short of throwing a mind boggling amount of money at it & having all of the people involved unemployed & unemployable at the end of it, or having a few 100,000 people here on 457 visas).

However since the whole thing became a political issue it was either abandon the project as a lost cause, or go with the lesser & crappier option that will take longer for the benefits to reach those that need them most. But at least there is a chance of it occurring, and it will be better than what was on offer before.

Staying with what we had (regardless of Telstra's long term plans) would have resulted in the cities having great internet, smaller regional towns having OK internet, and everyone else having absolute crap internet, if any.

And over time the cities would have got 100Mb & eventually Gb internet, while remote areas would have been lucky just to be getting functional dialup.

I agree that when you're one of the places that was about to get improved internet with what was, and end up being at the end of the queue with the replacement it sucks big time.

That still doesn't alter the fact that the replacement (even as much as it has been jerked around with for political purposes) is better than what existed, and still better than what had been planned for the future for what existed for the vast majority of people (I had ADSL2+, I've got 100Mb/s NBN and it's like comparing ADSL1 with dialup).

instead of setting up a commercial operation to first duplicate what existed, they could have spent half of the same amount of government money on either a special Telstra project or a new project with the initial aim at of fibre trunks to rural Australia and they would've had 99.99% of the population on ADSL 1 level or better within 5 years.

Money spent with Telstra wouldn't have helped that much.

With the Customer Service Obligation, other Telcos wanting to use their infrastructure, and the decline in landline use any upgrades or improvements done by Telstra were done with the utmost reluctance.

If they were a separate network/retail organisation- then yes by all means. But they're not, so it wouldn't have been a good move.

In those few areas with coax instead of fibre as the backbone, upgrading those would have improved things in the short term, but in the long term the costs would have been even greater than they already will be to eventually bring everything up to better than ADSL2+ speeds.

Copper doesn't have the bandwidth, wireless (regardless of advances in protocols) doesn't have the bandwidth, so fibre it is.

If you're going to spend a significant amount of money on a job to modernise something, you want it to last. No good spending big bucks on something that will be at the same level of maxed out capacity as what you're upgrading, in less than a decade. Ideally it should be good for 25+ years. ie able to grow to meet demand for that entire peri, not just remain serviceable even though the demand exceeded it's capacity 15 years ago.

If the new technology replaces existing technology, but can work with it, it does complicate things. Do you start from scratch, or make use of the existing technology & gradually replace it? Given the condition of the existing network (it really was very run down in many areas, regardless of what Telstra might have said on the issue) and what was intended to be the final outcome, replacing the network in it's entirety was the way to go. Using the new network to support parts of the old network would have been nice, but the cost of doing so would have been much greater than just starting from scratch. Repair, renovate or demolish & rebuild?

If cost wasn't an issue, if this was an out & out infrastructure project then they could have started with those that needed it, and made their way towards those that already had something decent in place. But cost was an issue, not just with the opposition at the time but also for the right of the ALP. So they created a business, and the project is run as a business. It's not about providing a service, it's about giving a return on investment and the fastest way to do that was to start in the areas that would cost the least to develop, and give the greatest return. ie high population density areas.

Gone are the days of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the Murray-Darling irrigation system, the Trans-Australian Railway, the Beef Roads. Things aren't done the best way possible in order to maximise their life & usefulness. They are done down to a price in order to increase the return on investment, in the shortest time possible- even if it impacts on the overall life & usefulness of the project.

Gone are the days of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the Murray-Darling irrigation system, ...

I have returned from my daily walk to the mall for coffee. I sat there wondering if either of you two recalled all of the "controversies" during the development of "the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Snowy Mountains Scheme", and other mega-projects.

I've been out of the country since before the NBN started. From what I can see it is progressing, but by the time it is finished it will:
# Not completely achieve the original objectives, and
# Come in some multiple of time behind schedule, and some orders of magnitude over-budget.

I would consider that a great success! I look at what happens when other advanced economies attempt projects of a similar scale and feel proud to come from a country which is actually capable of getting such important things done. Once the pain of getting there is over, the ungrateful electorate will take the benefits it then enjoys for granted.

As for how well this project has been managed so far, my impression is the Rudd-Gillard governments stuffed it up so badly the voters tossed them out, and they fully deserved that.

I sat there wondering if either of you two recalled all of the "controversies" during the development of "the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Snowy Mountains Scheme", and other mega-projects.

All of them were controversial in their day, particularly the Snowy Mountains Scheme and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
But looking back over 50 or more years, even with the huge delays and cost overruns, whey were well worth every cent.

# Not completely achieve the original objectives, and
# Come in some multiple of time behind schedule, and some orders of magnitude over-budget.

Yep, just like the projects I listed before.
And given the direction economies are heading, and the requirements for people to always be connected, the NBN (or similar) is essential.

As for how well this project has been managed so far, my impression is the Rudd-Gillard governments stuffed it up so badly the voters tossed them out, and they fully deserved that.

The NBN was the only reason they didn't lose more badly than they did IMHO. There were so many other things they buggered up that pissed people off that got them voted out, but the coalition's platform of winding the NBN back, cutting back on fibre to the premises in favour of more fibre to the node probably made the support for Labor higher than it otherwise would have been.

The NBN was the only reason they didn't lose more badly than they did

I would not know; they were doomed.
I think "Judy" would have done OK if "Punch" had not been constantly trying to burn the house down.

I think "Judy" would have done OK if "Punch" had not been constantly trying to burn the house down.

Yeah, that didn't do them any favours.

Copper doesn't have the bandwidth, wireless (regardless of advances in protocols) doesn't have the bandwidth, so fibre it is.

Not quite true. Unless you're talking Cable TV

Twisted Pair Copper wire, such as that used by the phone company, has typically been able to nearly match pace with the speed of fiber optic cables. The proof in the pudding, as it were, would be that most wired networking technology uses CAT5/CAT6/CAT6A... Which is twisted pair copper.

The "trick" here is that they only work in such capacities over increasingly short distances. The Various iterations of ADSL technology are such examples of utilizing this type of technology, typically from a mile or so away. The closer that "end point" gets to the home, the higher the potential speeds become. Or alternately, just wait for another generation of technology to come along and just swap the units at the end-point.

Of course, the problem the phone system has is that the existing twisted pair infrastructure wasn't consistently shielded, and most (older) homes are often poorly wired at best internally, which just plays further havoc on the service quality the end user will get. But typically the worst offender for them is their in-home wiring.

Edit: It could additionally be pointed out that if they're like my own phone company, most "newer" home installs(in the past 30-ish years) had a cable run to the home connection/interface box that was capable of supporting anywhere from 3 to 6 lines(IIRC, they said 6, but it was the Early 90's when they installed it, so I could be remembering wrong). It wasn't just a single strand of twisted pair running to the home. So the phone company has "other ways" to "push more signal" than trying to cram more data down a single set of twisted pair.

Unlike the Cable Company, which only has that single wire. ;)

(to paraphrase) Copper wire can nearly match fiber optic cables

Perhaps, but not relevant in this case. Rightly or wrongly, the voters made the decision!

One party won an election with this policy as their main campaign promise. There were two things about it that seemed attractive to voters.
# One was that everyone in the country was guaranteed a top-quality service - eventually.
# The other was the infrastructure would not be controlled by one widely despised company - with a reputation for terrible service when government controlled, and monopolistic practices since being privatised.

Not quite true. Unless you're talking Cable TV

Very true, regardless of the copper technology.

Twisted Pair Copper wire, such as that used by the phone company, has typically been able to nearly match pace with the speed of fiber optic cables.

Sorry, it doesn't even come close.
ADSL2+ is as good as it gets for copper phone line data, and is maxed out at 24Mb/s and you have to be right next to the exchange to get those speeds.
Coax (for exchange to premises) tops out at around 52Mb/s
Fibre, as of 10 years ago, could support 10GB/s over 80km.
2014 and a single fibre record was set of 255Tb/s (but only over 1km).

The proof in the pudding, as it were, would be that most wired networking technology uses CAT5/CAT6/CAT6A... Which is twisted pair copper.

And they are networking cables which are good (at best) for up to 100 Metres, not telephony cabling which has to be good for kilometers.

Of course, the problem the phone system has is that the existing twisted pair infrastructure wasn't consistently shielded, and most (older) homes are often poorly wired at best internally, which just plays further havoc on the service quality the end user will get. But typically the worst offender for them is their in-home wiring.

Here in Australia none of the pit to premises phone cable is shielded, it's all just unshielded twisted pair.

Edit: It could additionally be pointed out that if they're like my own phone company, most "newer" home installs(in the past 30-ish years) had a cable run to the home connection/interface box that was capable of supporting anywhere from 3 to 6 lines(IIRC, they said 6, but it was the Early 90's when they installed it, so I could be remembering wrong). It wasn't just a single strand of twisted pair running to the home.

From very vague memories, here we generally had what could be considered 2+2 (4 pairs; for 2 lines, with 2 spares). At a previous house we had 2 phone lines connected, with 2 spare pairs left.

ADSL2+ is as good as it gets for copper phone line data, and is maxed out at 24Mb/s and you have to be right next to the exchange to get those speeds.

That's odd, my AT&T U-verse gives me cable style TV and internet service on copper phone wire and I get 29mbps download on speed tests.

That's odd, my AT&T U-verse gives me cable style TV and internet service on copper phone wire and I get 29mbps download on speed tests.

Do you have 2 lines?
All the information I can find shows ADSL2+ being limited to 24Mb/s. ADSL2+ supports port bonding, so it's possible to have 2 ADSL2+ connections bonded to give a single connection with up to 48Mb/s.

Does your modem tell you the ITU connection type? eg G.992.5 is ADSL2+, G.992.3 is ADSL2. G.998.x is ADSL2+ with bonding.

Ah, further searching comes up with VDSL2, which apparently is supported by your provider with the appropriate hardware.

It looks like it's maximum speed is 350Mb/s right at the source, but drops to 100Mb/s at 500 Metres.
At 1.6km it's good for around 24MB/s (ADLS2+ speed, right next to the exchange). However it does drop significantly to 1-4Mb/s at 4-5km from the exchange.

Learn something new every day.

Do you have 2 lines?
All the information I can find shows ADSL2+ being limited to 24Mb/s. ADSL2+ supports port bonding, so it's possible to have 2 ADSL2+ connections bonded to give a single connection with up to 48Mb/s.

All U-verse service regardless of the bandwidth you are paying for, is delivered on 2 copper wire pairs.

Though it was also sharing one of those lines with my POTS service.

However, AT&T does not refer to U-verse as ADSL2+, and you get both the internet service and Cable style TV service over the same two phone lines.

The TV-service and internet are usable at the same time with no interference with each other So there is considerably more bandwidth than just the internet service.

Also, unlike ADSL, the U-verse service does not require filters on the phone jacks to keep the U-verse service from interfering with the POTS phone service.

All the information I can find shows ADSL2+ being limited to 24Mb/s.

PS: Just because 24mb/s is the limit for ADSL2+, don't assume that ADSL2+ is the limit for what can be achieved on copper wire.

PS: Just because 24mb/s is the limit for ADSL2+, don't assume that ADSL2+ is the limit for what can be achieved on copper wire.

However, AT&T does not refer to U-verse as ADSL2+, and you get both the internet service and Cable style TV service over the same two phone lines.

Nope.
As I mentioned in the bottom of my post, you'd be using a VDSL service if you're not using a bonded ADSL2+ service.

Also, unlike ADSL, the U-verse service does not require filters on the phone jacks to keep the U-verse service from interfering with the POTS phone service.

True- it's a fully digital connection so normal phones won't work on it even with a filter. They have to be connected to the phone port on your modem/router, or the VoIP port if it has one.

By killing off the support for a phone (fax and other analogue devices that can be used with a ADSL2+ connection) you gain the extra benefit of all that extra bandwidth.

True- it's a fully digital connection so normal phones won't work on it even with a filter. They have to be connected to the phone port on your modem/router

Wrong. I had bog standard analog POTS service on (one) of the same lines used by the U-verse service, no filters and no connection to the modem, though I recently switched to using VOIP service through U-verse to save some money.

According to AT&T, U-verse isn't any version of DSL.

Wrong. I had bog standard analog POTS service on (one) of the same lines used by the U-verse service, no filters and no connection to the modem, though I recently switched to using VOIP service through U-verse to save some money.

*Shrug*
It would be a good thing if your were to update the many FAQs on the net to reflect that fact as it would appear that it's rather rare for a provider to also support POTS on a VDSL connection, and where it is mentioned (2 cases I managed to find in the end) it also says a filter is required, just like for ADSL.

It would be a good thing if your were to update the many FAQs on the net to reflect that fact as it would appear that it's rather rare for a provider to also support POTS on a VDSL connection, and where it is mentioned (2 cases I managed to find in the end) it also says a filter is required, just like for ADSL.

So, that just means that U-verse isn't VDSL, and it isn't ADSL.

ETA: Why should I need to update the FAQs for technologies that aren't AT&T U-verse? And that has been my point from the beginning, AT&T U-verse doesn't have the limitations of those technologies because it is something different.

The fact they can get re-elected shows how good they are at spreading BS around.

The fact they get elected shows the other side is even worse & the electorate here isn't quite as stupid as elsewhere, however the nutter groups are gaining in popularity.
Stupidity is on the rise.

The fact they get elected shows the other side is even worse & the electorate here isn't quite as stupid as elsewhere, however the nutter groups are gaining in popularity.

One of the things I love most about our fair country is how savvy its voters are. They almost always a new government a second chance. By the next election one party has been in power for about 10 years. That's when governments from BOTH sides begin running out of constructive ideas, start getting lazy, losing touch with the electorate, and sometimes even corrupt. It doesn't take long for the electorate to figure out their government has become incompetent, and once the electorate sees that they throw them out, usually in a landslide.
I think this results in the ideal state for any democracy - both sides get the opportunity to introduce the programs most important to them, but neither stays in long enough to move onto the crazy ideas further down their wish list.

I think our preferential voting system is largely responsible for allowing this to happen. Unlike first-past-the-post systems which tend to completely entrench two parties, this system allows independents to occasionally win seats from the major parties. The major parties CANNOT JUST concern themselves with the left vs right battle. If their policies drift too far from what their natural supporters want, they risk loosing seats to independents. The result is BOTH sides never stray very far from the 'centre'.

One of Fergies kids would be ideal, since she's an Aussie.

NOPE! She is Endglish, and always has been.
I suspect he's confused her with Princess Mary of Denmark, who was born and raised an Australian

Would you accept Harry ? - though I am not sure if he has any 'royal blood' in him. The English need to get rid of some of the useless buggers....and I approve of the royalist / parliamentary system there.

It will be interesting to see if the UK tries to re-open commonwealth trade now it is parting ways with the EU, though I am not sure why any would want them back after the way they appeared to be summarily dumped because of EU rules. That is the impression I got as a Brit at the time, so while it may not be accurate, it is certainly the perception that the commonwealth was just dumped.

Sorry, I thought it was her who had the Aussie connection, one of them does.

Sarah Ferguson has a sister who now lives in Australia, but their family is English.

Shhh
He is giving an opening to export that line of the family to an unsuspecting colony....

If you speak one way, but write in another form Sorry, but that's not how slang is determined. If you speak one way, but write in another form entirely, than the speech is considered 'slang' (my own unofficial definition).

Perhaps AJ will accept the OED definition of the word 'slang'? :)

Very informal words and expressions that are more common in spoken language, especially used by a particular group of people, for example, children, criminals, soldiers

CW is correct that slang implies spoken, not written, language - but there is an extra requirement that its use is limited to a particular group.

Very informal words and expressions that are more common in spoken language, especially used by a particular group of people, for example, children, criminals, soldiers

CW is correct that slang implies spoken, not written, language - but there is an extra requirement that its use is limited to a particular group.

That "group" can be huge! I would say "plates of meat" is (note the singular) is slang and if you agree then you have to admit that Cockney is a form of slang. Carioca (a version of Portuguese) has umpteen words spoken but not written and not generally understood 250 miles away.

That "group" [users of a slang expression] can be huge!

Yes, it can be.
I do NOT regard 'slang' as a derogatory term, or implying the word in not valid. I see it as a warning some audiences will not be familiar with the word.

Okay, so I meant the Southern English accent.

Could you mean Received Pronunciation?

I am asked quite frequently by Asians if I am English.

Whereas I've been asked if I'm Australian when I was in Atlanta, Georgia. I've never been to Australia, born and raised about 40 miles west of London but moved north at age 13ish, so my accent shifted slightly from southern England but didn't get to be the typical northern English.

Could you mean Received Pronunciation?

I was trying to avoid using that term. It is usually understood to be a very posh-sounding voice, like the BBC insisted newscasters use for a long time, but they have since relaxed that policy.
I may have the wrong term, but I'm thinking of an "ordinary" English accent that is neither distinctively from some region, or sounds like the speaker has a stick shoved up their arse.

Your experience of being mistaken for an Australian kind of confirms my hypothesis. There really is not that much difference between "ordinary" English and Australian accents. They are close enough to be mistaken by someone who does not notice the longer vowel sounds of Australians use.
Our vocabulary is quite different, but I consider that is a regional dialect of the same language, rather than a different variety of the language, as American English certainly is.

My point was starting this was frustration at the widespread belief that the WRITTEN FORM of Australian is unique. It is not! We use standard British English when writing. When Australians express differences of opinion here it is not because we are Australian, it is because either:
(a) We think the British style is correct, and do not recognise the American style is different; or
(b) We are mistaken about what the correct British style is.

Do Australian kids still use textbooks from the UK when learning 'English'?

Where textbooks are printed is not relevant. The grammar, etc. are the same as in the UK.
All governments, businesses, schools, publishers in Australia use standard British-style English.

have you been reading Island Delight by rlfj? He makes fun of uniquely Australian vocabulary.

I did not think he was "making fun of the uniquely Australian vocabulary". I thought he did bloody good job of using it.

I did make one suggestion. He had wanted a list of three things Aussie and Kiwi males could sit around and talk about endlessly. He was spot on with two of his choices, rugby and beer. The third one he tried was soccer.

I suggested that was unrealistic, and he needed to change that to cricket. He decided to make the change - as I was the second person to make that suggestion within just a few weeks of the story being first posted.

Maybe Tennis? The Australian Open is going on now. Or maybe its just over. It is almost always tomorrow there.

Maybe Tennis? The Australian Open is going on now. Or maybe its just over.

There was a reason TWO readers suggested the same change, from soccer to cricket.
The story needed two sports that both Australia and New Zealand are good enough at to be a natural topic of conversation between males from those countries. It could only be rugby union for the Kiwi, and that is a winter sport. The most popular summer sport in both countries is cricket.
You could think of rugby union + cricket having a similar status there as is held by (American) football + baseball in the US.

It is almost always tomorrow there.

Yes. At this moment it is still Thursday morning in the US, but already well into Friday on the Australian east coast (about 90% of the population).

The Australian Open is going on now. Or maybe its just over.

It's hard to say if it's over?
It appears to be almost over ... but I'm wondering if Australia has slipped into a time-loop and is currently reliving some time from about a decade ago.
The Williams sisters are the finalists for the women's singles. They are 35 and 36 years old.
Federer (35) is through to the men's final, and Nadal (30) will play in the other semi. They were both dead and buried a couple of years ago.
Since a set of results like that is impossible, my conclusion is Australia must currently be within some sort of time-loop.

An educated Australian would surely tone it down if having a conversation with speakers of other English dialects.

Mostly, but we are inclined to treat Kiwis like honorary Aussies when discussing anything except sports.

Ross at Play
An educated Australian would surely tone it down if having a conversation with speakers of other English dialects.

or follow the example of one esteemed Australian judge and use French!!!!!!!!!!!

I learnt a new aussie word though - grouse.

Uh, it's in use in Idaho as well. Pretty rare, probably mostly from people who've been to Australia, or spent a lot of time around Aussies, but it's up here too. Of course, having the Sage Grouse up and around there there probably plays a role as well.

That's what I've been ranting about all this time, yet no one seems willing to believe it.

It's not something I had heard about, but I believe it.

There are some areas in the US where residential home delivery is not available, everyone has to have a post office box. And, no, they aren't free even in the areas where they are the only way to get mail at all.

So, if you don't pay for a PO box, how does the government get their official mail to you?

By heavily armed bounty hunters :)

If they only have your PO Box number they can't serve it anyway. I don't know if it is the same in all states, but where I have lived it has always been the job of a sheriff, and divorce documents or service of a court notification were hand delivered.
I am unsure on this point, but I believe a driving license should have a physical address on it as well, so I wonder how those are delivered. I was fortunate that the USPS did (incorrectly) put physical address items in my PO Box (which was free, despite comments above that they aren't). In an adjacent county there were compounds in the area that didn't have PO Boxes or mail delivery, so I don't know how some of them got their welfare, but kids were home schooled, nobody cared about driving legalities, and quite a few probably 'didn't exist' as far as the system was concerned.
This was in one of the lower 48 states, with a senator known as 'whorehouse harry'.

You can get your mail delivered to General Delivery. The USPS will hold your mail for 30 days. If the town or city has multiple postal stations, you must have it send to the main post office Zip Code. Before 1896 citizens in rural areas of the US had to go to the post office to pick up their mail or hire a private delivery service to pick it up for them. In 1896 Rural Free Delivery came into existence. Hawaii didn't get RFD until 1918.

I believe that Supai, Arizona 86435 still has their mail delivered by mule train. It is 8 miles below the rim of the Grand Canyon and may be the most remote populated area in the contiguous US.

Sorry Boyd the canyon is deep but not quite that deep.

It is 8 miles below the rim of the Grand Canyon

It is 8 miles from the nearest road though.

I really think these comments need to specify whether you're referring to USPS, or a different country.

All of my comments have been in reference to the USPS. We have a rented box and my family has had the same one for almost 50 years. Before UPS and FEDEX started using the USPS for final delivery I never had a problem with packages being delivered to my street address by either carrier. It was only after the new final delivery by the USPS that I began having problems.

I think I need to go have a talk with our local P.O. folks.

In the USPS system, postal boxes (a P.O. Box number) are OPTIONAL, are physically located in a Post Office facility, and are RENTED on an annual basis. Failure to

You are wrong, there are some US Zip Codes in the US where home delivery is not available. You have to rent a Post Office box or you can't get mail at all.

I lived in a zip code like that for a while in the state of Wisconsin. And while it was in a mostly rural county, the zip code I was in was the County Seat and the largest municipality in the county.

You are wrong, there are some US Zip Codes in the US where home delivery is not available. You have to rent a Post Office box or you can't get mail at all.

Perhaps I am wrong, but out here in the west we've never encountered such a situation. The USPS delivers to insanely remove areas; typically using rural mail contractors.

If that is truly the case in areas of Wisconsin, then how is your official residence listed on your driver's license? You are legally a resident of P.O. Box nnnn? Or if the state insists on a physical address for your license, how do they get state mail to you? Or does your license carry BOTH a P.O. Box number, and a street address.

Next question: is there no such thing as rural free delivery RFD addresses in certain sections of Wisconsin? In which case, how are addresses determined in remote rural areas along country roads and lanes?

If that is truly the case in areas of Wisconsin, then how is your official residence listed on your driver's license?

I don't know about Wisconsin, but my 'official address' on my driver's license is a P.O. Box. I'm sure they have my '9-1-1' address on file somewhere. I live in town and am not offered home delivery. If I lived outside of town, I could get RFD.

I don't know about Wisconsin, but my 'official address' on my driver's license is a P.O. Box.

Here in the NT Australia (and i'm pretty sure the rest of the country) the address on your drivers license has to be your residential address.
You can have a different postal address (a lot of people do), but the address on the license has to be your residential address.

If that is truly the case in areas of Wisconsin, then how is your official residence listed on your driver's license? You are legally a resident of P.O. Box nnnn? Or if the state insists on a physical address for your license, how do they get state mail to you? Or does your license carry BOTH a P.O. Box number, and a street address.

In New construction neighborhoods it is typical for the post office to have a P.O. Box type drop box included. This is so the postal worker can deliver to the entire neighborhood/street or block in one stop, saving time, and thus saving money for the USPS. In more extreme cases(developer doesn't comply), I could see that hitting the point that the post office then simply refuses to deliver, and they have to get a P.O. Box somewhere else.

There still should be a "911 Address" though, for city and emergency services, if nothing else.

If that is truly the case in areas of Wisconsin, then how is your official residence listed on your driver's license?

You still have a street address, even if the local post office doesn't offer home delivery. It is the local city/county governments that determine your street address. The only parts of your mailing address that are determined by the post office are your zip code and your P.O. box number if you have one.

The if you have a P.O. box by necessity or choice, the DMV has both addresses as both must be listed on application forms, but only your physical address is printed on your driver's license.

Next question: is there no such thing as rural free delivery RFD addresses in certain sections of Wisconsin? In which case, how are addresses determined in remote rural areas along country roads and lanes?

Here's the funny thing, most of the areas in Wisconsin that don't get home delivery aren't rural. They are mostly small to mid size towns in rural areas. The people out of town on the county roads and lanes get mail delivery to rural mailboxes along the side of the road.

If you get out in really rural areas in Wisconsin, where the local government doesn't provide street addresses, you will see red metal address signs where driveways meet roads. These signs have two 3 or 4 digit number on them. I can't find a good reference for them on-line, but my dad used to call them fire service addresses.

For shipping packages, anyone with an ounce of sense uses UPS.

Where they're going to need their postal mailing address in order to take delivery. Which would include knowing what the abbreviation code is for their state. :)

You got me there. I meant: UPS = United Parcel service, not United Postal Service.

You missed what I was saying though. UPS and FedEx both use the postal codes as well. So even the guy buying things on Amazon would have to know what their local mailing address is, including the State code. At least until they enter it into the shipper's database.

UPS and FedEx both use the postal codes

When they merge the combined operation will be called "Fed UP."

I'm sure Americans are loving the aussie politics stuff, just as we loved all the threads about the US election ;)

I think it's all done ... or at least, I will not be one to re-start it.