Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Busted by the ShockWatch !

Same thing happend to me, several
Datapoint computers (1985)
all had been subjected to over 5g's
so we refused the shipment,
shipper had to pay big $$$ to have
new items reshipped via a competior !

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Guido Sarducci from NYC wrote:


UPS uses company drivers and FedEx Home uses
subcontractors/independants so they have less
overhead, so lower fees.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My local FedEx contractor delivers on Saturday, too.

73, Bill W6WRT

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Guido Sarducci from NYC wrote:


Don't spend a lot of money on those self adhesive
ship labels, instead use regular paper and get
one of those glue sticks that the kids use at school,
that turns your plain paper label into a stick on label
for a few cents !


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you're going to use glue sticks, test them first for water
resistance. The kind I use at work come off quite easily.

73, Bill W6WRT

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Let me also say that, from my experience, UPS and FedEx Ground break
things at about the same rate. But when FedEx damages something,
they promptly inspect it and pay out without a fuss, while UPS will
do almost anything to avoid paying insurance claims. Admittedly I
have had only three UPS issues, but all were nightmares.
--scott


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also... never ship anything when UPS's union is in negotiations. Things
get mysteriously "damaged" in transit. Some of their drivers are
incredibly stupid if they think that helps things.

73, Bill W6WRT

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

Earl
KD5XB

--
Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com

Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
 

Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."