I’m a little confused, what point are you trying to make with the London Penny Post?
It supports the ideas of flat pricing, something you said you don’t support. It also not even close to the first postal company, Royal Mail was incorporated almost a hundred years before.
I said I am against making flat pricing or universal coverage a legal requirement.
I'm not against any company implementing a flat pricing scheme or universal coverage.
> It also not even close to the first postal company, Royal Mail was incorporated almost a hundred years before.
The London Penny Post was an important early innovator, and privately owned.
"The new Penny Post was influential in establishing a model system and pattern for the various Provincial English Penny Posts in the years that followed. It was the first postal system to use hand-stamps to postmark the mail to indicate the place and time of the mailing and that its postage had been prepaid. The success of the Penny Post would also threaten the interests of the Duke of York who profited directly from the existing general post office. It also compromised the business interests of porters and private couriers."
"Before the emergence of the Penny Post the profits of the existing General Post Office were assigned by Parliament in 1663 to the Duke of York, who now had similar designs on Dockwra's lucrative Penny Post. As the Penny Post proved to be a great success and a potential new source of constant revenue the English government and the Duke of York at the time fined Dockwra £100 for contempt, claiming it infringed the monopoly of the General Post Office, and took control of the Penny Post's operations in 1682, bringing that enterprise to an end.[3] Less than a month later the London Penny Post was made a branch of the General Post Office. For compensation of his losses Dockwra obtained a pension of £500 a year after the Revolution of 1688."
The Penny Post successfully competed with the Royal Mail. And then the government took over the cash cow.
