commission the injury to the postal service as opposed to the public interest in the disclosure in this case the commission unreasonably might be defined but our point is the public interest or the scope of the public interest is defined we cannot determine whether the public interest is important in this case or  not the commission determination that is vital is rule on reason be wrong because at this point the basic underlying problem with these products being financially underwater has been the problem to a reasonable deference but i also contend that this is not reasonable there was no fighting interest in this information at this time except under protective conditions so their competitors can't use it have gone up we don't need to have this information released so that our competitors on an unlevel playing field can use this to remove our most successful market from us so that our competitors will be able to price  similar products in a way we will lose market share is that we will lose a contribution the i'm going to refer in some of my remarks to the seal appendix but i will do so course come july one this year the commission knows all this and yet it nevertheless concluded that public disclosure moved the small packet for example from the market dominant side of the equation to the competitive equation and following that presidential memorandum the postal service has the ability to  set its own prices at a higher level so that the problem can be fixed a commission wanted to improve the negative contribution unfortunately it's order to disclose information cuts conditions because our competitors as well as foreign post will be able to use that information against us in setting their price levels to take away our most valuable product  of the commission responds by saying we don't think that's going to happen to the extent the postal service yes and it gives some explanation about aggregate data and damage for example and this is a hypothetical think i want just to seal appendix suppose we have a product that has a fifteen percent positive contribution that can be modeled by our competitors and set their own prices and of course that's an average some some would countries might be seventeen percent some might be sixteen the average being fifteen some might be fourteen and thirteen competitors will model that use their prices and come in somewhat contribution for twenty years which is something a private business couldn't do that would be a loss so the only reason the postal service is able to continuing to continue to have rates that don't meet the call is because it is a government entity that can cross subsidize with other products and you know effectively like redistribute across you know government expenses i mean  not have the ability to correct it because the u p you sent prices not the postal service now that we can set prices ourselves we're going to be in a position that we can we can correct and those public interest does have an interest of that if far less significant than it would have been under the old regime and now say that's marginal but it doesn't weigh very heavily on that side of the scale compared to the nil that is almost exactly backwards the new regime will be that the post service consent prices but that the disclosure of this data undermine our ability to compete our competitors in the form post harm to the postal service because the data is stale or outdated that that is not accurate in any sense of the imagination and it's unreasonable to say it's not stale when it represents data for the most the school year volume cost and contribution data for each year was the need to examine that financial information by country group and by shapes to figure out why the postal service had been losing tens of millions of dollars annually for two decades and so the commission put together a compliance analysis of that data and that compliance analysis revealed the drivers and down by their posts or performance which has negative market effects and then based those in the strong public interest a reasonably decided that that public interest outweighed any commercial harms and that's completely reasonable determination that the commission made i do want to kind of circle back to the public interest to kind of talk about it with a little bit more particularly and i think judge brad was asking about this as well that you can't really divorce that data from the context in which it stands the commission about what to do with inbound letter post and so what the commission was doing here it was saying well we need a little bit more information about that and what this particular data is the country group and shape data is it identifies trends specific to particular shapes and particular country groups about what is causing the negative performance and all of that is in further  interpreted the statute or never interpreted what it meant for our government establishment to be competing in commercial markets the commission watched through several ways in which the postal service is a role in the commercial markets and the way that they compete in the commercial markets is causing harms in those markets and causing harm to the public and so there's at least three i think the commission st identified a broader interest  about this negative contribution this is the if losses over two decades threatening the financial integrity of the postal service itself we're not talking about a one million dollars here or a one million dollars that we're talking about interest in this arena and i don't think you know the postal service should diddle to take advantage of the way in litigation to say well the commission's order post hoc is unreasonable and so i do want to start a lot of couple of ways in which there is an ongoing interest i mean that the easier farms just to break this down they only contact there are three groups male and this is a little bit specific but you know there's a small countries and so they don't cover them as to every single country across the world and so in reality what we have is sort of a hybrid system where there's self declared rates for some things and terminal dues for other things their attributable costs and that the public docket function that the commission has that the public needs to be able to comment on to participate on to try to fix the problem and we've been where there there's no and this is all part of the commission's public function so in that sense i don't i don't think it fixes the problem at all and i think it only decreases their commercial harms or their claims to type of financial market that the new system is under and so in the sense that the public interest is still there and the commission found that the public interest was only heightened based on these reforms and the commission also thought that distortion in the trade or distorting competition and what that means is that because of the artificially low prices for him down by the post other male products can't compete with something similar to shipping from new york to california and building a factory and going was going to be far cheaper than building a factory in new york companies are going to go build factories and angle and harm to the public that  the commission is still trying to address that the commission every single year tries to address and that is part of the strong public interest here i want to questions about republicans i do want to mention a few things about the commercial arm i think that a high level of generality what the technician found was that the commercial harms were rest rested on a series of assumptions about what businesses would do or why they weren't close operators what foreign countries were do and what the postal regulatory commission said was none of here and the commission said that well you haven't come with the type of proof or with the type a specific that you would need to show that any of these harms would actually come true foreign countries would enter into treaties with the united states as a harm from competitors the postal regulatory commission looked at it and said well if a competitor is really trying to compete with the postal service what they would need to do is they would need to figure out what mail routes to be competing this data doesn't reveal data about any particular country it only reveals it about these four broad country group it doesn't identify locations or identities of international or domestic customers it doesn't talk about mode of international or domestic transportation and there's all sorts of other reasons why the information isn't specific services competitive position will not be undermined as opposed to disclose it without those protective conditions our point with respect to the government established competing with the market is that in order