At what cost?
Pricing everything at a flat rate that covers the cost is a reasonable and fair way to go. Why subsidize the liberal city centers with cheap service at the expense of citizens and businesses in Bush Country?
Everybody gets treated equally, 39 cents to pay the phone bill or write home to mom regardless of where you live.
Try that with FedEx and you will see how utterly wrong you are.
We're obviously using different definitions of the word "subsidize."
When I say "subsidize," I mean "forcibly allocate resources to something that would have otherwise gone somewhere else." It seems that when you say "subsidize," you simply mean "to cause resources, by whatever means, to go somewhere other than where they are now."
Since the free market would make sending letters to "liberal city centers" less costly, while sending letters to "Bush country" more costly, it's actually the city centers that are subsidizing the rural areas.
So no, a flat rate is neither reasonable nor fair, for the same reason that getting ten suits drycleaned for the same price as getting one shirt laundered for the same price is neither reasonable nor fair. That's like arguing that it ought to cost the same amount of gasoline to drive two city blocks as it does to drive fifty country miles. One involves a smaller expenditure of resources than the other, and so it is only rational that one should cost less than the other.
And I don't particularly care who lives and votes where. I vote Republican, and I live in an urban area (of sorts). Making this sort of thing out to be a jab at Bush voters is a Jesse Jackson tactic. Different service prices based on how much it costs to do the job simply represents a more efficient allocation of resources.