Data pricing: more fuel for the fire
The following comments come from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous, but has given permission for them to appear:
I applaud your ‘Free our Data’ campaign – it is lifting the roof on a debate we have had rumbling on in our industry for years.
How about the example of Electoral Ward boundaries. My understanding is that the Boundary Commission captures this boundary data at tax payers expense, passes it on to OS (who may do some validation checking), who then sell it back to the public sector and anyone else bundled into a commercial product.
There really needs to be a set of core underlying geographic datasets (addresses, postcodes, wards etc) that are so key to efficient government that they are made free (or nominal cost) for all – this could be done under the OS NIMSA agreement although there’s likely to be major problems with data derived from Royal Mail as a commercial body. I would like to see core OS raster mapping down 1:250k, 1:50k, 1:25k and StreetView included in this ‘national interest data bundle’ to act as a set of base mapping widely available on a cost recovery or even free basis.
Contrast the Government position on funding OS with that of funding the Office for National Statistics (ONS) – very different. In a thoroughly forward-thinking move, ONS got Central Government funding to make Census 2001 data free for the first time at its point of use – see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/op2.asp for more. This is in stark contrast to the position that it is ‘politically unpalatable’ to fund free data distribution. This move has freed up the market for increased use of the data and more suppliers to come into the area and create added value data products – the only problem is that if you want to do anything spatial with it you need geographic boundary data much of which is OS owned. So you are back to the problem of needing data from different parts of government and inconsistencies in data distribution models.
We can only hope recent changes at ONS to become a more neutral ‘arms length’ organisation will not mean a more commercial attitude is taken to data dissemination. There is no suggestion this will happen…yet.
How you get round legal issues of fair trading is not clear – right now there are few suppliers of large scale topographic map data for the UK with the exception to some extent of companies like Navtech and TeleAtlas although their focus has traditionally been on roads for navigational purposes. It would be very interesting to understand their take on this debate.
Let’s hope your campaign gets heard at the heart of government. It would all be much clearer if
- organisations that were wholly funded by government could only supply their data for free or on a cost recovery basis to anyone under relatively standard HMSO terms
or
- organisations that were semi-funded by government and captured data using these public funds had to release it under the same HMSO terms – otherwise organisations would be free to sell it commercially
- If there are Trading Funds that want to go it alone (OS may be a candidate) then privatise them, keeping a chunk of shares under public ownership to reflect the intellectual property invested to date. At least this creates a level playing field. There are starting to be sufficient competitors in the market to give existing OS customers some realistic alternatives.
On a related point it would be great to get an independent accountant to assess the proportional value of the current OS intellectual property that results from long-term public investment compared with the proportion attributable to their own more recent self-funded investment. No doubt there is no simple calculation to do this but they do have methods. Of course the answer would be hotly debated but it might be a start to addressing the whole issue of “what’s ours” and “what’s theirs”.
Interesting – though I’ve also discovered in the past few days that NERC does make some of its data available for free. (I’ll do a separate post later, but it’s been pointed out that organisations like NERC are placed in a difficult position when they have to buy in commercial data to generate the datasets they use.)
What does everyone think? From the discussions here, one would imagine that people think the OS should veer more towards privatisation – which, to be honest, is not the aim of the campaign at all. (As we said in the original article launching the campaign, we think the UK should have a strong mapping agency: “if you view [the UK] instead as belonging to its taxpayers, and meriting rigorous mapping for their benefit, there are no “uneconomic areas” – only places that people haven’t started to use yet”.)
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Do you know where your postboxes are? (15 September 2009; score: 25.62%)
- How long does it take a government to do an economics study? (4 May 2006; score: 19.67%)
- Government widens click-use licence.. but wants more money from its users (31 March 2006; score: 18.52%)
- More on government departments' submissions to the Select Committee (2 August 2007; score: 16.9%)
- Trading Funds review: terms of reference (25 June 2008; score: 15.21%)
April 6th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
You can’t have it both ways – if you want a “strong mapping agency” and free access to their data there has to be a stable and predictable funding regime to enable long term planning and investment.
Perhaps we should start a new thread on funding models that will support current data quality and currency whilst not requiring the OS to recover cost through selling our data?
Convincing the Treasury to 100% fund OS et al will be much more difficult than persuading the OFT of the inequity of the current model.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:38 am
I think this assertion (organisations like NERC are placed in a difficult position when they have to buy in commercial data to generate the datasets they use) is a very important one. You could also put universities and academic organisations in the same ring. These are organisations which provide future knowledge and enhance the world economy through research and education and yet, they are made to apply commercial terms and conditions to the data they use. There is also the issue of derived data which severely limits scientific enquiry. World class programs like the University of Edinburgh’s EDINA program continue to be limited by Ordnance Survey’s strict interpretation of copyright ownership in derived data. According to an OS source, if there is an “atomic element” of OS data in any geographic intelligence, then royalties and licencing are necessary.
We’ve talked about economic issues in this campaign. What about education and future knowledge?
April 7th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Steven,
You raise the point about funding the OS (and i presume other governement organisations) and the need for a longterm predictable funding regime.
I dont see ay fundamental issue here. There are many organisations which the government finances without questioning whether they should be financed by some quasi-commercial way. Examples are the armed forces, the Police, Fire Service, search and rescue, coastguard, Highways Agency, Health service etc, local government provided services. It is a non-issue.
It is only because the oS was seen to be a fiancial drain on the state, rather than a strategic asset and economic necessity that is funded in the way it is now. More specifically, it was for this reason that it was the ambition of the last Conservative government to privatise the OS. Thus it is is entirely a matter of perception. And, as has been stated elsewhere, the annual sums involved are not extraordinarily large. if you wish to the OS to remain funded the way it is currently, you could and should equally argue that it is legitimate for other state organsitions to be financed in the same way. Of course to do this would be impractical and in many instances unethical, so why is it acceptable that the OS and the UKMO are?
April 7th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Leslie,
I think you have been misinformed, there are restrictions only to prevent commercial use.. there is a useful FAQ at http://edina.ac.uk/digimap/support/faq_oslicence.html#_Toc107127734 .
The Ordnance Survey I would argue is very supportive of the academic community – can you give a example of a research/teaching project which has been restricted in the ways you describe, I’m happy to investigate with the guys from EDINA.
ed
April 10th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Ed,
Thank you for your response. I have read the FAQs which your link points to and can only marvel at the complexity of a transaction which should be so simple. The university where I teach gave up awhile ago trying to negotiate for Ordnance Survey data. The prices and terms and conditions were so high and restrictive. I am reminded of the convoluted and restrictive licencing required for most uses of OS data, not to mention the specific uses to which it may be put. Perhaps it should also be noted that in its verification report of OS for its Information Fair Trader Scheme, OPSI noted especially that its licencing lacked transparency and fairness (para 31) and that there were some observable inequities in its licencing in the field of education (para 48). http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ifts/ordnance-survey-ifts-report.pdf
April 10th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Leslie,
Was your university using the data for teaching/research ? I’m happy to investigate for you …
ed
April 11th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Going back to the original premise in the debate…..
I have long thought that we need to shift the debate in respect to the commercial model. Being pragmatic and realistic (see my earlier post) we’re not going to get “free data”. But can we get cheaper? If there really are all those users out there champing at the bit to create their Web2.0 dot.com multi-million companies, could they do so at 20% of current license costs (or 10% or 50%?). Can sales volume increase by 400% (or 900% or 200%) to compensate?
Putting it to a more direct test….. web services are successully being used to deliver data at tiny transactional costs (e.g. £10GBP for a thousand map impressions / geocoding results). But not from a trading fund – unless anyone would care to correct me? Is a service from a trading fund that breaks the £10/1000 barrier?
I’m not expecting a free lunch, but I’ll take a cheap sandwich from the deli.. The Ritz gets boring after a while.