Comments on: OFT says more competition for public sector information would generate £1 billion extra annually http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/2006/12/oft-says-more-competition-for-public-sector-information-would-generate-1-billion-extra-annually/ A Guardian Technology campaign for free public access to non-personal data about the UK and its citizens Sun, 14 Mar 2010 05:10:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: QOF News http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/2006/12/oft-says-more-competition-for-public-sector-information-would-generate-1-billion-extra-annually/comment-page-1/#comment-17502 QOF News Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:37:55 +0000 http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/?p=86#comment-17502 <strong>Setting Boundaries...</strong> So why do we only see the 2005 data on these maps? We it appears it all comes down to money. Ordinance Survey wants lots of it to provide the data on PCT boundaries. The economics suggests that the department of health should receive money from the Tre... Setting Boundaries…

So why do we only see the 2005 data on these maps? We it appears it all comes down to money. Ordinance Survey wants lots of it to provide the data on PCT boundaries. The economics suggests that the department of health should receive money from the Tre…

]]> By: Kilian http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/2006/12/oft-says-more-competition-for-public-sector-information-would-generate-1-billion-extra-annually/comment-page-1/#comment-7024 Kilian Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:29:14 +0000 http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/?p=86#comment-7024 I find the result of the market study very disappointing. "encouraging the PSIH to be more open and accountable" is very little given that the guidelines are already there and are often being breached: The Treasury Fees and Charges Guide already states that the PSIH must distinguish between statutory and non-statutory products. Looking at Companies House' accounts, this does not happen. Competition law is very clear, but the clauses used by the Ordinance Survey are so restrictive, any private company would be dragged to court immediately over this. The Re-use of PSI Regulations say that the own re-use must be under the same conditions internally as externally, but most PSIHs surveyed seemed to be very lax on supplying all data (like meta-data). These are considerable breaches by the public sector, and I have hoped for recommendations that go further than simply "encouraging" the PSIHs. The OFT decided to allow the public sector to provide data as their own re-use cheaper than market rate, thereby encouraging a "natural monopoly" for certain data. Since the OFT recommended charging production costs only (which is against the recommendations of the Fees and Charges Guide), some competitors will not be able to compete downstream. The OFT went a dangerous route with that, because the recommendations are not coupled with an effective supervision process. This means, the OFT effectively noticed bad breaches of the rules, but failed to do anything relevant against it. I am very disappointed. I find the result of the market study very disappointing. “encouraging the PSIH to be more open and accountable” is very little given that the guidelines are already there and are often being breached: The Treasury Fees and Charges Guide already states that the PSIH must distinguish between statutory and non-statutory products. Looking at Companies House’ accounts, this does not happen. Competition law is very clear, but the clauses used by the Ordinance Survey are so restrictive, any private company would be dragged to court immediately over this. The Re-use of PSI Regulations say that the own re-use must be under the same conditions internally as externally, but most PSIHs surveyed seemed to be very lax on supplying all data (like meta-data). These are considerable breaches by the public sector, and I have hoped for recommendations that go further than simply “encouraging” the PSIHs.

The OFT decided to allow the public sector to provide data as their own re-use cheaper than market rate, thereby encouraging a “natural monopoly” for certain data. Since the OFT recommended charging production costs only (which is against the recommendations of the Fees and Charges Guide), some competitors will not be able to compete downstream. The OFT went a dangerous route with that, because the recommendations are not coupled with an effective supervision process. This means, the OFT effectively noticed bad breaches of the rules, but failed to do anything relevant against it. I am very disappointed.

]]>