Government hits free data decision into the long grass
We have the inside track on what’s going to happen at Ordnance Survey – which will be formally announced this morning.
Today’s Guardian says, in Government ducks free data decision:
The government has kicked into touch a decision on the future of its largest state-owned digital information business. The Communities and Local Government department will today announce that the Ordnance Survey must make more of its data available to re-users – while apparently grooming part of the agency for future privatisation.
The new business strategy, published the day after the budget, follows a review by the Treasury’s Shareholder Executive. The headline finding is that “a model where a user pays a licence fee for OS data continues to be the most effective way of balancing the need to increase the availability of geographic information to the wider UK economy and society while maintaining the quality of OS data”.
But in a concession long called for by the Free Our Data campaign and others, boundaries information will be available for free as part of an extended “OS OpenSpace” service. Also available will be some OS products “from 1:10,000 scale through to 1:1 million scale”. The MasterMap database will remain proprietary.
Here’s what is going to happen: a new commercial arm of the OS (but without ownership, and having to pay just like its commercial rivals for OS data); and more emphasis on OpenSpace (but not so much that it would actually compete with any commercial versions).
Our opinion: a complete and utter shot into the long grass. Ducked the issue. Shied away at the last fence. Until we see clear evidence otherwise, it’s an indication that even though the government has made encouraging noises about seeing the value of making data free, and even though it has received a report that it commissioned which showed that making data free would bring huge economic benefits, it can’t quite make itself believe it. Better to bail out banks with tens of billions that you might never get back than spend a few millions stimulating commercial enterprises and encouraging entrepreneurship by giving people access to essential, business-valuable data.
We’ll have more analysis and reaction when all the documents are available.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Want to put maps online cheaply? Get a paper licence and scan them (30 August 2007; score: 27.5%)
- Ordnance Survey in the dock again with OPSI (26 October 2006; score: 17.16%)
- International expert fun rumbles on (10 November 2009; score: 16.35%)
- UKHO decision: no selloff; and a year on from CUPI, are we any further ahead? (6 December 2007; score: 16.35%)
- Tories demand publication of Trading Funds review, back free data principles (19 February 2009; score: 15.12%)
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
The strategy document is now live on the web, at http://strategy.ordnancesurvey.co.uk It’s been produced as a commentable document, using the Commentariat WordPress theme released as open-source by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
[...] the Guardian’s Free Our Data Blog, but with remarkably little fanfare elsewhere- the UK Government have released their new strategy [...]
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
The strategy says, about the OpenSpace changes: “It will provide greater access to free use of a number of Ordnance Survey products from 1:10,000 scale through to 1:1 million scale. It will also include official boundaries information.”
What it doesn’t say is whether the official boundaries information will be free to use elsewhere: this information is already freely available in the Census dataset, but you can’t publish it so people can see it on your own maps. A cynic would read this as “boundary lines will be available as an overlay tileset, for use in OpenSpace applications only”.
It’s also of limited use being able to use OpenSpace if any geodata you create with it becomes OS-derived and swallowed up by OS licensing terms…
Very disappointing.
April 27th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Having ignored most of the independent advice that it has commissioned and received, it is inevitable that the government solution for Ordnance Survey does not resolve anything much, even for OS.
The “Hybrid” model proposed simply changes the shape of the commercial playing field, it does not level it. The justification (the quality of service will otherwise be irreparably harmed) is the defence used by all monopolies.
Unless there is a resolution of every anti-competitive facet of OS practice and a real reduction in their dominance, OS will never be able to build value which government could dispose of, if it wanted to. The new business rules proposed will be complex to draft and hard to manage for OS itself.
Worse, the government seems to indicate these changes are justified to ensure operational efficiency. However, it is fair competition which encourages operational efficiency, through encouraging choice, innovation, enterprise and economy; all apparently also objectives of the current government.
Effective Regulation is also important. The OFT have restated their reservations, as described in the CUPI report (eg para 7.45) in December 2006. It is hard to understand is why the OFT does not take action after three years. Perhaps the competition rules only apply to the private sector.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The FoD analysis of the new business strategy for OS is spot on. The biggest missed opportunity in a decade. The government has ignored the advice it received on the different business models. It is allowing OS to set its own business goals. It is ducking the issues of fair competition noted in reports by OPSI, APPSI and OFT.
In my view, the appearance of reacting to widespread concern is being promoted as a cover for a least change option. Worse still, the hints in published proposals that public sector procurement of mapping data should mirror the single provider position introduced in Scotland can only consolidate OS’s monopoly control.
The OS consultation is welcome, but the method is subversive. It allows commentary only on five issues. In reality this is only four topics, since OS’s efficiency agenda is deemed only open to staff scrutiny. The Goals set out are very specific, and narrow the debate to areas where OS is willing to make minor concessions.
Where are the goals about fair access to OS base data as promoted by OFT? Where are the goals about fair product pricing related to EU guidelines? These guidelines are clear that costs should be attributed only on the cost of maintaining the specific dataset, not OS’s overall costs including sales, marketing and legal costs. Where does OS address fair competition – the single topic on which it has been most widely criticised?
Even the suggestions of using a “hybrid” business model are cosmetic. OS will not open up its products such that the new services business can introduce new and innovative delivery mechanisms, since these are bundled into product costs.
OS has not established its control of the market by allowing its role in the public sector to generate open consultation. It talks public service, but acts commercial monopoly. Why couldn’t it have bitten the bullet given the unrelenting criticism it has been under in recent years?