[Forwarding for Roger Longhorn as PDF attachment to original made
message too large for list]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [geo-discuss] speculation about the OS future business model?
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:37:00 -0000
From: Roger Longhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jo Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Giles approach is not radically new, in that something similar was
proposed in Sweden - the supposed home of 'free' info in Europe - in
2000 (see translation below of report from Statskontoret - the Swedish
Agency for Public Management) - note the third paragraph.
Press Release by Statskontoret (the Swedish State Office) 2000-04-03
Create the same competition conditions for governmental and private
actors
Many state agencies and companies sell products and services in
competition with private companies. Part of this activity has proven to
have a dampening effect on the possibilities of especially small
enterprises to establish themselves and grow in the market place. The
reason is that fundamentally different conditions apply to state and
private actors which means that they do not compete on equal terms.
Statskontoret has in its report ‘*The state as a commercial actor*’ on
behalf of the (Swedish) government explored and analysed the activities
in which governmental authorities and companies are engaged in
competition with private companies. The impact on competition and growth
has been studied in more detail in five case studies. In addition
Statskontoret has analysed earlier reports and studies which raise the
question of commercial activities by the state from a competition
perspective. Studies made both internally and by other parties form the
basis for a number of proposals for action to reduce competition
distortions.
*In cases where motives for state players to engage in commercial
competitive activity are lacking, Statskontoret proposes that such
activities be prohibited. In some cases there are motives for the state
to engage in commercial activities. For all such activities
Statskontoret proposes the followed three general actions:*
*
*define the term ‘uppdragsverksamhet’ (ordered service activities)
in law and specify it in more detail in the instructions given to
the authority*
*
*regulate a requirement for special auditing of cost-based
revenues under competition*
*
*make arrangements for a supervisory function for public
commercial and competitive activities.*
In some cases where motives do exist for the state to engage in
commercial activities, the preconditions for creating the same
competition circumstances for state and private actors are lacking. In
these cases Statskontoret proposes that the activity is monopolised or
regulated. One example is the research contracts which should be
continued to be undertaken within universities and colleges in order to
reach the goals set up by the governmental authorities as regards
increased co-operation with industry.
For the five markets which have been studied in more detail
Statskontoret proposes special steps to make the conditions for
competition more equal and to reduce the obstacles to competition. Here
the following can be mentioned:
*
make the full operational activities of Banverket (the rail track
agency) subject to competition
*
handle the service activities of Lantmäteristyrelsen (the land
survey authority) through commercial entities to be created
*
acquire as appropriate through competitive tendering the
employment services required by the state aimed at the long-term
unemployed and other weak groups in the work place.
*Information*: Expansion unit;
Pia Bergdahl, project leader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>_, or
Anders Gerde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>_
<ends>
Then read the extract (attached) of the Statskontoret report of 2005 of
what they found specifically in National Land Survey and SMHI (Met and
Hydrological Office) and what actions were then taken by government to
separate competitive from non-competitive activities within these
organisations. The full 2005 report is available from:
http://www.statskontoret.se/upload/Publikationer/2005/200519A.pdf
An extract from my extract of that report, specifically relating to
Swedish National Land Survey:
<begins>
*National Land Survey*
In its final report of *autumn 2003, the National Land Survey Commission
expressed the view that the Survey’s commercial work should be
restricted so as to supplement, rather than dominate, the market.* The
Commission recommended the *Survey to clarify its commercial role in a
market and competition policy*. The agency’s *point of departure should
be that it should promote market development for private operators, and
not take over the market under its own aegis*.
The Commission *proposed discontinuation or hiving-off of commercial
cartographic work, direct sale of maps, aerial photographs and
photogrammetry, geodetic measurement, some activities in geographical
information technology, measuring services and detailed local mapping*.
Production, administration and supply of basic data were to remain the
functions of the National Land Survey. However, the agency would be free
to order such work internally or outsource them on the open market.
In the Commission’s opinion, *the combination of internal and external
assignments and funding within Metria was problematical from the
competition point of view*. It therefore proposed clearer demarcation of
the two in terms of results. *All commercial work for purchasers outside
the National Land Survey should be assigned to a special division for
external commercial work, subject to the requirement of full cost
coverage*. On the other hand, the Commission proposed that the local and
regional Land Survey offices should be allowed to continue accepting
assignments in competition with others, albeit with some limitations.
In a *Government Bill of September 2005 on the National Land Survey’s
work, the Government writes that its commercial work should be
demarcated better than at present and its focus and content clarified.
*
*<ends>
*
Kind regards
Roger Longhorn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear all,
> Excuse me if you've seen this but in the light of recent speculation
> about the impact of the withdrawal of NIMSA funding on the Ordnance
> Survey's future business model / proprietary stance i find this
> writeup of Giles Lane's for an IPPR case study illuminating.
http://urbantapestries.net/weblog/archives/000181.html
>
> His modest proposal is to split the OS in two; one maintains a central
> "National Geographic Database" with access at no more than the cost of
> reproduction; the other is "product development" and commercial R'n'D.
> I would argue that the latter is going to be hard to sustain a
> monopoly on in an open market. The former half is enticing but what
> with the cost of online reproduction tending to zero, we would be
> talking about a massive cultural shift. Still it is good to dream...
>
> cheers,
>
>
> jo
>
> _______________________________________________
> geo-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
geo-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
