Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Charles Arthur's avatar

Bloody hell, all the same circuitry and obfuscation from RM and OS, just the same as - can it possibly be true - *13* years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/22/postcode-petition-fails-blocked-number-ten

Nothing's improved since then. The PAF isn't particularly profitable (2005/6: revenue £18m, profit <£2m). There might be more numbers in the latest RM report.

The argument for making it free is as strong as ever - I think it would be persuasive to have more examples from other countries of the before/after effect: the canonical example of "free data" benefit is GPS, which costs the US ~$1bn to run annually and brings colossal economic benefit.

The people who need to be persuaded are the incoming Labour MPs who will be running Cabinet Office (fight with trading funds such as OS) and DSIT (fight with RM). The way to persuade them is to make the "this will drive economic growth" case - the present licensing system only favours big (usually American) companies such as Google and Amazon. Labour wants to talk big on economic growth.

I don't know if there's any case studies of benefits from the OGL on the OS data; those could help.

The biggest benefit will come from putting the PAF into an organisation which is most motivated to provide accurate data while not screwing money out of people; for that reason I'd suggest taking it away from RM, which can have a free licence in perpetuity, and giving it to ONS. (Is ONS a trading fund? I can't find anything on that.)

The question of whether something needs legislation or not isn't that important, in my view - what's more important is finding the right structure and then driving toward that, because if the structure's right then everything can be made to happen around it. (Getting OS to release data under the OGL didn't require legislation, even though it meant a loss of revenue.) Again, the message to push to Labour is that this is the Path To Growth which will also encourage home-grown businesses.

The funding suggestion of a small rise in LR fees has been suggested many times (I think Bob Barr was a champion of this idea). Clearly, the Tories simply don't have any interest in this topic at all, as evidenced by the GC "not having got around" to looking at the PAF in 13 years. Another possibility is that there's a charge per house registered. Apparently Labour wants to build 1.5m homes in its first five years, so £60 per house (300k houses annually, £18m annual revenue to run PAF) covers it.

This stuff is all doable, and desirable. It just requires a bit of adjustment and movement, and the trouble is this government long ago ran out of ideas for how to adjust and move things.

Finally: "I recommend reading PAF-hero Owen Boswarva’s detailed explanation for all the grizzly details." Bear with me - I think the word you want is "grisly".

Expand full comment
Sam P's avatar

Joining this late, but I very much agree that the PAF data should be opened up. Last I heard, the PAF file itself is compiled by a 3rd party company (AFD based on the Isle of Man) which presumably has a cost attached to it in addition to the costs on Royal Mail's side. I don't see any problem with continuing to pay AFD or one of their competitors to do the compilation, as long as it's not bloody Experian, may they rot in a rainy hell of Monday mornings.

On the income side, I read here that the profit in 2005/6 was <£2m on revenues of £18m, but I would be very surprised if both those figures haven't increased hugely since then, not least because I've seen the bill to my organisation for our very modest number of lookups per year which is enough for us to consider not bothering with any address validation at all. I'm terrified to think what large online retailers pay each year for address lookups in their signup workflows: it must easily cover the cost of each address update in the PAF being typed in on a solid gold keyboard by a Nobel laureate or Pulitzer prize winner and checked twice.

If the PAF data was liberated, my organisation might still pay a 3rd party to provide the software to do the lookup (currently we get this as a web service, but in the past it was local software hitting a local PAF file) but I would expect most of the per-transaction cost to go away, assuming the 3rd party passed on the saving. If they didn't pass it on, it would make it even more likely that open-source software would be produced to work with the (free) PAF file at a lower overall cost than the web service.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts