Eircode discussion

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Wrong. One of the earliest reports on the subject pointed out that simple geocodes (like loc8) are no more than a mathematical conversion of geo-coordinates into some alphanumeric alphabet. Anyone could have developed a code like that with less effort than was put into the Postcode board by its members (I assume for free).

What costs money are things like websites, and publicity. The state is prepared to fund these for all kinds of public functions. So, why not postcodes?

A geocode (not loc8) would have been completely license free, because there is no substantial IP that could be licensed.

That's not to say that a code like Eircode which has associated IP, does not have value. I am simply refuting your suggestion that the Eircode way was the only way. We could have developed a cheap/license free postcode. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being disingenuous and dishonest.


So, he said Eircode is useless. So, what? That doesn't invalidate every other criticism made by him and others. Michael O'Leary spouts a lot of nonsense, and it doesn't invalidate everything he says about the transport business

You have again failed to get your head around the fact that eircode does not need a licence. It has one by choice.

You have somehow made the connection that one has to have a licence and one has to be free.

Do you understand that eircode could be licence free? And that there would be no need to "develop a licence free code" if someone decided they didn't want a licence fee any more

You're refuting my suggestion eircode was the only way? but.... I've never ever said that.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

You have again failed to get your head around the fact that eircode does not need a licence. It has one by choice.

You have somehow made the connection that one has to have a licence and one has to be free.

Do you understand that eircode could be licence free? And that there would be no need to "develop a licence free code" if someone decided they didn't want a licence fee any more

You're refuting my suggestion eircode was the only way? but.... I've never ever said that.

Could we have developed a postcode based on geocdes which had no IP to license and was free to use? It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Could we have developed a postcode based on geocdes which had no IP to license and was free to use? It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

Of course. Anything can be free to use if you decide not to charge for it! Where did I ever say that wasn't the case?

What in saying is, You can't develop anything for free. Someone some where has to put time and effort into a design and it's no where near as basic as "throw a algorithm together and it's done"

And of course as you pointed out yourself, everything else you need to go with the code isn't free either, PR, website, etc etc.

So it's dishonest to say we could have developed a code for free. We simply could not have.

Can we decide not to licence the code we do develop? Yes of course.

Sam Russell

plodder wrote: »

Could we have developed a postcode based on geocdes which had no IP to license and was free to use? It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

You need an algorithm to convert from geocode to a postcode. There would be IP in that.

Any logical system of converting location to a code would provide the basis for a postcode. A good example would be the first five digits of the normal STD code (going back to say 1990 and dropping the leading zero) - that would work, and would be population density related. Not only that, it would be free - it would need tweaking but as a basis it would work. An open database of the 70,000 codes giving the centroid geo-location for each code would be small.

Three further characters could take the code down to individual properties. This could be used by official Ireland as a PPS code for properties/addresses.

Eircode could be used as a basis for converting to such a structure.

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

You need an algorithm to convert from geocode to a postcode. There would be IP in that.

I don't agree. You have to make a distinction between something that is deliberately designed to be hidden or proprietary (like Eircode or what3words) and a code that is not designed with that limitation. There are simple public domain algorithms for converting binary codes like latitude and longitude into alphanumeric (easily) human readable codes. Base64 is one example. For usage as a postcode, you would restrict the alphabet to characters that are not easily confused, as well as certain other restrictions like removing "rude" letter combinations. All of this is doable either within the scope of a voluntary postcode board or perhaps as a small job for a contractor.. As I said before the postcode board envisaged such a code over ten years ago. There just isn't intellectual property associated with this. It is way too obvious. Lots of people have come up with location code designs like this and there never has been a suggestion that any of them are using someone else's IP. I repeat once again that the above should not be taken as me saying that is what we should have done. I'm just countering the continuous misinformation that is put out there on this subject.

The difficulty for Eircode obviously is being based on a (semi state) commercial system like Geodirectory, it is hard to see how it can be made free to use. I've never argued that it should be completely free to use. What I have argued is that some datasets should be made available free, which would then allow then to charge more for the premium products (equivalent to the UK's PAF). They might even earn more money out of it that way, than trying to keep everyone happy with the same monolithic license.

Sam Russell

If the algorithm is 'Open Source' then it can be used freely (in compliance with the terms under which it is made Open Source). No problem with that and there could be many such algorithms out there. Eircode was designed to be a cash cow and that is its downfall. Google has a different business model and has been quite successful.

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Eircode was designed to be a cash cow...

[citation needed]

Sam Russell

oscarBravo wrote: »

[citation needed]

13.25 The final terms agreed stipulate that the licence holder will pay An Post GeoDirectory the following amounts
 an annual fixed fee of €35,910
 a value-added reseller fee (for the use of GeoDirectory by a licence holder distributor) based on the volume of use, capped at €976,835 a year
 an end-user fee (for the use of GeoDirectory by end-users) based on the volume of use, capped at €913,481 a year
 a royalty fee of 5% of incremental revenue from the point at which the volume cap is reached.

13.26 With the exception of the royalty fee, the aggregate annual payments by the licence holder to GeoDirectory are subject to a minimum of €100,000 and a maximum of €1,926,226.

154 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014

13.27 GeoDirectory is entitled to increase the fees payable annually, with the exception of the royalty fee. The amount is limited to the increase in the customer price index. In addition, the value-added reseller and the end-user fees are subject to periodic price reviews.

13.28 Further issues arose following the signed agreement relating to differences in interpretation of terms for the commercialisation of intellectual property in the GeoDirectory database. The Department has stated that GeoDirectory believed that full access rights to the intellectual property excluded commercialisation, whilst the licence holder believed that it did in fact include commercialisation.
These issues were resolved in February 2015.

http://audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2014/report/en/13%20the%20development%20of%20eircode%20the%20national%20postcode%20system.pdf

They are arguing about who gets the cash - Capita and An Post.

ukoda

"Designed to be a cash cow".... As pointed out, any code can be licenced to generate money.

Any postcode designed in any way that wants to validate addresses with the official national address database would be subject to those geo directory costs.

oscarBravo

I'm not seeing the phrase "cash cow", let alone "designed to be".

It was designed so that the cost of setting up and running it would be recovered from its licensees, sure. If you want to call that "designed to be a cash cow"...

Sam Russell

Eircode was designed to be self financing, with Capita able to generate profits.

Transdev run the Luas but do not keep the fare box - Capita do.

Much of the fuss about Irish Water was due the the belief among some that it was designed to be privatised - and be exploited at the public's expense. I do not know how much truth there was in that, but it was easy to believe there was much truth behind that belief. [First action was to bury €500 million in the ground in the shape of meters, and spend a similar amount on consultants - with not one fix of the leaks.

The €25m cost for Eircode is now quoted as €38m.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

with Capita able to generate profits.

Transdev run the Luas but do not keep the fare box - Capita do.

Genuine question, are you sure about that? I've asked in here a few times if anyone can show details of the contract and who gets any revenues from it. No one has been forthcoming so far.

My understanding is that capita have a contract to operate the postcode and they are paid a set fee to do this. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything to say otherwise yet

Sam Russell

ukoda wrote: »

Genuine question, are you sure about that? I've asked in here a few times if anyone can show details of the contract and who gets any revenues from it. No one has been forthcoming so far.

My understanding is that capita have a contract to operate the postcode and they are paid a set fee to do this. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything to say otherwise yet

It is all commercially secret. Read my post above - they agreed terms in Feb 2015. No statement as to what those terms were.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

ukoda wrote: »

Genuine question, are you sure about that? I've asked in here a few times if anyone can show details of the contract and who gets any revenues from it. No one has been forthcoming so far.

My understanding is that capita have a contract to operate the postcode and they are paid a set fee to do this. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything to say otherwise yet

It is all commercially secret. Read my post above - they agreed terms in Feb 2015. No statement as to what those terms were.

Your post above has no mention of revenues or who keeps them, its a bit unfair to claim that Eircode is a cash cow for capita when you've no idea if capita get any of the licence fee revenue

ukoda

Do people also know what that 38 million figure actually is? It's not actually the cost of eircode, it's a *predicted* cost over 10 years which includes what the government may have to spend on appending the code to thier records or amending their processes to use eircode. A cost that would be incurred by any postcode design

chillin117

The only time I received post with an eircode was crap from Election Hopefuls during the election, Nothing else. None of the service providers bother their arse using it either. (Another) Total waste of money. Voting machines were another waste too

oscarBravo

chillin117 wrote: »

None of the service providers bother their arse using it either.

Except for the ones that do. But don't let mere inconvenient facts get in the way of your rant.

chillin117

oscarBravo wrote: »

Except for the ones that do. But don't let mere inconvenient facts get in the way of your rant.

Electric Ireland don't, Bord Gas don't, Not on my bills just Dublin 3. That was not a rant BTW.

ukoda

chillin117 wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Except for the ones that do. But don't let mere inconvenient facts get in the way of your rant.

Electric Ireland don't.

They do.

chillin117

ukoda wrote: »

They do.

Just checked Electric Ireland bill (31/5/16) And they don't.

ukoda

chillin117 wrote: »

ukoda wrote: »

They do.

Just checked Electric Ireland bill (31/5/16) And they don't.

It's on my bill. They announced in Jan that they would be issuing electricity bills with eircodes from then on. If it's not on yours, then you're an exception / error

plodder

Interesting development in Canada

https://twitter.com/djq/status/739162490534268928

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/06/crowdsourcedpostalcodelawsuit/

Someone set up a crowd sourcing system where people could submit their postcode and address to a public domain database, bypassing the steep fees charged by Canada Post. They were sued by the post office, but it seems they have dropped the suit.

It's potentially even more relevant here because the Canadian postcode is hierarchical and useful for some purposes even without paying any license fees. Eircode has very little use outside of the licensing regime. So, the temptation to do this here could be higher. I wonder would it be legal though.

Sam Russell

ukoda wrote: »

Your post above has no mention of revenues or who keeps them, its a bit unfair to claim that Eircode is a cash cow for capita when you've no idea if capita get any of the licence fee revenue

I never said it was Capita that got the cash - just Eircode was developed and it was intended to be financed by users. Geocode gets cash and Capita gets cash (naturally - they are not a charity) and the split is commercially sensitive and not published. If you read the full report I linked, it goes into the costs and where they went.

A lot was spent prior to when Capita got involved.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

Eircode was designed to be self financing, with Capita able to generate profits.

Transdev run the Luas but do not keep the fare box - Capita do.

You specifically said "capita do" keep the profits. Which is not fact and only your assumption that you cannot prove.

Sam Russell

ukoda wrote: »

You specifically said "capita do" keep the profits. Which is not fact and only your assumption that you cannot prove.

Capita are in the business of making profits from their activities, so obviously they keep the profits.

Much of the licence fees for the Geocode make up the costs of Eircode, and these are divided up according to the link I gave. Read that and understand where it goes. There is a statement saying there was a 'misunderstanding' as to where the money was going but that is now settled as of Feb 2015. No details as to how it was settled.

That link also goes into the payments to consultants. That is also interesting to read.

ukoda

When you say "geocode" I assume you mean "geodirectory" ?

There is nothing in that report that outlines where the profits goes. It is not "obvious" at all. It's purely about the fees to be paid to various parties involved and makes no reference to the profits generated by end use.

You may be right, but you are just guessing. So it is not accurate to state capita get the profits when you've no way of knowing they do or don't.

Yes capita want to make profits, but it is not clear they make it from licence fee. What is clear, is that they are paid a fee to operate the postcode over a 10 year period and i would assume they have built their profit margin into this fee.

Sam Russell

ukoda wrote: »

When you say "geocode" I assume you mean "geodirectory" ?

There is nothing in that report that outlines where the profits goes. It is not "obvious" at all. It's purely about the fees to be paid to various parties involved and makes no reference to the profits generated by end use.

You may be right, but you are just guessing. So it is not accurate to state capita get the profits when you've no way of knowing they do or don't.

Yes, I mean Geodirectory.

Geodirectory get quite a bit of the money - upfront and licence fees, etc etc.

Capita expected to get more and were in dispute about it, and it was settled in Feb 2015.

It is intended that profits will be generated and who get them - well no-one outside knows because it is secret.

ukoda

I edited my post above to include the part about capita already having thier profit margin built into the fees they were in dispute over. So it is unclear who gets the licence fee. But we definitely cannot say for sure its capita.

Sam Russell

If it had been decided from the start that Eircode would be paid for by the DCNER, then it would not require a user licence and thus would be on Google and the Satnavs by now. Also, the design could have been far more open and accessible - less random.

Would that have been a wise investment? We would now have a working post code system. At least that is what I think.

ukoda

"Working postcode" is a very subjective term. If you were to ask SUSI who have said they will save millions from use of eircode, then I'm sure they would deem it "working" for them. And there are other examples

I think the longest waiting period for eircode to appear on sat navs and Google will have nothing to do with the licence piece. It will be to do with them just not prioritising Ireland's postcode in the grand scheme of their work priorities. We've been told by a poster on here that the licence agreement with Google is signed off and it's on their "to do" list. I would imagine it's quite a long way down that list. Which has nothing to do with a licence. But granted, we may be a few months ahead of where we are now if they didn't have to negotiate the licence piece, but it's doubtful it would be implemented by them by now either way.

oscarBravo

chillin117 wrote: »

Electric Ireland don't, Bord Gas don't, Not on my bills just Dublin 3. That was not a rant BTW.

Seriously? You're citing two examples - one of which has been challenged by another poster - and that constitutes "none of the service providers"?

Some service providers use it - I know this for a fact, because I run a service provider, and we use it.

And it may not have been a rant, but it was certainly unburdened by fact.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it had been decided from the start that Eircode would be paid for by the DCNER taxpayer...

...and, of course, nobody would be bitching about freight companies being given something for nothing. Because this is Ireland, and we don't gratuitously bitch about stuff.

plodder

Do people bitch and moan when a new road gets built that doesn't have a toll?

And given that a location code could have been designed for free, the transport sector has every right to complain. A better analogy would be what they were given was like a road that was painted with gold-leaf and because that turned out to be so expensive, they have to be charged for it.

Now the transport sector isn't the only one with requirements on a postcode, but this constant noise that their complaints are by definition invalid because someone else is actually happy with it, is kind of ludicrous.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

...this constant noise that their complaints are by definition invalid because someone else is actually happy with it...

...is a straw man on your part.

Sam Russell

ukoda wrote: »

"Working postcode" is a very subjective term. If you were to ask SUSI who have said they will save millions from use of eircode, then I'm sure they would deem it "working" for them. And there are other examples

If you take the view the Eircode is a PPS number for properties, then it works very well. That is what SUSI uses it for. They do not use it to speed their letters of approval to those lucky rural dwellers that get a grant.

A 'working postcode' it isn't because An Post do not use it.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Do people bitch and moan when a new road gets built that doesn't have a toll?

Roads are paid for in Motor tax, not general taxation, meaning those who use the roads the most pay for them, by your logic....should the Freight industry be exempt from road tax too?

stoneill

So in summary -Eircode is sh1te?

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you take the view the Eircode is a PPS number for properties, then it works very well. That is what SUSI uses it for. They do not use it to speed their letters of approval to those lucky rural dwellers that get a grant.

A 'working postcode' it isn't because An Post do not use it.

https://twitter.com/Postvox/status/722338587610595328

https://twitter.com/autoaddress/status/708775661343793153

https://twitter.com/Postvox/status/706910364231987200

https://twitter.com/Postvox/status/704990272980180992

https://twitter.com/Postvox/status/704696682370433024


they also use it on their application form for the Delivery Box service

They also use it on their "address checker" tool: http://correctaddress.anpost.ie/pages/Search.aspx


its on their forms to apply for Prize Bonds, Household Budget, Savings Bonds

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Roads are paid for in Motor tax, not general taxation,
meaning those who use the roads the most pay for them, by your logic....should the Freight industry be exempt from road tax too?

That's your 'logic', not mine. It's a bit OT really, but motor tax and local property tax goes into the local government fund, which is used for many local authority services including road maintenance (and paying for Irish Water). And road tax has nothing to do with actual levels of road usage. So, the connection you're trying to make is quite tenuous. The point is anyway most roads aren't pay-by-use, which is what you are arguing for here with Eircode.

In some ways, Eircode is even worse than that. It was an example of the state using its bullying monopoly power to create a 100% monetised service, which didn't need to be 100% monetised.

A closer analogy might be say An Post deciding on a numbering system for a new housing estate, and making it random instead of sequential. They might say: "yeah it's random, but if you pay us an annual license fee, and also for each lookup, we will let you look at this map showing where each house is". As pointed out before, this is what economists call 'rent seeking'.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

And road tax has nothing to do with actual levels of road usage.

It's directly related, the more cars that use the road the more tax that's taken in to maintain them.

I cannot understand how people could possibly argue for the state to pay for eircode use in taxation. It is one of the worst arguements I've ever heard.

In a pay for use model, the user pays a fee to be able to use eircode. Thus enabling them to make savings which in turn will pay for the original use of eircode. The business in question is then in a net profit scenario, the cost of eircode is paid back in efficiencies and they make extra money. It's a win win for them. If they can't justify the spend on eircode and think they won't make a return on it, then they are free not to use it.

You're suggestion is that the state is saddled with the cost of maintaining eircode and every business gets it for free. Meaning the business makes more profit and the state pays for them to do it.

Honestly the pay per end user model is ideal for eircode.

Suggesting the tax payer should be straddled with the cost when in fact it could be self financing shows a complete lack of understanding of commerce and business, it's honestly one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Option 1: let the taxpayer pay for all of it and businesses pocket the profit at a cost to the state.

Option 2: let those who need it, pay for it and let them pocket the profits from efficiencies and cost the state nothing

How someone could advocate for option 1 is mind boggling to me.

It's the equivalent of someone saying, ah sur businesses need to be able to send letters, so let's just fund An Post from the state coffers, cos sur it'd be unfair to charge companies who send letters.

plodder

Well, once you own a car, even if you never use it, you pay the same tax as if you drive up and down 12 hours a day and as I said the money is used for many different purposes. We'll have to agree to disagree on the general question of public goods/versus pay by use for everything, but on your 'options'

Option 1: let the taxpayer pay for all of it and businesses pocket the profit at a cost to the state.

Option 2: let those who need it, pay for it and let them pocket the profits from efficiencies and cost the state nothing

Neither of those options are what applies currently, nor are either of them what I am suggesting. As it is the taxpayer is paying 33 million to the license holder and users are getting charged. There is a hypothetical profit/rent to be returned to the state but nobody knows how much that will be.

Option 3. Let the people who want address lookup and precise property locations pay for that. For people who just wanted a simple hierarchical code and to use the information that would have been publicly available in such a code, give them the equivalent information for free.

Not doing that, is equivalent to allowing An Post to number housing estates randomly and then charging people to make sense of it. Nobody would stand for that.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Not doing that, is equivalent to allowing An Post to number housing estates randomly and then charging people to make sense of it. Nobody would stand for that.

Obviously it's not the same as people are paying the licence fee for eircode left right and centre. There's been little to no objection from the industries involved to the concept of a licence fee itself, some like Google have objected to the price of the fee which is a different thing.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Obviously it's not the same as people are paying the licence fee for eircode left right and centre. There's been little to no objection from the industries involved to the concept of a licence fee itself, some like Google have objected to the price of the fee which is a different thing.

Really?

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Really?

yup, the main criticism is that it's not heirarchical

As you'll see form the other thread, there are loads of companies paying for it, can you list the industries that have objected to the licence model and provide a source to back up each?

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

yup, the main criticism is that it's not heirarchical

As you'll see form the other thread, there are loads of companies paying for it, can you list the industries that have objected to the licence model and provide a source to back up each?

I don't think the FTAI are too happy with the license either.

There is general agreement also that it is not suitable for applications like navigation. And incidentally, as far as I am concerned, the license hasn't changed until any new one is published on their website. All this talk of some special arrangement for google doesn't sound right to me. It would hardly be legal.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

I don't think the FTAI are too happy with the license either.

There is general agreement also that it is not suitable for applications like navigation. And incidentally, as far as I am concerned, the license hasn't changed until any new one is published on their website. All this talk of some special arrangement for google doesn't sound right to me. It would hardly be legal.

I would doubt it's a special one for Google, I would say it's a special one for navigation companies, all of them. At least that's what I was told when I asked them via email, "we're working on a product for navigation companies"

Not suitable for navigation? Both TomTom and Garmin and publicly confirmed they will implement eircode on their devices, and by the way, not a peep out of them about objecting to a licence.

So you can't list the industries that object to a licence model? The best you can come up with is "I think FTAI aren't too happy about it" which is one body in one industry that's never actually objected to the idea of a licence.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

I would doubt it's a special one for Google, I would say it's a special one for navigation companies, all of them. At least that's what I was told when I asked them via email, "we're working on a product for navigation companies"

So, where is it then? The licensing and pricing info on the site dates from March 2015. This is all BS as far as I'm concerned. I seriously doubt any agreement has been reached with google without the same opportunity being offered to any other potential customer.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

So, where is it then? The licensing and pricing info on the site dates from March 2015. This is all BS as far as I'm concerned. I seriously doubt any agreement has been reached with google without the same opportunity being offered to any other potential customer.

Why do you think you have a right to see it? Are you a navigation company?

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Why do you think you have a right to see it? Are you a navigation company?

They have to offer the license to any potential customer that wants it. Other companies outside of navigation might want to use it. It's not their right to pick and choose their customers.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

They have to offer the license to any potential customer that wants it. Other companies outside of navigation might want to use it. It's not their right to pick and choose their customers.

No they don't. A company is well within its rights to offer a specific product to one particular industry or group of customers.

Any company can put qualifying criteria on any product they sell and are under no obligation to list publicly every single product they sell.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

No they don't. A company is well within its rights to offer a specific product to one particular industry or group of customers.

Any company can put qualifying criteria on any product they sell and are under no obligation to list publicly every single product they sell.

It depends, but to keep it simple, a state sponsored, dominant, monopoly has to be quite careful about it. Doing a secret deal with one company, that other companies might benefit from, would be a big no-no in competition law. If a deal was done with google, then FTAI members might ask, what exactly was the deal and why weren't we offered it too?