nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Eircode discussion

plodder

Thread for discussion of aspects of Eircode other than its implementation

Sorry about all the Eircode threads. Hopefully all the defunct ones will soon drop off the main page.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?

Sam Russell

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?

No, Motor Tax pays for Irish Water - as does 'Local' Property tax.

Sam Russell

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.

Are you sure about that? Eircode is a monopoly and as such should be regulated - I presume it is.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

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?

and the simple lawful answer to that is "you don't qualify as you are not a mapping/navigation company" perfectly legal. no one has ever suggested that the deal with google was only for google, for all we know there could have been many different mapping/navigation companies at the table negotiating.

and even if they were the only ones, competition law does not prohibit different negotiated prices for different customers, it states you have to provide equal conditions under which to provide the product, not equal price for all.

Google could make the case that they are a bulk user and as such want a discounted rate, something that happens a million times a day across the country and world. its a business norm, you buy in bulk, you get a better rate.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Eircode is a monopoly and as such should be regulated - I presume it is.

im 100% sure about that, Eircode (Capita Business Support Services Ireland Limited trading as Eircode) is a Ltd company and can operate the same as any other limited company in the country, it is not regulated by a regulator but would of course be subject to the same laws as any company. but would not be prohibited from negotiating a contract with another company for providing services

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

and the simple lawful answer to that is "you don't qualify as you are not a mapping/navigation company" perfectly legal. no one has ever suggested that the deal with google was only for google, for all we know there could have been many different mapping/navigation companies at the table negotiating.

and even if they were the only ones, competition law does not prohibit different negotiated prices for different customers, it states you have to provide equal conditions under which to provide the product, not equal price for all.

Google could make the case that they are a bulk user and as such want a discounted rate, something that happens a million times a day across the country and world. its a business norm, you buy in bulk, you get a better rate.

Discounts based on volume are fine, but saying I am not selling to you because (I think) you are not a navigation company is where the thin ice starts to crack.

The fact is that google aren't solely a navigation company. Their platform can be used for anything practically.

In any case, it's down to the wording used in the license. They would have to publish such license so people can decide themselves whether they can comply. That would be the case in particular because of Eircode's state sponsored dominant position.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Discounts based on volume are fine, but saying I am not selling to you because (I think) you are not a navigation company is where the thin ice starts to crack.

The fact is that google aren't solely a navigation company. Their platform can be used for anything practically.

In any case, it's down to the wording used in the license. They would have to publish such license so people can decide themselves whether they can comply. That would be the case in particular because of Eircode's state sponsored dominant position.

The product should be designated a "navigation" product and as such be only used for that purpose and it's irreverent what else Google do as a company.

I'm again going to say that it's perfectly legal to not sell a product to someone if they don't meet the criteria set out in the product.

To test this, try ask your existing bank for a rate that's labelled as "for new customers only" and see how you get on.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

The product should be designated a "navigation" product and as such be only used for that purpose and it's irreverent what else Google do as a company.

I'm again going to say that it's perfectly legal to not sell a product to someone if they don't meet the criteria set out in the product.

To test this, try ask your existing bank for a rate that's labelled as "for new customers only" and see how you get on.

That's true, but I'll say it again too. Software licenses can be complex things. If a dominant supplier sponsored by the state, does a deal with one company without making the deal public, then other companies might get upset. They will want to know what the exact definition of the field of use is, and at the very least publishing the license details would be a pre-requisite for that.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

That's true, but I'll say it again too. Software licenses can be complex things. If a dominant supplier sponsored by the state, does a deal with one company without making the deal public, then other companies might get upset. They will want to know what the exact definition of the field of use is, and at the very least publishing the license details would be a pre-requisite for that.

It's not a software licence. Eircode do not sell software. They just provide a file full of postcodes and addresses at a cost per look up. If you want the data you get a password to log into their SFTP every quarter and pick up the data file, you then report back your usage and pay. Some VAR's are peddling software solutions that use eircode. But eircode itself is not. Therefore they just selling "items" and are free to do the "bulk users get a discount" negotiation with whoever they want, and as mentioned, they are a private limited company and have absolutely no requirement to make anything like that public. It would be deemed commercially sensitive.

And by the way, I'm not saying I agree with this. But it is currently how it stands. I'm not against them publishing thier deal with Google. But making it clear they don't have to

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

It's not a software licence. Eircode do not sell software. They just provide a file full of postcodes and addresses at a cost per look up. If you want the data you get a password to log into their SFTP every quarter and pick up the data file, you then report back your usage and pay. Some VAR's are peddling software solutions that use eircode. But eircode itself is not. Therefore they just selling "items" and are free to do the "bulk users get a discount" negotiation with whoever they want, and as mentioned, they are a private limited company and have absolutely no requirement to make anything like that public. It would be deemed commercially sensitive.

Being a private limited company is not relevant. They are effectively an agent of the state and are absolutely dominant in the sector and that is what is going to attract competition attention, to say nothing of legitimate public policy interest.

In what way could it be commercially sensitive? They are a monopoly. It's ludicrous to think they could keep it secret.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Being a private limited company is not relevant.

It's extremely relevant as it is the law. A private limited company is a legal entity in the eyes of the law and it is irrelevant that they are an agent of the state. The law does not change.

They can of course keep it private for the reasons I've outlined. Can you say its ludicrous for a builders providers to not publish how much they charged that builder for the order of bricks they made? It's none of your business in the eyes of the law.

And if they can't keep it a secret... Then where is it? TomTom and Garmin have indicated they will implement, where is that contract published?