[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Government Info, Public Access and Diversity of Sources
Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
September 8, 1993
Comment to: com-priv@psi.com (list on the commercialization
and privatization of the internet) cc: tap-info
Re: Government Information, Privatization, and Public
Access, and the Diversity Debate
From: Jamie Love, Taxpayer Assets Project
<love@essential.org>
A number of comments to com-priv have addressed the
appropriateness of government provided information products and
services, when private companies are interested in providing the
products or services commercially. This, of course, is a very
important policy issue facing the Clinton Administration, and one
that has been debated extensively for more than 20 years at the
federal level.
The purpose of this comment is to provide a very brief
illustration of how the debate is played out, giving examples of
the generic arguments as well as concrete examples of real
databases.
Everyone in the federal debate over government information claims
to be in favor of a "diversity" of information sources. In the
context of this debate, however, the word "diversity" has taken
on new meanings that are not obvious.
THE VENDOR'S VIEW OF DIVERSITY
The commercial data vendors have used the word "diversity" as a
code word for privatization. The vendor say that "diversity" is
enhanced when the government provides the public "equal" access
to information, and does not enter into "unfair" competition with
commercial data vendors. The vendors oppose "retail" information
products and services by federal agencies, and support
"wholesale" or "bulk" dissemination programs. The vendor's have
long fought to discourage or prevent agencies from providing
"value added" information products and services.
In an attempt to provide a rationale for the vendor's position,
Congressman Bob Wise (D-WV) once referred to a Gresham's Law for
information, where cheap but low quality government information
products and services drive high quality (and not so cheap)
private products and services out of the market.
While the vendor community claims that it does not favor
exclusive agreements on the control of government databases, in
practice, it depends upon who has the exclusive agreement. There
are many exclusive agreements (such as LANDSAT/GM-GE,
JURIS/WESTLAW) that IIA has not opposed.
[The "equal" access or "level playing field" issue is one that is
often tilted by special arrangements with large vendors which
lower their costs of market entry. Thus, for example, Mead
receives $14 million from the SEC to store the EDGAR database on
its computers (a contract that Mead's competitors would surely
like), or WESTLAW is paid by the Justice Department to collect
and digitialize legal information, which lowers WEST's operating
costs.]
THE LIBRARIAN AND DATA USER'S VIEW OF DIVERSITY
Librarians and data users also say they are in favor of a
"diversity" of information sources, but they favor different
policies. Data user groups say the "diversity" is enhanced when
the government provides access to the underlying records of
databases at low prices (no more than the costs of
dissemination), without requirements for payments of royalties or
restrictions on the reuse or redissemination of information.
Agencies are free to "compete" against the private sector, and
the private sector is free to "compete" against the government.
In this view, which I subscribe to, data users are thought to
recognize and reward value added features of information products
and services, providing incentives to firms that can satisfy
important market needs.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE VENDOR VIEW
In practice, many federal agencies have developed sophisticated
information system, which are used for internal purposes. These
systems, which are developed at taxpayer expense, typically have
high fixed costs and very low incremental costs. Vendor do not
want the public to have online access to the government's
information systems, since that would be "unfair" competition
(priced too low) that would drive private vendors out of the
market (not to mention, reduce profits).
PTO
For example, the Patent and Trademark Office limits remote online
access to its $400+ million Automated Patent System (APS).
Vendors for patent information currently include such companies
as LEXIS/(LEXPAT), DIALOG, BRS or ORBIT. The PTO policy is
controversial, since many scientists and lawyers want to access
patent information directly from the Government's system, at a
fraction of the cost of using commercial vendors. The vendors
have formed the "Coalition for Patent Information Dissemination"
(which should be renamed the "Coalition Against Patent
Information Dissemination") in order to lobby against individual
access to the APS.
By March 1994 the PTO will have a T-1 connection to the Internet,
and use the Internet to connect 74 PTO depository libraries to
the APS. It would be straightforward for the PTO to allow all
internet users (for free or for a fee) to search the database
from homes, offices or non-depository libraries, without a trip
to one of the PTO depository libraries. But no way. To promote
"diversity" of sources for this data, there will be very limited
access to the government's $400+ million system. What we have,
folks, is a government funded online system that will be
connected to the internet, but which will only be available on a
walk-in basis.
HOUSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The House of Representatives currently has an online system which
provides search and retrieval of the full text of all bills
before Congress, plus many other items. The "incremental" cost
of access is extremely low, but only the staff of the House of
Representatives is allowed to dial-in. Why? In order to promote
the "diversity" of sources for this information, which include
such companies as the Washington Post's LEGI-SLATE or Mead's
LEXIS/LEGIS services. While you don't have low cost access to
copies of pending bills that will rule your life, relax, you are
promoting jobs in the private sector, and a "diversity" of
sources of this information.
JURIS
The Department of Justice (DOJ) runs its own online service
called JURIS. JURIS has an amazing product line which includes
the full text of federal court decisions, statues, regulations,
administrative law, foreign treaties, and many other items. The
government makes this available to 15,000 federal employees at
about one quarter the cost that LEXIS or WESTLAW charge ordinary
citizens for access to the same information. Since most of the
JURIS costs are fixed, the incremental costs of expanded access
are considered trivial. According to an August 18, 1993 letter
from Steven Colgate, the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration, DOJ thinks it may not be appropriate to provide
public access to this legal information, since the data is being
sold by commercial data vendors (at $4 to $6 per minute).
(Of course, the Justice Department also will not let any
competitors to LEXIS or WESTLAW obtain the JURIS database in
order to compete, since WEST "owns" the commercial rights to much
of the JURIS database. But the vendor trade group (IIA) is not
interested in challenging the West contract.)
There are, of course, dozens of other cases that could be
discussed, but this is enough for now.
WHO BEARS THE COST OF PUBLIC ACCESS
Some individuals who have posted notes on com-priv raise the
issue of the appropriates of taxpayer subsidies to data users.
In fact, the library and data user community has not opposed fee
based systems. Indeed, the GPO ACCESS legislation specifically
provided for user fees to finance the costs of the system for
most users (depository libraries get it for free), and lots of
federal information systems (MEDLARS, the Economic Bulletin
Board) and products (US Code on CD-ROM, National Trade Data Bank
on CD-ROM) are not free, but avaiable for a fee.
On other other hand, if the agency determines that wide
dissemination of the information is important to its mission, it
may be important to provide the information at no cost.
Moreover, in some cases the cost of billing users may too high to
justify user fees. This is what agencies have done for paper
products for hundreds of years, and there is no reason why
agencies should have fewer options in the computer age.
As a final note, consider the following. The taxpayers paid more
than $100 million for the development of the EDGAR system, plus
more than $50 million per year administer its full disclosure
program (under which the filings are made). If the annual cost
of providing free online access to these filing is less than $.5
million, it is a bargain, given everything that is spent to
collect the information in the first place. Likewise, the cost
of public access to the government's automated patent system
(APS) is a tiny fraction of the $400+ million cost of developing
the system. Why not open up public access, determine usage
levels, and then determine what kind (if any) of user fees are
needed?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@essential.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions to tap-info are available by sending an email
message to listserver@essential.org with the folowing message:
subscribe tap-info your name
---------------------------------------------------------------