The Future of Free Weather Data on the Internet

An anonymous reader writes "The National Weather Service wants to update a 1991 policy that limits what data it can put on the Internet. The proposed new policy makes putting free data on the Internet official. The Private Weather Sector wants NWS to provide its new digital forecasts only in specialized data formats and would like NWS to shut down new XML data feeds. Barry Myers (MS Word doc), president of Accuweather wants you to have pay before using Kweather and other similar tools. Myers is asking friends to comment against the new NWS policy by June 30. Should we have to pay twice to get weather forecasts?"

Comments

Re:Should be free.

[BDew]

Because the government should not compete with the private sector. It's a simple enough principle, if there's something that the private sector is willing to do for-profit, then the government simply should not compete with them. Unless you want the government to also get into the software development business. Or the car making business. Or any other private venture.

Most of the posts also miss the business model. The government collects the raw data, and that is made freely available. What Accuweather and the like do is turn that raw data into value-added products like maps with pretty colors, icons, etc. They translate the science into a form that average people understand.

Your argument that they don't hold the entire system so they shouldn't hold any of it doesn't make sense. Otherwise the analogy could be extended like this: Microsoft owns Windows, so other complanies shouldn't write software for it. Apple owns the OS AND the hardware, so other companies shouldn't write software for it. These are not sentiments often found on /. Why should weather forecasting be any different?

Re:This is fucking stupid

[Michael Hunt]

Oh shit.

I should avoid posting to /. when I'm pissed.

Sorry everyone.

Re:Who pays for it?

[ichimunki]

So a government monopoly on weather services benefits us how exactly? Whenever taxpayers subsidize a service that could be provided in the marketplace, that subsidy undermines the development of true competition for that service.

Seems to me that even with all the media consolidation that's gone on, no one media company would ever have a monopoly on weather prediction. Perhaps eventually they would all subcontract to the same firm, similar to what is being proposed here (if not already being done in fact).

By the way, the statement "big companies want your money..." is a type of ad hominem attack (their motives are not relevant to the validity of their argument). Not only that, I should think it's obvious that all companies, large and small, are in business to make a profit. Additionally, given how much of my income goes to the government on an annual basis (hint: every eight hour day I put in, the first three hours are spent working to pay the government), I think I'm rightfully more concerned about the size and scope of government than any big business.