The Future of Free Weather Data on the Internet

It should be free by bobhagopian · 2004-06-26 22:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nobody should ever have to pay for a service which provides the same information as a quick look out the window does. And if they do charge something for it, the vast majority of people *will not* pay.

Re:It should be free by 4of12 · 2004-06-28 04:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

consider accurate weather forecasting to be critically important to business,

Absolutely.

I remember years ago visiting a private weather forecasting outfit in the central valley of California, probably one of the richest agricultural producing regions in the world.

They had very impressive facilities and were able to provide farmers with the detailed kinds of information about soil moisture, predicted rainfall, temperatures high and low, what the weather was forecast to be on a hourly basis, etc. This was many years ago when all you could get from the NWS was today's weather, tomorrows forecast for a region that was 100 km across.

I think the government should provide the free weather data to the taxpayers that support them. It's a public benefit that costs little to do. The right to make money based on artificial scarcity is not constitutionally protected.

There's still plenty of room in the marketplace for real value added services that the average taxpayer is not yet willing to pay for but which the farmer or marine navigator is very keen to know about.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

Who pays for it? by Mazem · 2004-06-26 22:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who pays for the National Weather Service? If it is taxpayer money then setting up a pay-service on the internet seems counter-intuitive.

Re:Who pays for it? by Gabrill · 2004-06-27 00:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does the weather information come under the freedom of information act? Can that act be used to thwart this scheme?

--
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Re:Who pays for it? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2004-06-27 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Be assured, this is all part of a plan to privatise the weather services. Big companies want your money and gaining a monopoly over services and goods you need is the best way to get it.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Who pays for it? by osgeek · 2004-06-27 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, it does fall under the FOIA. All weather forecasts will be published in an open format for anyone who wants to see them -- a mere five years after they are made.

Rejoice in the freedom of information act.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:Who pays for it? by tdemark · 2004-06-27 01:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Let's use severe weather as an example.

You need a single organization for severe weather coverage to ensure public safety. Imagine if you had multiple companies issuing conflicting severe weather warnings? Since it is an issue of public safety, it makes sense to have a government agency in control of these statements.

In order to provide severe weather coverage, the government needs to:

(a) collect significant amounts of data (observations, satellite, radar)
(b) process that data into certain forms (forecasts, models, etc)

Since we are paying for this service, why should access to the data be limited?
Re:Who pays for it? by tdemark · 2004-06-27 01:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

For reasons of commerce, national security, and personal safety, NOAA must gather significant amounts of weather data. Furthermore, to ensure that products like severe weather statements can be issued accurately, the organization must provide data such as current conditions and forecasts.

An artificial scarcity of data does nothing to help the people paying for it via their taxes. It only serves to help the bottom lines of a few large corporations whose only responsibilities are to themselves, not the citizens of the United States.

The services that are currently "experimental" or whose ultimate availability is unknown due to pressure from certain members of the Commercial Weather Industry should become permanently and freely available to anyone wishing access to it.

Back when data dissemination costs were high, it made sense to limit the NWS role in giving data to the public. By allowing only a few organizations to have access to the data and allowing them to sell it, those organization would pay the rather high costs to ensure the data was, in fact, available.

However, now that communication costs are so low, such a method makes no sense.

A recent letter from Barry Myers to members of the Commercial Weather Industry pleading for them to come out against the NWS Partnership Policy, he stated:

"Industries grow where risk is controllable or predictable. The present path of the NWS- controlled federal policy introduces greater risk to the private sector. Not less."

In this case, he is partially right.

However, the risk he is actually talking about is the ability for large commercial weather organizations to maintain a stranglehold on the sector.

You see, the products that NOAA currently offer, themselves, pose no threat to AccuWeather or other large organizations. It is just data, and most people don't want to look at coded data. They want an end product.

By allowing data to flow freely to the public, the NWS ENCOURAGES competition to the incumbents. Barriers that prevented bright entrepreneurs from pushing new services are greatly reduced and a new era of value-added products will be born.

To this end, I see no alternative but for NOAA to provide the services it currently does in a permanent, free fashion as well as to develop other offerings that benefit the taxpayers as it sees fit.
Re:Who pays for it? by ichimunki · 2004-06-27 03:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

You need a single organization for severe weather coverage to ensure public safety.

Prove it. I don't think the public is going to be much or less safe just because they have a single agency doing this. A single agency represents a single point of failure, and in this case what recourse does the public even have if the NOAA screws up? If there are multiple agencies, there is nothing to prevent the government from contracting the weather services it does need out to one of them.

As to conflicting warnings, I assume that most of the warnings would be the same type of stuff and that the public could make decisions based on a consensus model or majority of warnings thing. If all the major weather services are predicting dangerous weather, that seems like a better bet than if it's one small service being operated by boy scouts working on their weather merit badge.

More likely I would think that if I have health or homeowners insurance or other policies that weather is likely to affect, that the insurance company would have a preferred weather service that they would require me to use when it comes to things like whether or not to board up my windows and vacate the area.

Since we are paying for this service, why should access to the data be limited?

Good question-- but one which argues against a point I never made and have no intention of attempting defend.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Who pays for it? by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2004-06-27 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

So a government monopoly on weather services benefits us how exactly?

This is not about a government monopoly on weather services. The government has been providing this information for decades. It is, in fact, the very data that private weather services use to base their forecasts on. Accu-Weather and other corporations do not want to stop the government from producing this data -- they want to limit the government to providing it only to corporations, not to private citizens, so that they can resell the information that we taxpayers have already paid for back to us at a profit.

In addition, this would prevent some other entrepreneurial meteorology graduate student from using that data to make forecasts for local ski areas and eventually starting a weather company of his own ... which is how Joel Myers (Barry's brother) started Accu-Weather. This has nothing to do with a government monopoly on anything, and everything to do with protecting a few large companies from competition.

Whenever taxpayers subsidize a service that could be provided in the marketplace, that subsidy undermines the development of true competition for that service.

The private weather companies are not asking the National Weather Service to get out of the weather data collection and weather forecasting area. Those companies absolutely depend on the thousands of hourly observations collected by the NWS, on the computer forecast models generated by their supercomputers, etc. What those companies are demanding is that the NWS provide this data -- which we the taxpayers have already paid for -- only to the corporations, not to the taxpayers.

Any time Accu-Weather wants to pay to establish a network of thousands of observation stations to get the weather data they depend on, buy a few of the world's largest supercomputers and develop their own software to run models, launch satellites to track global weather, etc., then they are entirely within their rights to make that data available only to their customers. But we pay for those stations, for those supercomputers, for those satellites, and all the rest -- the very services that Accu-Weather and other corporations depend on to generate their own forecasts -- and we have every right to the data generated from them in any and every format that the National Weather Service -- the people employed by the taxpayers to do the job -- wants to give it to us, their employers, in.
Re:Who pays for it? by ColdWetDog · 2004-06-27 04:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Five years? That's OK, they'll be just as accurate.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Who pays for it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-27 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Prove it. I don't think the public is going to be much or less safe just because they have a single agency doing this. A single agency represents a single point of failure, and in this case what recourse does the public even have if the NOAA screws up?

Imagine this situation...

Category 3 hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. One agency issues warnings for Texas/Louisiana Coast, the other agency issues warnings for Texas/Mexico border.

What do businesses/homeowners do? Evacuations and closings cost BILLIONS of dollars and you have two widely spaced areas that have been warned.

This shouldn't be hard to imagine because, it has happened in the past. One agency was the NWS (TX/Mexico) and the other was AccuWeather (TX/LA). Now, AccuWeather couldn't put out warnings, but they put out forecasts that differed significantly from the NWS. Luckily, people generally listen to warnings over forecasts, so there was little impact.

As far as "who is responsible", do you honestly think that AccuWeather or Landmark Communications (Weather Channel) would be in business if you could sue them for incorrect forecasts?

As to conflicting warnings, I assume that most of the warnings would be the same type of stuff and that the public could make decisions based on a consensus model or majority of warnings thing.

Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

The biggest weather threats to personal safety all develop fast and are highly unpredictable. The path and strength of hurricanes, snowstorms, and tornadic mesocyclones are hard to predict - there are too many variables and not enough observation resolution to allow to highly accurate models 100% of the time.

During these times of crisis, you want the public to weigh each of options and try and make a informed choice? In the case of tornados, seconds can be the difference between life and death.

Imagine what the public hears the night before a Nor'easter:

"Well, ABC is saying that we are going to get rain. NBC is saying 30" of snowfall by tomorrow night, KYW is forecasting a dusting, and FOX has it sunny and warm throughout the weekend."

And you want them to make a decision on this? This is the same public that has caused hair dryer manufacturers to put "Do not use while sleeping" on their product.

More likely I would think that if I have health or homeowners insurance or other policies that weather is likely to affect, that the insurance company would have a preferred weather service that they would require me to use when it comes to things like whether or not to board up my windows and vacate the area.

Homeowners insurance is based on climatological data, not on instantaneous weather conditions. As I said before, no forecast is going to protect your house if a tornado hits it; basing personal property insurance on an instantaneous occurrence doesn't make actuarial sense.

Furthermore, an insurance company will take whatever steps are necessary to limited claims. This means that they may require those covered to "close up shop" at the drop of a hat. Such closings cost those covered significant amounts of money.

On the other hand, a government agency does what is best for the public. There is no pressure to try and "scoop" the competition with an early warning (which we have seen time and time again with TV weather people). They realize that issuing warnings that prove false only wastes money and erodes confidence in their product.

Bill C.
Re:Who pays for it? by gabebear · 2004-06-27 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

The new proposal does extend the public's rights to the data, however, this document by Barry Myers is arguing that the NWS doesn't have the right to publish the data they create via the web because of a 1991 Policy that states:
"The NWS will not compete with the private sector [Commercial Weather Industry] when a service is currently provided or can be provided by commercial enterprises, unless otherwise directed by applicable law."
which is slated to be repealed if the new proposal goes through. The document Myers sent out goes on to say;
"The recognition that the private weather industry is ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users is deleted."
People are worried because if Myers has everything he wants, then the data the NWS publishes would closed to the public. I find it unlikely this would happen, but it's amazing what lobbyists can do.
Re:Who pays for it? by calidoscope · 2004-06-27 11:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

As far as "who is responsible", do you honestly think that AccuWeather or Landmark Communications (Weather Channel) would be in business if you could sue them for incorrect forecasts?
This is probably the strongest argument against an exclusively private weather service. The private companies are probably better off with the public having free access to NWS forecasts just for reducing liability.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the functions of the NWS are entirely consistent with the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses of the Preamble to the US Constitution (and also the "National Defense" caluse as well - weather is important to military operations).

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Re:Who pays for it? by macdaddy · 2004-06-27 15:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I live in the sticks. I mean that literally. To 99% of the country I live in the middle of freaking nowhere. This town has no gas station. It doesn't have a grocery store. We have one cafe that opened less than a month ago. Main street is paved in bricks. This town has a population of 231 at the last census. You see as many horses on main street as you do trucks. By all accounts I live in a deserted area of the country (though heavily populated when compared to areas of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, or western Kansas. I do however live in one of the most important areas of the country, meteorlogically speaking. I live in tornado alley. Don't know what "tornado alley" is? Lets just say that we have a helluva a lot of tornados, more so than anywhere else in the world. I live east of the nearest town with a TV station and weather dept. Take note of the word "east" because that's very important. Tornadic weather in this area almost always moves west to east in general (NW-->SE, SW-->NE, etc). More often than not our local TV stations have live coverage of all storms west of their area. No commercials, no regular programming, just wall to wall coverage of the cloud floating overhead. That all changes as soon as the storm passes their precious little town. We're only 2 counties east of the TV station(s), 90 minutes driving time from town, and yet they rarely ever bother to cover us. If we're lucky we might get a glimpse of a radar image in the corner of the screen. Beyond that we're on our own. NOAA is the only entity that seems to give a rat's ass about us. They aren't in it for the ratings like our local TV stations. They only care about weather and the areas being affected. Without NOAA we'd be up shit's creek. I have 2 NOAA pages loaded right now since a storm went through a few hours ago. NOAA's NWS pages are indespensible. Privatizing weather forecasting will only lead to them concentrating on highly populated areas. They wouldn't give a damn about us in the sticks. You know, the ones that feed this country.
Re:Who pays for it? by superflippy · 2004-06-28 08:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I work for a university research group that is working with NOAA and other organizations to improve data collection and predictions associated with severe weather in our area. The truth is, there is not just one organization controlling all the information in the event of, for example, a hurricane.

NOAA, FEMA, and state emergency management groups work together in the event of a disaster. They create plans ahead of time as to who will do what in order to avoid confusion. So it's NOAA's responsibility to decide whether a hurricane is category 3 or 4, but it's the state EMD's responsibility to tell people what to do in the event of a hurricane.

It's important to have a detailed disaster plan to avoid exactly the kind of scenario you describe. The current plan includes everything from when the Governor should announce a highway lane reversal to the format my research group's storm surge prediction should be delivered in. The media can use this plan to know who to contact for what information, and to tell people what to expect.

And, to chime in on the topic, I think that NOAA's data should absolutely be free. Don't stifle research.

--
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.

A replacement will not take long by TardisX · 2004-06-26 22:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

If this ever happens, I estimate it would take about 1 week for a group to appear, advocating 'open source' weather data collection, another week for some client/server software to be written, and about 3 months for effectively global weather data collection.

--

Command attempted to use minibuffer while in minibuffer

Re:A replacement will not take long by klmth · 2004-06-26 22:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look, this is not going to happen for a simple reason: the general public doesn't sit on a metric assload of various measurment instruments.
Re:A replacement will not take long by hussar · 2004-06-26 23:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, as a former pilot, I would be a bit concerned about the unreported, open source sonde collecting upper air data.

As for the public not sitting on a metric buttload of weather measuring gear, they weren't sitting on a metric buttload of WiFi gear at first either. If local measurement ever went open source, I suspect you'd see a lot of measuring equipment show up on the market.

--

Bureaucracy loves company.
Re:A replacement will not take long by jupiter909 · 2004-06-26 23:49 · Score: 2, Informative

I would tend to agree with what you are saying. So perhaps they are shooting themselve in the foot with this preposal of theirs.

'Open Source' weather collection would give a more accurate picture of statistics. If there are a few closed weather centers with high accuracy equipment to say a few hundred thousand people contributing to and open system. The system with more people even though running with 'poorer' equipment, would give a better overview, as the results of weather statistics is that of averages so the errors get smoothed out in the end.

I know there was/is a simular type event happening for earth quake detection. A home system that many people plugged into and then each persons meter would report to some central station. So perhaps now is the time for weather to do the same.
Re:A replacement will not take long by mumblestheclown · 2004-06-27 00:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bullshit.
Mod parent down.
I am a pilot who flies in the USA and in Europe. In the USA, weather information is free. In Europe, it is not. NO open source weather network has sprung up in europe. The TV news provides some information, but very very little of interest to pilots.
The thing is, given all the airports already in place who could benefit from this (that is to say, a distributed set of reporting stations), you'd think that your sort of community network would just spring up. Well, it hasn't and won't. Why? Because the competitive market has turned out to be a pretty efficient mechanism for bringing weather data to those who need it.
Re:A replacement will not take long by 1u3hr · 2004-06-27 01:37 · Score: 2, Informative

the general public doesn't sit on a metric assload of various measurment instruments.
Not that it is in any way a replacement for a government service, but The Weather Undergound of Hong Kong, and presumably affiliated groups, do have their own weather stations, though most of their data is from government observatories. But I think witout weather satellite photos, no one can conme anywhere near current state-of-the-art.
Re:A replacement will not take long by zogger · 2004-06-27 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

running your own doppler radar might get a little pricey though......

Should be free. by dj245 · 2004-06-26 22:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

We all pay taxes (OK maybe not all of us) that support things like weather sattelites, weather baloons, remote weather stations, etc. This is where the majority of the weather data comes from, and the funding comes from taxpayers ultimately. The NWS is a government agency. They compile the data from the balloons, stations, and sattelites, and make forecasts and charts and maps and graphs. Mariners, in particular, get a lot of data from the NWS directly and indirectly.

On the other hand, Accuweather is a commercial venture designed to profit by delivering weather content to television studios and radio stations. They own no balloons nor weather stations nor sattelites. Why should we have to pay them anything? They only want to diversify their grip on the nutsack of private weather.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Re:Should be free. by bsane · 2004-06-27 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because the government should not compete with the private sector.

So when I start my private army I can get the government to pay me and disband theirs?

I'm glad I have your support for this plan.
Re:Should be free. by drooling-dog · 2004-06-27 01:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget the most important distinction between the NWS and Accuweather: Only one of them can legally contribute to political campaigns. This, and not any quest for "efficiency," is the real engine behind privatization.
Re:Should be free. by blakestah · 2004-06-27 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

It might be a simple principle to George Bush.

But there are, currently, dozens and dozens of small weather forecasting niches. People do weather forecasting for hang-gliding, or surfing, or wind-surfing, and do this by interpreting available NWS data.

If the change in enacted, almost all of these small-time forecasters will go away. Anyone who wants weather information will be able to get it, either by paying accuweather, or by writing their own tools to interpret the freely available raw data. I have written tools to decode raw data, and it is not tricky work, but it takes some time.

My viewpoint is that currently, all weather forecasting uses the same models and same data input, those of the military (FNMOC) and NWS. The raw data costs an enormous amount of money to get, and a small amount to provide through current web pages.

The proposal, if enacted, would DECREASE available weather sources, not INCREASE it, and would result in a net DECREASE in the quality and quantity of weather forecasts to the public. The people who would profit will be those who write weather interpreting tools and provide them to others. It is asking for a government handout - plain and simple. Remove a government service, so we can provide it instead.

The key point to keep in mind here is that ALL WEATHER MODELS and ALL FORECASTING MODELS are 100% owned by the government. The cost for development was ENORMOUS and EXTREMELY VALUABLE. Accuweather wants the VISUAL PRESENTATION to be removed, so they can use their own, and sell it, instead. The VISUAL PRESENTATION provides ALL the consumer value.

I think the better analogy would be if the government wrote an operating system and a window manager and browser. Microsoft lobbied the government to remove the window manager only, so they could sell the whole package as their own.

It will have a chilling effect on small niche weather forecasters, cost consumers more to get the same data (or worse), lead to no improvement in forecasting (remember the models will not change), and profit a few large weather companies substantially. Accuweather is just getting pissed off that the internet allows easy access to the same data they've always had easy access to, and it is eating their profit margin.
Re:Should be free. by sjames · 2004-06-27 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed. I am all for Accuweather and others using freely available data to produce forecasts suitable for various consumers. If they are adding substantial value, they will have no problems staying in business.

The fact that they believe freely available data will kill their business model makes me wonder if THEY believe that they add substantial value!

If they're not doing anything that can't be managed by any enthusiastic ameture with an internet connection and a bit of (possibly Free) software, they SHOULD fail. I see no reason they should be granted privileged access to data that the taxpayer paid to collect. Businesses that want to make a profit need to do something someone values. The more it's valued, and the harder it is to do, the more they stand to earn by doing it.
Re:Should be free. by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2004-06-27 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

When Accu-Weather establishes their own network of thousands of automated and manned data collection stations, when they launch their own weather satellites, when they buy some of the world's fastest supercomputers and write global weather modelling software for them, when they set up hundreds of radar stations, and when they get a time machine to gather weather records from a hundred years before the company was founded, then they might have the right to deny information critical to life, safety, and livelihood to anyone other than their paying customers.

But since we, the taxpayers, own all of that, no private company -- not Accu-Weather, not anyone -- has the right to restrict the benefits of those taxpayer-owned resources to themselves.

Accu-Weather was not the first private weather company. If a system such as they want, where some or all data is limited to distribution solely to existing corporations, then Accu-Weather would never have been born. A grad student named Joel Myers wouldn't have had access to the data he needed to start making forecasts for local ski areas, and eventually expand that to a worldwide weather service. Of course, that scenario is exactly in Accu-Weather's best interest. Remember, while it's in our interest, as consumers, to have open competition in any given market and a wide array of choices, it is in the interest of the companies in that market to reduce competition and to raise the highest possible barriers to entry into that market, to protect their own position. That's what this is all about.
Re:Should be free. by canadian_right · 2004-06-27 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bullshit. Private companies should not have a monopoly on information that was collected and processed using taxpayers money. The only thing these private 'weather' companies do is re-distribute publicly funded information.
Now that technology makes is very cheap for the government to distribute this information the NATURAL free market result is that the private weather companies die. They no longer have a valuable service to provide.
If these private weather companies had been the ones investing in weather stations, satelites and super-computers and then the government decided to move in and do the same you might have an argument. But this is not the case. These private weather companies are NOT weather forecasters - they are simply restributing information YOU paid your government to collect.

--
Anarchists never rule
Re:Should be free. by DoraLives · 2004-06-27 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bullshit. Private companies should not have a monopoly on information that was collected and processed using taxpayers money.
Amen, brother!
Below, my own unworthy letter to the NWS regarding the proposed policy, complete with cc's.
As a SERVICE, subsidized by government tax revenue, the NWS should provide all raw and processed data that it generates, to the public for no additional charge above and beyond the original tax revenue that was collected.
Paying for my weather twice, in the form of having to pay commercial services in order to obtain data that was originally collected using MY tax dollars, is a type of double taxation at best and outright theft at worst.
The interests of public safety are best served by the widest dissemination of that data on which decisions can be made. Anyone who is unable to interpret the raw and/or processed data generated by the NWS is free to purchace additionally processed forms of that data from commercial enterprises, either directly, via subscription-based specialty services such as are available at Accuweather and other specialty outlets, or indirectly, via advertiser-sponsored services on the internet, television, radio, etc . No one should be COMPELLED to purchace additionally processed data if they choose not to do so.
Commercial enterprises that advocate any other position can only be doing so in their OWN self interest as opposed to a genuine interest in PUBLIC safety. I find this to be an unacceptable position regarding a SERVICE that is, at its root, founded upon my tax dollar.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at either my email address of "xxx@xxx.com" or my personal address at xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx
Regards,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
cc:
DL.Johnson@noaa.gov Conrad.C.Lautenbacher@noaa.gov devans@doc.gov myersb@accuweather.com

--
Is it fascism yet?

PC weather tools by dj245 · 2004-06-26 22:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Barry Myers (MS Word doc), president of Accuweather wants you to have pay before using Kweather and other similar tools.

Are there any good non-adware PC weather tools? Being a true geek, I sometimes don't look out a window for days at a time. Besides the infamous Weatherbug, what else is there?

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Re:PC weather tools by Yaa+101 · 2004-06-26 22:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes there is,

The weather module of GKrellM. http://web.wt.net/~billw/gkrellm/gkrellm.html

btw. could those stealing middlemen stop nagging that their stealing businessmodel stops working.
If they had setup devices of their own and had financed all self instead of piggybacking on the Government weather services that are paid by us, not them.
Re:PC weather tools by Dacotah · 2004-06-26 23:20 · Score: 2, Informative

I use Weather Watcher from http://www.singerscreations.com/. Adware free and Spyware free, the total download is just 1.48Mb and is freeware. I liked it so much I gave him a donation. It is somewhat like Weatherbug without all the bloat and crap. KWeather for KDE would be similiar to Wx Watcher.

The Solomon solution... by Genda · 2004-06-26 22:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is so simple... Either the weather information we pay for through our taxes is provoded to the public for free... or Accuweather can foot the entire bill for weather collection and charge whatever it see's as a fair market price for the service. I would just as happily see my tax dollars returned to me, and watch the weather on the evening news, or buy a small personal weather station.

Genda

Bad idea. by Minstrel+Boy · 2004-06-26 22:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here's what happens when you don't have good international cooperation for your weather service: http://www.1900storm.com/ KeS

Re:Bad idea. by howhardcanitbetocrea · 2004-06-26 22:45 · Score: 2, Funny

How much worse can weather get than when it is raining error 404s?

--

President ISES
(International Society for Elimination of Sigs)

Free Weather Could Save Lives by miyako · 2004-06-26 22:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think having free weather information is not only a good thing, it could save lives. I live in the midwest, where for a few months a year (tornado season), you can really be taking your ass in your hands if you don't keep up with the weather. I'm sure it's the same in other regions of the country with various other weather patterns (hurricanes in the south-east, snow storms in the north and north east).
I don't own a TV to be able to watch the weather on the local news, (thought I do have a weather radio), and for people like me, it can really be a good thing to have forwarning.
All that aside, this guy sounds like a real asshat because, while I could understand if the companies were doing any work, them wanting to make money, his complaint seems to be "Hey, don't just publish this information in a way anyone can get it for free, obfuscate it first so that we have a product to sell."
Of course, if all else fails you can easily tell the weather with just a rock and a string. First tie the rock to the string then hang it outside from a tree branch. When you want to know what the weather is outside, just look at the rock. If the rock is wet it's raining, if the rock is white it's snowing, if the rock is easy to see it's sunny, if the rock is hard to see it's cloudy. If the string is not perpendicular to the tree branch, it's windy. And if the rock is missing, tornado.

--
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"

Re:In an obscure but related story.... by JamesTRexx · 2004-06-26 22:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Kinda obvious where he stands seeing it's an MS Word doc instead of an open format. :-P

--
home

Do it ourselves, for ourselves by CdBee · 2004-06-26 22:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's my understanding that weather-satellite transmissions aren't encrypted and can be picked up by anyone, this certainly used to be the case.

So, write a Distributed Computing Client which downloads weather-satellite data from a handful of sat-dish-connected servers and predicts the weather. You'd need a great many clients doing the basic data-processing and a lot of higher-level nodes which collate the information, but in theory you could use weather satellites from all over the globe instead of just the ones your domestic weather service relies on... and probably build a bigger picture of the weather-system.

We slashdotters always say Data should be free, how could it be more free than if we generate it ourselves?

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

Re:Do it ourselves, for ourselves by kalidasa · 2004-06-27 00:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

What makes you think weather satellite transmissions would remain unencrypted if the weather industry lobbyists succeed in preventing the NWS from providing direct free weather information over the internet? These folks have built their industry out of packaging and distributing free government data, and now that new technologies have made distribution cheap enough for the government to provide the data directly to the taxpayer, they realize the free ride is over. So do they decide to offer new value-added services to maintain their audience? No, they want to surpress the competition.
Always keep this in mind when you think about free markets: free markets are the result of an equilibrium of self-interest. No company in a market acts in the best interests of the market - their urge is always to attempt to limit the market to serve only their own interests. When each competitor's interests serve to cancel out the interests of other competitors, free markets are self-correcting and flourish. But when limiting the market is in the best interests of ALL existing competitors, those competitors will act in cooperation to suppress the free market. That's why free markets don't work in a true anarchy - because in an absolutely free market the common interest of all factors in an industry will lead to the development of a cartel, and competition will tend to be limited to a stable equilibrium (until one competitor gains an advantage that allows them to wipe out the rest of the cartel and establish a monopoly).
Re:Do it ourselves, for ourselves by Lumpy · 2004-06-27 00:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

yup. I recieve the images from NOAA-17 all the time.

makes it great for when you are camping and need to know upcoming cloud patterns heading your way and you dont have net access.

there are many more NOAA sattelites, but NOAA-17 is the newest and can be easily recieved on a handheld reciever without any trouble.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Won't Happen by artlu · 2004-06-26 22:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

The NWS is pretty hardup for cash right now in order to waste money on developing Internet standards. This is probably a vapor article, which won't effect any of our little applications anyway. I use "WeatherPop" for the mac. It sits in the menu bar real nice and does not annoy me, which is the most important factor ;).

GroupShares Inc. - A Free Online Investment Community

--
-------
artlu.net

Do your own Weather forcast... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-26 22:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Why use web based Weather feeds when you can pick the data off the satellite's directly???

Connect a 137-138MHz FM communications receiver or scanner to your soundcard and get colour images directly from overhead weather satellites. You can either build your own like I did or just buy a receiver.

For an explanation try:
http://www.emgola.cz/www_fa/meteosat_englisc h_how. html

and for a great tool: http://www.wxtoimg.com

Re:Do your own Weather forcast... by fastdecade · 2004-06-26 23:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Why use web based Weather feeds when you can pick the data off the satellite's directly??

Maybe it's just me, but I could think of so many answers to that question.

Middlemen by The+Tyro · 2004-06-26 22:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sounds to me as if these companies want the government to sanction their status as middleman brokers of weather information, all at the public's expense.

Sorry, but I don't agree. If I'm not mistaken, the NWS exists on public funds; the info should be public also.

Besides, weather can make an actual life-and-death difference in some scenarios... just ask any sailor or pilot. Also, how about tornado warnings and such... will you have to pay to get those as well? I'd like to see them try to extract payment for such life-saving info, and watch the avalance of negative public outcry... you'd be more popular if you kicked a puppy.

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

Re:Middlemen by benstrange · 2004-06-26 22:53 · Score: 5, Funny

"In order to protect the competitive nature of the privately-owned media, direct NWS participation with the radio and television media should be limited to those situations requiring urgent public action as in the case of severe or extreme weather and flooding or education and preparedness activities." [Proposed for repeal by the NWS].

I assume this means the NWS is allowed to tell people about impending doom, but nothing else. It follows, I suppose, that the proposed for repeal bit means they want to be allowed to tell people more than this. I have to admit I don't really understand the situation, not being in the US.

Besides, much simpler in England. If it's not already raining, it soon will be. Prepare accordingly.
Re:Middlemen by cluckshot · 2004-06-27 00:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I made an observation about the weather and its importance to daily life around the world one day when I tried to discuss the weather with the locals in the Philippines. (EH?) was the response. It never occurred to them that paying much attention to the weather was important.

They get weather there and some times quite severe, but I found that the reason was simple. They knew that certain days of the year it would be dry others wet and stormy. If the wind was blowing a certain direction at a certain time of the year, it told them what the weather was.

I suppose this is an over simplification but simply stated most of the world gets weather by the calender and by location. Weather in most of the world is pretty much boring. NORTH AMERICA and most specifically the Central Mississippi River Valley gets some pretty amazing weather. It is neither predictable by time of the year nor is it something that you can know by location. You cannot know it by wind direction and you cannot know it by other current conditions. It can bet amazingly dangerous or troublesome.

Rain in this region of the USA and southern Canada can be accompanied by most dangerous condtions. Rain in this area rains Fertilizer as well (Nitrate) which is natural in origin. As such weather is to those of us living in that area a pretty important thing. To the rest of the human race, they have a hard time understanding our preoccupation with it.

The logic of allowing US Government Weather Forcasting to be open to the public is an American Construct. It stems from our understanding that WE own our government. This is counter to the logic for most of the rest of the world. We are despite accusations to the contrary an Anti-Colonial force. The Colonial forces want to reoccupy our land and they are attempting to upset the logic so that they can force the middle men into weather just as they do in Europe and Asia. They are attempting to make everything even that which we have already bought and paid for into property we have to pay rent on. This is what the discussion is about.

The NWS for basic Info has a lot more to add to the forecast stuff than you might think. If you want to see my current conditions here they are. Clicking on the side links can give you a hint of the level of data that we expect for free.

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.

Pointless by Enlarge+Your+Penis · 2004-06-26 22:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The government collects weather data anyway-it has to, for shipping, flights, disaster prediction, military uses etc. If the taxpayer's already paying for it, why shouldn't they get it for free on the internet?

Re:Should we have to pay twice to get weather fore by BadDoggie · 2004-06-26 22:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

don't understand how anyone is paying "twice". Please explain?

The National Weather Service, a part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), is funded by taxes. It's already been paid for. The need for accurate weather information is extremely important for the military. Because it's almost as important for civilian use, the information is made available to the public.

Pilots, farmers, businesses and municipalities need this weather information, and in the U.S., weather is almost an obsession (Weather Channel, anyone?) There is no national or continental weather service in Europe; private pilots have to pay for information, usually in the form of two daily faxes. This means that European pilots have to know even more about weather than their American counterparts because they must be able to predict conditions, whereas U.S. pilots can get up-to-the-minute information.

In a nutshell, the Private Weather Sector want to be a middleman, themselves continuing to get the information for free and then charging others for what they (the public) have already paid for.

Pay government (taxes) for weather information.
Only one private group has access to this information
Pay private group to give you this information

Neat, huh?

If you still don't see it, imagine "EduCorp". EduCorp cuts a deal with the local government to provide schooling for children. The locality stil pays for everything, but EduCorp acts as a middleman. Only EduCorp subscribers can send their kids to these public schools. You pay taxes for schools and then pay EuCorp for th right to send your kids there. All clear?

Australia went down this path.... OS won :-) by B747SP · 2004-06-26 22:38 · Score: 5, Informative

The Austraian Bureau of Meteorology had this little dilemma with it's Weather RADAR product several years ago. They apparently had a very small number (as in less than 20) of customers who paid rather a lot of money for access to the service. Someone wised up and figured out that the cost of collecting the money from such a small customer base wasn't cost effective, so they opened the product to all and sundry.

It's a really really useful tool. I use it at least a couple of times a week - basically anytime the weather seems a bit sus and I need to decide if to do a bolt from the office on my bike before a storm front hits, or to wait until it passes. The last four images thing lets you get a feel for which way the weather is blowing, etc, etc.

On Tuesday nights, when the Sydney Knights do their Tuesday Night Ride (TNR), we're all hitting the bom.gov.au site to see what the weather is looking like. If you ride a motorcycle and live in Sydney, Australia then you need to come on a TNR!.

Now Australia didn't seem to have the problem with the commercial weather services wanting to continue to charge customers for something that they already paid the government for... that's a whole new ball game. Still, I'm all for the gummint opening up public access to weather data in any jurisdiction - it's a really really really good thing. Let the snake oil sellers find a new flavour of snake oil - I've heard that the penis enlargement pill market is a good one.

--
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

National Weather Service funding... by hadesan · 2004-06-26 22:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

We the people, pay for the National Weather Service in the form of our tax dollars (2003 $800M, 2004 $824M). "The National Weather Service provides weather, hydrologic and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and oceans." (blurb ripped from Washington Technology.com)

I see no reason that we should have to pay for Accuweather to make a pretty graphic or the like. By opening up the data on the Internet you provide researchers, hobbyists, and tinkerers with a means to get up-to-date and accurate weather information easily as well as historical data.

NWS also talks about their Information Quality guidelines here - detailing their information and what is available.

Who knows maybe someone will develop a Weather@Home model which runs on the same principle as SETI@Home. It would be pretty cool to start doing climate models outside of the governments and universties Research labs...

Re:National Weather Service funding... by surprise_audit · 2004-06-26 23:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Who knows maybe someone will develop a Weather@Home model which runs on the same principle as SETI@Home.

You mean,like these guys?
http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php
What is climateprediction.net? Climateprediction.net is the largest experiment to try and produce a forecast of the climate in the 21st century. To do this, we need people around the world to give us time on their computers - time when they have their computers switched on, but are not using them to their full capacity.

.doc as html by dncsky1530 · 2004-06-26 22:43 · Score: 4, Informative

for those who dont feel like viewing the .doc file, heres the html version

Better service needed by unoengborg · 2004-06-26 22:45 · Score: 4, Funny

As long as I can't order the weather I like where I am from these weather service companies its not worth paying for.

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER

Re:Stop setting up strawmen. by Minstrel+Boy · 2004-06-26 22:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Darned formatting.

http://www.1900storm.com

It's not a straw man argument. That was the greatest natural disaster (loss of life) in US history, and a significant contributing factor was that the fledgling US Weather Service didn't want to listen to the Cuban weather reports. Privatized weather companies may or may not be more willing to work and play together, but they certainly haven't shown the willingness to invest in the necessary infrastructure. Plus, in many countries private weather companies may *not* be able to cooperate, by government fiat.

Less government is generally better, but national infrastructure like weather services are a notable exception.

KeS

Well, let's do what he says! by Chris+Mattern · 2004-06-26 23:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think we *definitely* need to follow Mr. Myers advice and send our comments to the email addresses he gives. Oh, and be sure to cc: him. He did ask, after all...

Chris Mattern

No thank you by jesterzog · 2004-06-26 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, write a Distributed Computing Client which downloads weather-satellite data from a handful of sat-dish-connected servers and predicts the weather.

I don't think so. If it were that easy then you could guarantee that it'd be being done already. You could argue for a distributed client and in some way it might be useful. But more of a priority should be figuring out how to design a system that's actually intelligent enough both to make reliable predictions and trustworthy judgement calls about the weather in the first place.

Maybe it's different where you are, but in my location (New Zealand, which is admittedly not the US at all), having weather data and being able to make useful forecasts from it are two very different things. (To be fair, it is quite turbulent and changeable weather over here for a variety of geographical reasons.)

If your local environment means that 90% of days are identical to the day before, then simply having some data might be useful.... if for no other reason than to predict a possible change of some sort probably approching. But if that's your local situation, you probably don't really need satellite data in the first place --- you could use a telephone. The reason that we have meteorologists is because it does require some education and experience to look at the maps and understand properly what's actually happening, what's likely to happen, and (just as importantly) what we still don't know.

This "Business Model" Already Exist by aroobie · 2004-06-26 23:26 · Score: 5, Informative

We pay for the IRS but can't do business with it on the Internet without paying a third party. This letter is simply wanting the same setup for weather companies that already exist for tax software companies. Just as a side note, I work with a good bit of weather software and I can assure you that the only data we get for free, from any source, are radar images that our doppler radar provides. Since all commercial users (I know of) already pay, this sounds like Accuweather wants individual user's cash. I have seen demos of all the major commercial weather software withiin the last 3 months (looking to upgrade our current software) including Accuweather and this may be a last ditch effort for Accuweather. Other weather software companies are showing advanced modeling, data presentation, and other features as the sellling point not what they can charge for the raw data. At least two other weather software companies did not even care where you got the raw data. I have seen one that actually used the xml data from NWS and used the no data charge as a selling point.

I agree with others here, i.e. Personal use of NWS data have already been paid for and should not fall into the IRS/3rd party software business model.

--

My other car is a motorcycle!

Re:This "Business Model" Already Exist by Fear+the+Clam · 2004-06-27 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't have to go through a third party to file taxes. However, the IRS does "encourage" people to file electronically.

The problem is, this requires either (a) buying tax software which includes this feature, (b) paying for a tax service which has their feature in their store, or (c) re-typing everything from your completed federal tax forms into an online form of some third-party company that you've never heard of that may or may not be free, depending on how much you've earned that year. Oh yeah, and the site requires that you use Internet Explorer.

Considering that I (a) do my taxes by hand and would have to enter my nine pages of forms and (b) owe the government money come tax time, so I'm no in a rush for a refund, I just send it snail mail.

I know it's less efficient to have the IRS do the data entry themselves -- a college friend of mine once had a temp job removing staples for the IRS -- but until the IRS makes it worth my while to file electronically, I'm not going out of my way for their convenience.

This is similar to the toll road transponders for cars. In the northeastern USA, there's a common system called EZ-Pass or SpeedPass. You can drive from PA to NH without stopping to pay a toll, which really eases toll plaza congestion. When they first came to MA, you had to pay for the transponder ($25). They even had some sleazy deal with a bank so you'd get a transponder if you opened an account with them. People stayed away in droves.

NY state, on the other hand, wanted to encourage people to use them, so they gave away the transponder and a toll discount to anyone using them on NYC bridges and tunnels. People were interested and scooped 'em up. (I live in Boston, but I got my transponder from NY state.)

If the IRS wants to get serious about people filing electronically, they need to make it worthwhile. Knock a few bucks off the taxes, provide their own software, something like that.

CWOP is Citizen Weather by vk2tds · 2004-06-26 23:31 · Score: 2, Informative

CWOP is the Citizen Weather Observation Programme, a part of NOAA. You can find the data on http://www.wxqa.com/ all about this data. The problem for the private weather industry is that all this data is freely available, and is not able to be restricted in availability thanks to the infrastructure...

With CWOP, all the data is sent to http://www.findu.com/ where anyone can retrieve the data.

Weather data is free this way, thanks to the support of Ham Radio operators internet infrastructure.

Darryl Smith, VK2TDS
Sydney. Australia

Accuweather Boycott Created by whitis · 2004-06-26 23:39 · Score: 2, Informative

An accuweather boycott has been created at Boycott City . However, it may take 24 hours before the boycott is officially added to the list and you can join. If you want to join, send yourself a reminder message to visit the site tomorrow.

This is my first experiment with such a system. The primary value of such an online boycott is that people can search to find out if people are boycotting a company - and why - before doing business with a company. As an added bonus, when you join a boycott it shows up on the main page thereby raising awareness.

The boycott city system itself is pretty crude and doesn't yet have a large user base.

Re:Should we have to pay twice to get weather fore by pipo · 2004-06-26 23:43 · Score: 5, Funny

"There is no national or continental weather service in Europe; private pilots have to pay for information, usually in the form of two daily faxes. This means that European pilots have to know even more about weather than their American counterparts because they must be able to predict conditions"

Not only there is no weather service, there are in fact no weather at all - Europe hasn't evolved a climate yet, unlike the US... and of course there are no pilots or airplanes whatsoever...

HINT HINT: you are living in a psychiatric hospital

Canadian Climate Data by barks · 2004-06-26 23:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I remember scheming and dreaming a project once upon a time and trying to look for a database that contained various dates and the weather data conditions for that day.

Found a free archive on Environment Canada that does just that for all of Canada.

--

Some aim to please, I aim to tease.

Argument over data format, not availability by Chromal · 2004-06-26 23:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Interestingly, we have Accu-Weather spearheading an attempt to make the data formats put out by NOAA less accessible to non-meteorologists. Much of this data is readily available in obscure meteorological data formats like the dense GRIB-format 5-dimensional GFS model output and the equally obscure METAR surface obs format (whose byzantine structure dates back to the 1940s when observations were distributed codified and via teletype).

Make no mistake about it-- all of this data is publically available via FTP, or C-band satellite downlink (aka NOAAPORT). What the leader of the industry consortium (which does not represent all meteo firms by a long shot) is apparently protesting is NOAA putting out data in a modern format that ANYONE, not just meteorologists, may be expected to work with. He is, perhaps, upset with the notion that in this day and age of realtime data exchange on the Internet, it really doesn't take a BS in meterology and a publisher like a newspaper, TV station, or radio station to get the weather from the government to the people-- his business's model, acting as an interpreter that (for a fee) translates the data produced by the National Weather Service into something the public understands-- this model of business is becoming incresingly obsolete.

Any protests about NOAA supporting new and more accessible formats is a cynical cry for business or industry protectionism, nothing more. Which is a shame-- there is plenty of room for innovation in the weather industry-- niche forecasts specialized for markets where small-scale accuracy matters (like the agricultural and power industries), or more advanced and interactive web-based tools (like The Weather Underground's NEXRAD interface) can innovate the way the public look at weather data.

Support innovation, not protectionism!

THIS JUST IN... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-26 23:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Bending to corporate pressure, The United States government has enstated a mandatory "horizontal blinder" initative. Any person within the United States, it's territories and occupied lands will no longer be allowed to look up or down in order to make judgements about the weather. Any limbs or joints that react to brewing storms will be confiscated.

Re:Should we have to pay twice to get weather fore by csteinle · 2004-06-26 23:52 · Score: 4, Informative

There is no national or continental weather service in Europe;

What's this, then?

Re:Should we have to pay twice to get weather fore by amorsen · 2004-06-26 23:53 · Score: 3, Informative

There is no national or continental weather service in Europe

This must definitely depend on which nation in Europe you talk about. In Denmark, DMI provides specialized weather reports and forecasts for aviation, shipping, and farming. DMI is a national institution and many of its services are free.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

Let the NOAA know you want the data to stay free.. by Phil+John · 2004-06-26 23:56 · Score: 2, Informative

...here is a link to the Word Document being used by the Private Weather Sector to give details about where/how to lobby to NOAA.

Instead of bemoaning the state of the public sector how about actually doing something about it and actively lobby the people in power to keep this free?

--
I am NaN

Weather Display by sobinz · 2004-06-26 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm in the navy stationed in guam. With the exception of typhoons we have almost no (very consistant) weather. Out of boredom I rigged up a pretty neat setup. I bought a serial, text-only 4 by 20 character LCD display. I wrote a program that every 5 minutes parses weather.com to determing the description of the weather, and temperature in Bat cave NC and writes it to the display. I can watch the temperatures change with the seasons from here in guam. It also displays a continuous(10 times a second) update of my happiness factor (time in the navy divided by time remaining).
A picture of it can be found here
Also, I put up a copy of the program to anybody that wants it.

Put the free NWS data on your website! by PeeAitchPee · 2004-06-27 00:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Check out HAMWeather if you haven't already. It's been around for years and it's essentially a set of scripts which allow you to set up your own AccuWeather or weather.com -type site. It's also got a lot of other additional features like mapping and "weather sticker" creation (dynamically creating a small image with a location's name, current conditions and a little icon representing the current conditions). I've been using it for about two years and while it's not rocket science, I've found it to be a very useful, time-saving tool. The scripts are available in Perl, ASP, and PHP.

Ok I have an answer by Lumpy · 2004-06-27 00:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Barry Myers (MS Word doc), president of Accuweather wants you to have pay before using Kweather and other similar tools.

fine. then the US government needs to increase Commercial use of NOAA weather data fees by 100 fold. Little Barry, in his childish hissy fit, fails to realize that the NOAA weather data is the property of the United States Citizens and Government... So let's appease him. Anyone want to intorduce legislation that any commercial use of NOAA data has higher fees and 20% of all profit made from said data must be paid back to help fund NOAA and other government weather research.

It's high time as americans we got off our lazy asses and start smacking around childish losers like Barry and other Company officials that while about people getting something that they pay for through taxes. do what you can to introduce new legislation to "bitch slap" these morons. if worded right it would go through in a heartbeat as it would be a new significan source of income and congresscritters can't turn their back on money.

some of the mapping companies tried this about 5 years ago with the USGS release of their tigerline data maps. they were whining that it would undermine their business and other equally stupid erasons for keeping the data OUT of the public's hands. but they still wanted the free access for themselves.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS! by Alsee · 2004-06-27 00:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Be sure to submit a comment through ths page.
Here's the comment I submitted:

As a government agency, the purpose of the NOAA is to serve the public. Data which has been generated or collected using tax dollars belongs to the public and should be freely available to the public. Information provides the greatest benefit when it is freely available and most widely utilized. Thus far the NOAA has had a "non-compete" policy. I have no doubt the NOAA is receiving pressure from special interests to maintain that policy and to withhold data from the public. Business is a good and valuable thing when it provides the public with needed services, however the government should NOT be protecting unneeded redundant services at the direct expense and detriment of the public. The government should not be creating an artificial scarcity of information. The public should not have to pay a second time for information it has already obtained through tax dollars.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:A copy & paste comment by Teancum · 2004-06-27 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Please don't do this. What is needed is for individuals to really study the issue, show that you have more than one or two brain cells, and intelligently explain why you may support/not support the new policy changes, and potentially suggest new directions to look at with this.

There are many very intelligent individuals here on /. of a very diverse background. What is needed here is not raw activism of the typical D.C. type, but rather people from outside the "weather" industry that can thoughtfully explain how data should not be kept locked up by private companies but needs to be kept free.

There seems to be a kneejerk reaction here with the /. crowd thinking NOAA is going to close up the electronic data products and make them only available to private industry for a high per user cost (like much else in the computer industry from stock quotes to mapping data). The truth is that I don't see any of this sort of thing going on, but rather some very hard working people in a low profit-margin business (even the most profitable companies don't really make that much money off of weather related products, and there is quite a bit of competition, not to mention relatively low barriers to entry, particularly compared to other industries). They are asking for legitimate debate, so study the facts first.

Honestly, I don't know what the issue is about specialized data formats other than XML. XML has its uses, but it is not necessarily the best data format for every situation. If you are a software developer worth anything, you should be able to take data in any binary data format, even if encrypted, and be able to pull all of the data out of that data format. XML is only one way to provide that data.

I will say that in addition to having much of the weather data collecting/processing being done at taxpayer expense, much of the weather data collection is done through a system that is largly volunteers. If you are interested in monitoring weather conditions, particularly if you live in a largely rural area (although urban areas can be of interest as well... it is just that there are many more people per sq. mile), you can volunteer to set up a weather station in your backyard and send the weather data to NOAA. Depending on the equipment you are willing to purchase, you can measure just about any atmospheric information that you can imagine, from pollution levels to current temperature and rainfall levels. Every data point that gives more detailed information helps to make the forecasting models more accurate. Sometimes NOAA will provide equipment, but you don't have wait for them to get it to you if you really want to volunteer and do this yourself (it just takes you own money if you go that route.) This is a stealthy Seti@Home like data project that has been going on for over 100 years, which is why you don't hear too much about it.

Some commercial enterprises (particularly local radio and television stations, as well as a few private airports, seaports, and trucking companies) have their own weather stations that even by themselves could provide a local forecast, but there is a data sharing agreement between everybody involved (even competing TV stations, for example) to share weather related data. Obviously this can be a very bandwidth intensive operation if you really think about all of the information that can be collected. Who pays for this bandwidth? There is nothing in the current proposals that would stop a distributed P2P weather data group from forming, and indeed it would probabaly be encouraged if you could come up with a good system. Really. The commercial weather guys would love it on many levels.

DISCLAIMER: I am not currently in the commercial weather industry. I had to help a couple of companies that were in the commerical weather industry to interface their products with some stuff that I was helping to develop, so I got a pretty good glimpse at some of the stuff they are developing, and some of the issues they d

Non-Compete by njk · 2004-06-27 00:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Although I agree with the general position in most of these replies there are some subtle rationals behind the NWS policy.

The NWS neither had the funds, nor the infrastructure, to provide weather data to the widest audience possible so they asked the private sector to accomplish this for them (think 25 years ago). The private sector (5 companies Kavoris, Unisys, ..) were granted exclusive access to the NWS feeds to assist the NWS in their mandate to dissemeniate the weather data as widely as possible.
Technically not everyone could connect to the NWS so these companies were 're-distribution' points. If you were an airline and wanted weather data you couldnt drop a line into NWS but you could into UNISYS. In turns these companies secured some garauntees that if they were going to invest in this infrastructure that a goverment organization (NWS) wasnt going to compete with their business. This worked very well for its time.

That time has gone. Cheap distribution mechanisms such as the internet, satellite, have changed that. This has increased the number of player in the weather game and changed their role. They now (should) be fulfilling the role of value-added generator and not re-distributor.
The raw and marginally processed packages should be available to anyone via the internet and satellite feed (and they are). Pretty animated pictures, custom forecasts, lightning strikes, ... these products should still be left to the private sector.

Re:Should we have to pay twice to get weather fore by KjetilK · 2004-06-27 00:38 · Score: 2, Informative

In Norway we have our corresponding DNMI, and I have a friend who used to work for the "Market Division" there. I think the status of the two institutions are much the same.

I got some inside looks at the battle inside this "Market Division". Generally, scientists think that weather information is a vital resource that should be kept free, and they are fighting for that end inside the institute. But the market realities are that it might not be for very much longer, since the government is cutting back funding every now and then, giving vitally important resources to the people is going to bancrupt them any day now.

Like happened to the Norwegian mapping authority. It was founded in the beginning of 18-hundred something, and by 1890, the whole country was mapped. Funnily, it is now impossible to get a decent map of the country that is not under some kind of copyright, after the mapping authority folded under market pressures. Fortunately, we get our free data from US sources. Thanks a lot, US taxpayers! You pay a lot less taxes than we do, yet manage to get useful common data.

Another example of IPR gone wrong: Anybody care to tell me why a work completely done by 1890 mostly be people who thought that mapping the country was important to break free from the superpowers of the day needs copyright in 2004...?

--
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid

Barry Myers's argument by age by AndroidCat · 2004-06-27 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

The creation of a NWS mission lies in an act of Congress from 1890, before the automobile, the airplane, satellite platforms, radar, computers, and the Internet - 114 years ago.

I had no idea that acts of Congress came with an expiry date. Important tip folks: Check your laws' Best Before dates frequently. And change the baking soda on a regular basis too--I think something's gone off in the civil right section.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

taxpayers by spacepimp · 2004-06-27 00:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

if it is paid for by taxpayers monies, then it should be freely accessible.. why limit it to people who want a business model off of it. if it devalues their business model, so be it they were only pimping on something we already paid for. their content wasnt theirs to begin with.

Re:Excellent... by velo_mike · 2004-06-27 01:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Pay twice? These pricks want us to pay over and over again. The current direction of the greedy bastards is to convince congress (or the relevant rule making body) that people should be forced to pay for everything that they COULD be forced to pay for.

You're confusing the public and private sectors.

For things that we've been forced to pay for through taxation, the NWS in this example, should not be able to turn around and charge us again to access the data, other than whatever minimal distribution fee is applicable. We paid, at gunpoint IMHO, for the NWS to collect weather data. I don't have a problem if they want to charge a small printing fee (N cents / copy for example) to distribute it or the equivelent. It's when the data that I already bought is being sold back to me that I have issues.

When it comes to disposable intellectual property be it music, movies or weather reports, computers make it technologically possible to force people to "pay per use". It's like installing a vending machine for your product in everyone's home, worldwide. Since it's basically been proven that copy protection doesn't work they want to make it illegal for anything to be free

This is the private sector, if you don't like it than don't buy it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying "Buy the new Robbie Williams CD or else". If enough people don't like it, the product will disappear (New Coke). OTOH, if "pay per use" takes off on a large scale and you don't like it, you're free to join us luddites on the front porch bitching about the good old days when you bought a CD once.

The key difference is voluntary funding, nobody can force you to buy a product on the free market while taxpayer funded projects are a different matter (the gun to your head).

--

At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan

Meteo Fance, Aeroports de Paris.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-27 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a Pilot in Fance, I can say that all weather data is available through Meteo France.

As for detailed weather maps, ADP can fax or email one to you anytime, and usually prints the latest copy when you come put you flight plan in...

where are you flying exactly ?

We do and should! by L0C0loco · 2004-06-27 01:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

The government must fund and support the weather service activities simply because it is an issue of the health and safety of the public. By your reasoning we should privatize the military too. Given the fact that we (those of us that pay taxes at least) are already paying for this work and the information it generates, we should not have to pay for it again nor be required to provide a subsidy to the "weather corporations" so they can profit from it directly. They need to enhance the products by some value-added activity of their own.

--
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]

Re:We do and should! by ichimunki · 2004-06-27 03:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

By my reasoning, weather services are, and can be, provided by private businesses. The military, however, does things that are otherwise illegal-- bombing cities, killing people, taking prisoners, etc etc. Providing weather services is not illegal as far as I know.

In any case, I never said that this information should not be free (as in beer AND speech). I firmly believe that any time the taxpayers pay for information that we all have a right to that information. What I don't believe is that taxpayers should necessarily be paying for all this-- in fact, the more we pay for it, the more it appears we are subsidizing businesses, even before they might pass this proposed "partnerships" thing.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:We do and should! by 87C751 · 2004-06-27 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

By your reasoning we should privatize the military too.
Why not? Look how well it's worked for Iraq.

--
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.

Broken windows fallacy by Julian+Morrison · 2004-06-27 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a Libertarian, I don't support tax funded anything, and that includes weather measuring.

But, also as a libertarian, I find it daft to deliberately block people who know stuff from telling it, so as to "create a market". Trade is a way to mitigate the unpleasant fact that some things in life aren't free. In aggregate it efficiently allocates resources and effort towards making things cheaper, ie: approaching closer to free.

When things actually are free for the taking, "creating a market" isn't efficient, it's wasteful. It's directly analogous to going around with a sack of rocks, "creating a market" for glaziers.

PS: this is also why copyrights and patents are a bad idea...

What about the government need for weather info by nonameisgood · 2004-06-27 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

The military needs it. The White House needs it. As a matter of public good, pilots need up to the minute reports. Engineers need historical data, as do farmers and municipal planners.

AND, who do you think runs the data acquisition end of things. All of the airport-based weather stations could never be duplicated by private enterprise due to sheer scope.

And I imagine we all appreciate the pure research of the Storm Prediction Center and National Hurricane Center.

--
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer

Horseshit by Croaker · 2004-06-27 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

if there's something that the private sector is willing to do for-profit, then the government simply should not compete with them.

Absolutist Libertarian drivel. You mean I can start up any business that dies something the government does, and then force the government not to do it anymore? So, if I start a business of printing IRS tax forms, and want to charge $50/ea. for 1040 forms, I can forc the IRS to stop printing and distributing them free?

Why not let the government do the things it can do efficiently, and for the greater good, and let the private sector worry about the things it can do most efficiently? Free weather data is a huge benefit to all... like a (mostly) free road system. Why privatize it just so someone can extract extra money out of people?

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.

No one missed the business model. That Accuweather adds value by interpreting data doesn't perclude other individuals from getting the data the National Weather Service collects and doing the same thing for free. That's what the Accurweather people are asking for... a ban on the free flow of information. They want to privatize this public knowledge under lock and key, so they and they alone can profit from it. People aren't looking to shut down Accuweather... they are just asking for the same priviledge that Accuweather has.

A value-added business model is perfectly fine. But if you cannot make a profit off of a freely available resource that you add value to, then you should find another business model, not try to privatize the free resource.

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?

Bogus analogy. Microsoft and Apple own their platforms. And yes, as owners of those platforms, they could close them to outside developers. Windows and OS X systems are open in that anyone can develop software for them. Apple and Microsoft know that if they tried to control the platforms to that level, they'd be sunk, because there's no way for them to develop all of the software people would want on a PC. The market wouldn't tolerate it.

Have you tried to develop software for a the PS2, Game Cube, Xbox, or other gaming platform? Those aren't open systems. You have to get the developers kits from the owners of those systems. Do you see the /. crowd howling about that all day?

Accuweather doesn't own the data collected by the national weather service. They have no part in creating that data. Closing the data to the general public because Accuweather wants to protect its business interests would be like Red Hat closing the source to Linux because they want to protect their revenue stream.

Re:It would be off topic to answer in detail by psykocrime · 2004-06-27 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, once you have no taxes and no government, how does that differ from anarchy?

FWIW, the parent post presents a fairly radical view of Libertarianism. Libertarians by and large, are not in favor of *no* government, but want the smallest, least intrusive government possible.

In the case of the United States, that generally means supporting the idea of a limited constitutional republic, with as much power as possible pushed down to the state, or preferably local level. This is so that decision making on things like spending and taxes happens as close as possible to the people affected by same. Thus the people are more directly able to influence those decisions, and government becomes more accountable / responsible.

Libertarianism != Anarchy

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig

Re:Shut down the National Weather Service. by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2004-06-27 04:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Imagine the following scenario . . .

With NWS data and forecasts limited to only established corporations, rather than entrepreneurs and the private citizens who pay for them, the number of corporations providing that service will tend to shrink due to mergers, buy-outs, business failures, etc. That happens in just about every industry, and weather data and forecasting will be no exception. People would be dependant on a very few sources of weather information with no checks or balances.

Now imagine that one of those corporations provides the weather forecasts to the state of Florida. One day, their forecast shows them that there will be a hard freeze in a couple of days, which will severely damage the Florida orange crops. A few of the top-level people in that corporation delay that forecast for half a day or so, so that they have time to call their brokers and invest in frozen orange juice futures. I think you can take it from there.

There are some things so critical to the public good that the public has, over the past few hundred years, determined that it is in our best interest to jointly contribute to maintaining those services for ourselves, via our proxy, the government. (despite what some people, and a lot of politicians, forget, that is what a democratic government is: the proxy of the citizens, and the equivalent of a condo association hiring a guy to mow the lawns)

Firefighting, for instance, is one of them. We've had plenty of experience with privately run firefighting services, back in the 18th and 19th century. We found out they didn't work. They only extinguished fires in property owned by their subscribers ... which meant that small fires became major conflagrations by the time they reached the house of someone who could afford to pay a fire company. It was finally realized that, for the good of the entire city (except maybe for the marshmallow vendors) it was necessary to have a centralized fire service that responded to any fire before it could spread.

Employees in general theoretically have the best interests of their employers at heart. In the case of a public service such as the NWS, those employers are us, the citizens. In the case of a private service, those employers are the corporate officers and stockholders. When it comes to things that people's lives, safety, and livelihoods depend on, I am very reluctant to trust that service solely to people whose concern is not for the public good, not for my safety, not for a level playing field for all businesses, but solely for how much money they can gain.

And remember: Accu-Weather and the others don't want the National Weather Service privatized or abolished. They would collapse overnight if it was, because they utterly depend on its data. They want distribution of that taxpayer-funded data to be limited solely to them. They're perfectly happy with the NWS the way it is, so long as they are the only ones who can benefit from it.

Where to send your comments: by AIXadmin · 2004-06-27 09:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Be sure to send your comments too:
Official comment address:
fairweather@noaa.gov

and

General D.L. Johnson
Director of the National Weather Service
DL.Johnson@noaa.gov

Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Under Secretary of Commerce and NOAA
Administrator
Conrad.C.Lautenbacher@noaa.go v

Secretary Donald L. Evans
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce
devans@doc.gov

Also find out who your congressman is at:
http://congress.org/congressorg/home/

Re:So do something about it. by rburgess3 · 2004-06-27 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

GAH! no matter how many times you use the dang 'Preview' button, something always slips by. grrrrr.

[The following text is public domain and may be used without attribution]

I have just read over your proposed policy change, as well as Barry Meyer's response, available at this address: http://www.weatherindustry.org/BARRYMYERS-AMS-0318 04.doc . I must say that I cannot possibly disagree with Mr. Meyer more. The NOAA is a publicly funded institution providing data that could never possibly contain anything that would be classified.

Accordingly, I am of the firm belief that any data collected by the NOAA should be made available to the public (i.e. the general population, not merely other agencies) as soon as is practicable, in whatever format is easiest for the public to consume.

Mr. Meyer, and for that matter, the rest of the private weather sector, need to realize that they should never be the sole beneficiaries of the collective tax dollars spent each year by the U.S. in providing such a vitally important service.

I am tempted to make the comparison of the difficulties that the RIAA and MPAA are currently having with the digital revolution. Mr. Meyer and the PWS need to update their business models, not attempt to change the law.

[End of Public Domain Section]

Re:The Weather Channel Is A Menace by LostCluster · 2004-06-27 14:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

When TWC is airing such a documenary show ("Atmospheres" and "Storm Stories" are the current titles) the "Local on the 8s" feature still continues uninterrupted. The shows have to take a break every 10 minutes to allow that to happen. If you want local information from TWC, there's not really much point to watching the other 8 minutes of the hour, the 90 seconds there is all you're really going to get.

If a tornado warning was issued for Fairfax County, the computer that generates the local forecast would have overtaken the video with a full red screen alert and added a beeping sound to the national audio. However, tornados rarely travel in a straight line and a National Weather Service warning is only issued once a tornado exists to communites that that will be hit by it. Since the tornado changed directions before heading into your area, there no reason for a warning to be issued.

I fear that your local TV station needlessly panicked you. Tornados are devistating storms, but they affect a very narrow path. That's why NWS only puts out warnings to the communities in immediate danger. You weren't. You could have gone about your business without having much to fear.

Slashdot Mirror

The Future of Free Weather Data on the Internet

91 of 312 comments (clear)