Slashdot Mirror
New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data
ckokotay writes "Here we go again. Apparently for-pay weather companies (specifically Accuweather) have lobbied Senator Rick Santorum to introduce a bill to ban the National Weather Service from 'competing.' The NOAA just made data available for free on the internet in XML format. Essentially, that means no more free data, and the possible elimination of the NOAA web presence all together. Nothing like being able to buy off a clueless Senator - lets hope the rest do not fall in line, as I for one, do not like to pay for my information twice." This debate picks up where the last one left off. According to the article, the bill's biggest critics are complaining of the bill's vague wording which makes it unclear what exactly is being banned.
... just as soon as they build their own space launch facilities.
If I'm not allowed to see the benefits of what my tax dollars are paying for, than neither should they. That means no more access to NOAA satellites and no more help paying for Kennedy Space Center and the heavy-lift rockets they need for their geosynchronus launches.
I'm feeling generous, I'll let taxpayer-funded NORAD tell them if and when Something Bad is about to happen to their satellites, but beyond that...
Without my money going to NOAA, these for-pay services would still be stuck with nothing but ground-based radar, to the point where I doubt they'd even spring to pay for off-shore buoys (where'd the profit be?). And that means things like not being able to see hurricanes until it's too late.
They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, but I'm sure they'll get it anyway. Thanks, Congress!
In response to:
Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.
Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy, said:
"If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."
And then this gem from Accuweather:
Myers argued that nearly all consumers get their weather information for free through commercial providers, including the news media, so there's little reason for the federal agency to duplicate their efforts.
"Do you really need that from the NOAA Web site?" he asked.
Um, gee, if everyone already doesn't get their weather information from the National Weather Service, then what the fuck are they so worried about? Incidentally, the stated mission of the National Weather Service is:
The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community.
Clear, timely, comprehensive, accurate - and now open - weather forecasts are critical for many, many sectors of public and private society. The new, open formats of weather data also make its integration into myriad other services and tools trivial. It's only good for the public. I don't think Sen. Santorum realizes how critical the NWS's weather, climate, and marine data is to so many sectors of US society.
The National Weather Service is funded for this mission, among others, by the taxpayers of the United States.
I hope Rick Santorum realizes that in a world where this bill passes, there should also be a corresponding reduction of funding to the NWS, in addition to a wholesale change of its mission. In fact, what would its mission be?
The best part of all of this is that in order for the NWS to effectively be able to gather the necessary data to still predict and warn against life- and property-threatening dangers, it still has to do almost all of the continuing data collection it does now. Removing the public access to this does absolutely nothing for anyone.
Except for-profit weather forecasting providers like Accuweather, of course.
For now, at least, Johnson of the NWS notes his agency is expanding its online offerings to serve the public.
Remember, too, that a "bill" is just that. Time to remind your elected officials of what you think...
Seriously: tough luck to weather companies! If this is a public service for Americans given by their government, then the American public should be allowed to use that service. Considering they paid for it with their taxes, I don't see how this bill could be passed!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Uh...free? I think I just paid for some of that data. Maybe Accuweather could compete the old fashioned way--in the marketplace.
If accuweather is so concerned about the national weather service undermining private companies, this bill should also forbid the national weather service from providing their data to accuweather itself. By providing all this data to accuweather, they are undercutting the ability of private comapnies to set up their own weather monitoring instruments and SELL the data to accuweather.
Dad gummit. I PAID for NOAA....with my TAXES. I have EVERY right under FOIA to all that data. The nly reason this is being brought up is the Accuweathers, the DTN's and to a lesser extent, the Weather Channels of the world.
Gorkman
The Congressional part especially has a lot of merit, since I'm sure Congress would prefer that we not find out about stuff like this except as duly authorized sources see fit to pass it along.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Seems like if a bunch of us got pissed off enough we could simply throw together some weather stations and provide RSS feeds through a single private web site for free.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Add to that that other government agencies (both Federal and State) would have to staff up, duplicating the no-doubt-now-classified military work. Bottom line is that shutting down the NOAA forecast role will be a sizable net cost to the US, along with some unknown harm to both the economy and national security.
Great move, Senator.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Aviators everywhere depend on NOAA for weather all the time and AOPA will never let this bill get passed. AOPA has a long history of protecting the citizens from stupid laws like this so I'm not worried at all.
Seriously, either write to them or call them up explaining that you are about to go out of business because of this proposed bill. Unless they know about you (they most likely won't), then they won't be able to lob this little bomb on Rick Santorum, who then will be unable to say that his bill is designed to protect businesses. After all, it's a bit hard to say this when other senators are giving examples of companies his bill will put out of business!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free," Santorum said.
Perhaps we can we expect Senator Santorum to next intervene on behalf of the unjustifiably repressed legions of private firefighters, police, water safety testers, and maintainers of roads?
After all, it's hard to compete in the market when the government does it for free!
This is also a good time to mention Spreading Santorum, a personal crusade by the advice columnist Dan Savage to popularize the use of the word 'santorum' to describe a (mostly) gay sex act, with the intention of embarrassing the anti-gay senator: spreadingsantorum.com
I wish people would stop recommending that "people write their congress rep" eveything an innane law pops up. These people don't care, hell I bet most don't even read their own mail. With these web based forms and email, I'm sure peoples' opinions are a dime a dozen and most are immediatly filed promptly into /dev/null.
What you should do is write your local newspapers. Editors are always looking for well-written commentary. Anything that stirs up the shit a little bit is a bonus (and that isn't hard to do when writing about politics). Write something insightful and get it in front of thousands of readers. That is the only way you'll get the attention of these bought-and-paid-for congress critters. Turn the heat up a bit and they'll be less likely to try to slip something like this under the radar again.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
The next logical step is simply to privatize the Senate, and ban competing government organizations.
After all, private lobbyists ALREADY write legislation, conduct research and collect money.
What do we need a government-run Senate for?
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
We paid for it via taxes.
Corporate control of this country is sickening.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Lets see if we both understand what the FA is talking about.
NOAA collects all kinds of weather data. NOAA is paid for by my tax dollars. Therefore, I pay for that weather data.
Right now I can get online and look at said weather data for free. I've also been able to get that very same weather data over radio via a system called EMWINS.
This new bill would prevent me from getting access to the weather data I've already paid for (with my taxes) until I pay another entity (Accuweather was mentioned) for it...AGAIN.
Why should AccuWeather make money by giving me access to data I've already paid for? I would think public records type laws would come into play here.
-Daniel
KD5UZZ
www.w5yj.org
...and that will print out
Now personally I think that's pretty nifty. Sorry it doesn't use NOAAs services directly; I haven't checked what they are.
That said, I have to admit that while there's boatloads of XML behind all that, there's nothing special about XML that made it possible: All that descriptor tagsoup could have been done just as well with LISP s-expressions.
Yes, other vectors of communication could be established. I even mentioned they allready get most of the data via a satellite uplink (along with other things that only a NOAAPort subscription will get you, like the raw data of their high detail forecast models).
The point is that many places aren't doing that. The procedure says, "Check the NOAA website for..." That's where the cost is represented. And it's not an insignificant cost and it's easy to show how expensive it is.
Combine that with the general argument that the government-gathered weather data is government property and thusly subject to standard information disclosure rules, and you're going to have a hard time getting this bill to go anywhere.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
This is simply a public safety issue. Period. Should we rely on a private entity to provide hurricane or tornado warnings? Does this apply to NOAA weather radio?
The reason weather data is made available to the public is because it enables the public to go about their business in a safer manner that is planned around the obstacles that weather tosses in the way.
From commercial passenger and freight aircraft, ships, and other forms of commercial transit, to the commuter just trying to get to work, free weather data from NOAA is an essential part of the economy.
Shall we require pilots to subscribe to AccuWeather in order to know the weather forecast for their flight path? I think not.
Normally, I'm not a fan of the government doing what private business can do, but NOAA has become essential to public infrastructure. It's not a perfect analogy, but you wouldn't let a for-profit private company run the (armed) police department, while it may be perfectly appropriate for private companies to provide *additional* security services on top of what the public provides through the police.
Start writing your representatives and Senators now.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
It needs to be said.
Public tax money pays for this weather data to be collected. The public has the RIGHT to access this information, because they've already PAID FOR IT.
If a private company can not survive doing "value-add" with this free information, then that company does not deserve to exist. Plain and simple. You can't ban that information from being free and then charge people for it!
There are only two ways to procede with this problem. Either the government stops spending tax money recording the weather information, leaving the corporations to set up and maintain their own weather stations, or the entire board of directors of AccuWeather is drawn and quartered. Either one is fine with me.
You'd think, but haven't some states passed laws to the effect that the only way to READ their legal code is by way of a lawyer? (It was tangled up with copyright somehow, but that was the net effect -- no more public access to the legal code. I forget the details.)
Not only that, but AccuWeather is by far the most INACCURATE weather service I've ever seen. When I see some TV news channel touting their AccuWeather forecast, I know I might as well change the channel, because if their forecast CAN be wrong, it WILL be.
Point being, if the only way to get NOAA data is secondhand, filtered through some commercial forecaster of dubious competence, people who rely on accurate weather forecasting are going to suffer for it.
As an alternative bill, I suggest that commercial entities like AccuWeather be required to gather their own data, at their own expense, and be forbidden from using taxpayer-funded services like NOAA.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Santorum represents Pennsylvania, and AccuWeather is headquartered in Pennsylvania. If AccuWeather makes more money, Pennsylvania voters have more money in their pockets, and they will naturally be inclined to re-elect the guy who made it happen.
Politicians want votes. Voters want pork.
And that's your answer.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.