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.
Well Senator M-O-D Santorum had better hurry up and pass the bill because he is about to have his lunch handed to him in his 2006 relection efforts:
8 65
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/21/11132/9
He's dropping faster than a rock so if this bill is stalled or set aside Accuweather will have to find some other "go to" guy...
Not that would be too difficuly unfornataly...
Clearly you're being rhetorical, but I'll fire off a response anyway:
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm a developer for a small weather software company and we rely on the NWS for a lot of information (forecasts, etc.) for one our products[/shameless plug]. If this becomes law, our software won't work anymore. 2 people cannot write 7 day forecasts for every county in the USA.
My comments:
I've heard about your bill to limit access to weather data.
please research what this has done in Australia and look to how many people have been killed already because of this type of plan. A good place to research is the "sydney to hobart race 1998." That was a boat race but the organizers running the race relied on private weather information since the government had just started privatized the Bureau of Meteorology. The result was that 6 people died, several boats sank and the coast guard spent over 10 million dollars on rescue of the 115 boats. The total bill for "user pays weather" was $700 million dollars.
A second example of why this is wrong involves aviation weather and its resulting deaths. I don't want a small plane falling out of the sky because the pilot didn't get a good weather briefing. Australia also provides evidence that people will not properly check weather if it isn't free and therefor endangering other people.
Wow! You make it sound like the National Weather Service promtes the general welfare or something.
Where does it say that the government should do that??!
Oh - wait. Maybe someone should send Santorum a copy of the #%!#@!!? Constitution!!
Just so everyone understands, we here at NOAA provide many other products and services that have nothing to do with the National Weather Service. Check out noaa.gov to see the eight major areas of work, of which weather is just one. :)
Our constitution defines treason as aiding and abetting the enemy. Clearly our greatest enemies are the corporations. I call for Santorum to be tried as a traitor. If he is convicted, he should be sentenced as harshly as possible.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
We see the following seemingly contradictory clauses:
XXX
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The National Weather Service shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a service or product (other than a service or product described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--
(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such service or product; or
(2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such service or product under international aviation agreements to provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.
(c) ISSUANCE OF DATA, FORECASTS, AND WARNINGS- All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.
XXX
Don't compete, but you have to inform the public, "without delay" in a way that the public "have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings."
Hmmmm.
The next step is for the Mafia to incorporate. They begin watching local businesses and... taxing them.... Then they sue claiming that the federal government has no authority to compete with them.
Other similar variations included private toll road operators, private security forces, and new start-ups whose sole purpose is to hire people to do things that aren't necessary. By doing so, we could ban state toll roads, the Department of Homeland Security, and about 95% of civil service jobs at the federal level, respectively.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a good start... but only if you -do- take it to the extreme. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Basically, the Air Force will not let this happen. The Air Force is reliant in many ways upon the NOAA data for its forecasts.
While NOAA does make its data available over a satellite uplink (called a NOAAPort), this data is typically only used for detailed local modeling and display on AWIPS terminals. I've personally witnessed Air Force Forecasters using the NOAA website and its XML data to do their reports, and that is part of The Procedure.
Which means, it costs a huge boat of money to change, which means it costs concrete tax dollars which must be allocated to cover the costs to change. You and I might find such a change trivial, but I assure you the sheer volume of paperwork that needs to be revised, analyized, reported on and certified means that the process would easily take millions, and take years.
No. As much as Accuweather would like to stifle NOAA to turn a profit, they're too late on the scene.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
If there is money to be made, private industry doesn't need to worry about government competition.
I can think of plenty of ways to offer better data to the consumer than what NOAA provides. Aggregating public and private information and providing that to subscribers is a great idea!
Personally, it's nice to check out the NOAA radar maps before I head out on a bike ride. However, because of the location of the regional radar (San Jose), I can't get a great idea of what obstacles I might face in riding from San Francisco to Marin. Overlaying the radar data from multiple sources might provide me with more useful information.
NOAA doesn't always provide the best information in terms of point-forecasts, and there is a market ($$) for someone to do a better job. The problem is that people like the Weather Channel and Weather Underground were the original obnoxious advertisers! Their weather forecasts were not worth the "cost" of the advertisements. On the other hand, some of of the "personal weather stations" were pretty useful.
This is bad legislation. If you want to "cripple" NOAA, cut their budget to make it easier for private competition to do a better job. I don't support it, but if you want to stick with Republican values, that is the only way to go.
The problem is that the Democrats in PA right now are in total dissarray. The state went for Kerry(the state usually goes Democrat in presidential elections) but the best they could muster for a senate candidate was a sacraficial lamb. The problem is that the Democrats are either known well in either the west part of the state or the east part of the state(good luck getting any part of the middle of the state outside Penn State to vote democrat), but never in both parts.
Seriously, Will Smith should run in PA in 2006. He owns a large chunk of real estate in Philly(were he was originally from), so he can qualify as a resident. Outside of Will Smith, the Democrats in PA have nothing, so beating Santorum is going to be quite a challenge.
Monstar L
Well, no. My tax dollars already paid for those "free" school and police services. Just as in this case, my tax dollars have already paid for the "free" NOAA data.
From TFA: Santorum made similar arguments April 14 when introducing his bill. He also said expanded federal services threaten the livelihoods of private weather companies.
Since when does the government owe any corporation a living? If the corporation can't find a market and compete within it, that's just tough shit.
But back to your point -- this bill is the exact equivalent of banning "free" public schools, because they "unfairly compete" with tuition-based private schools.
More from TFA: "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.
Evidently that market must be pretty damned good even with the NOAA's "free competition" -- otherwise how the hell did AccuWeather and its kin become multi-billion dollar businesses in the first place??
More from TFA: AccuWeather has been an especially vocal critic of the weather service and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The company has accused the federal agencies of withholding data on hurricanes and other hazards, and failing to ensure that employees don't feed upcoming forecasts to favored investors in farming and energy markets.
This from the very worst weather service I have ever seen in my 50 years on the planet. Even wild-assed guessing is more accurate than their forecasts!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?