AccuWeather wants to shut down free data

Tim Vasquez

Tim Vasquez

EF5
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
3,411
In a story that appeared on Slashdot today it appears your friend Joel Myers at AccuWeather want to rein in some of the free data available on the Internet . . .
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/27/02162...6&tid=95&tid=99

In a way this sounds like nothing new, and is conceivably limited to just next-generation forecast text (at least from what I can tell; maybe others can comment on this further), but given the current administration that is in power I think there is certainly cause for concern. I have to say that Joel & co's repeated efforts to kill the diffusion of weather information are starting to become annoying.

Tim
 
Here is the policy there are talking about, June 30, 2004 is the deadline for the public to comment on this.

NOAA Issues Draft Policy to Foster "Fair Weather" Partnerships[
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is requesting public comment on a newly drafted policy governing NOAA's NationalWeather Service interactions and cooperation with the greater consortium of public, private and academic weather and climate institutions.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service
Proposed Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Weather, Water, Climate and Related Environmental Information

The information can be found here:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather/policy.php

Comments will be accepted through June 30, 2004.

Electronic submission of comments is encouraged. Please submit comments to [email protected]
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather/feedback.php

Mike
 
Maybe Joel and the boy's are finally starting to feel the crunch since the days of NIDS is gone and no one wants to go work in BFE, PA for under $20K a year. Couple that with some of the most unimaginative"innovations" in the world of private meteorology and it's a recipe for the demise of a once powerful and influential company. Maybe they could cut cost and increase margin by recycling all the hot air that comes out of Bastardi's mouth each day.

Sorry Crappuweater, the genie's out of the bottle and there's enough of us to make noise to make sure it doesn't go back in. If you guys want to stay around and maintain relevancy, how about some true innovations of your own?

Regards,

Mike
 
Here is where AccuWeather is telling its friends to comment (I believe against) the NWS proposal. Perhaps we on Stormtrack should speak up in favor of it and voice our support for free data (already paid by taxpayers). Note that there are only a couple of days left to respond.

I haven't read through this whole controversy, so if anyone is more familiar with this thing (Rob Dale? others?) please elaborate for us. Based on how the Fair Weather policy is worded it is kind of difficult to figure the exact intent and aim.

Once we are settled on where we stand I'll send out letters to all the contacts below and hope others will do the same. I do know that what we have with free radar data, model data on UCAR, GRIB for PCGRIDDS32, and of course METAR data we shouldn't give an inch on, lest we lose a yard.

Tim

1. Official comment address:
[email protected]

2.Copies should go to:
General D.L. Johnson
Director of the National Weather Service
[email protected]

Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Under Secretary of Commerce and NOAA
Administrator
[email protected]

Secretary Donald L. Evans
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce
[email protected]

3. Some key Congressmen and Senators; if you want a short list of these, please contact me.

4. Your Senators and Congressperson
Click to expand...
 
Here is where AccuWeather is telling its friends to comment (I believe against) the NWS proposal. Perhaps we on Stormtrack should speak up in favor of it and voice our support for free data (already paid by taxpayers). Note that there are only a couple of days left to respond.
Click to expand...

I would be happy to speak up for the free data... I like the raw NIDS over the web-images generated by Accuweather, that way I can do what I want with it (make mosaics, etc.).
 
These efforts to restrict data access always make me mad - I recall a presentation by Mike Smith (Weatherdata Pres) who flatly stated that he wanted the weather service to be nothing more than a data collection, archive and dissemination service as well as providing the numerical model output. Very much like the old NIDS - but they want that back and for all products. No text forecasts, definitely no graphical products, etc..., so that guys like him could pimp the data and charge the rest of us money for what we should get for free. He'd make a fortune, and in the late 90's was still paying sub 20's salaries to starting mets - probably little better these days. I have no regrets to seeing companies like these fall flat on their faces. It reminds me of the bottled water compaines that "filter" city water and call it natural spring water. Eesh....

Glen
 
I've seen people say that AW wants NWS to only release info to EMA's / police / etc, or the AW wants NWS to not do forecasting but just run models, etc. All _far_ from what this issue is about.

NWS has always had in their law from 1991 that they would not specifically compete against the private sector. That law has been brought into play a few times - there was a NWS office in the midwest where the WCM had a daily forecast for radio stations done live from the NWS office, there are some NWS offices that used to produce forecasts for the newspapers etc. Nothing major and the law has always been there "just in case" the NWS wants to go over the line too far.

Now the NWS wants to completely remove that law from the books and their explanation is "just trust us." Nobody is looking to restrict radar data or pull NWS text forecasts from the net - we just want it kept into play that the NWS can't do things like providing a green screen and doing live remotes for TV stations or having mets charge a few bucks per month to send specialized storm forecasts to baseball stadiums and local fairs. Will they do that regardless? Probably not. But since they won't -- why is that section being specifically removed? We can debate the XML / NDFD / etc. all you want, but if the law that says "NWS won't compete" is being removed for no GOOD reason, conspiracy-theory-believer or no then there could very well be a BAD reason.

The AMS sponsored a webcast a few months ago (it may still be online) where the NWS rep was repeatedly asked why and avoided the question in more ways than our former President avoided his questioning. And about as far as the private-sector guy avoided talking about 14-day hour-by-hour forecasts ;>

Again I'm not defending AW as the company all private mets should strive to be like -- just saying that in this case they have a point.

- Rob
 
What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio? Or a newspaper? Because it takes away from the private sector? Boohoo... Must there be privatization of everything? Why not have private law enforcement? ... There could be a boom of rent-a-cops...

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a private sector, since they can obviously specialize to a particular audience or market. For example, the NWS doesn't currently have the resources to do TV broadcasts like TWC or local media. Additionally, specialized forecasts for a particular site or event may be better suited for a private/public company rather than the Weather Service. However, unless there's a giant increase in funding, which isn't likely, I don't see why the private sector should be "threatened" beyond which is a semi-public service in this country - the NWS...

EDIT: I agree that a lack of a good reason for the change (in terms of official reasons) tends to give fodder to the conspiracy folk... I'm not as knowledgeable about the politics of the NWS as others, so perhaps Rick Smith, if he's reading, can add his thoughts...
 
"What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio?"

They are on the radio, or in the newspaper, for stations that prefer to use the zones read by a DJ. Odds are those won't be as good of a forecasts that a local met could provide, and that's the tradeoff radio owners have to make (free yet not necessarily the best, versus paying for something that likely provides better service as long as you are staying local.)

Is taking away time the forecaster could use developing a forecast for ALL, to provide a specialized outlook for a PROFIT-MAKING radio station, acceptable? A normal-sized market could have 10-20 radio stations, so if one NWS office is going to cover that's a good chunk of time.

"Why not have private law enforcement? ... There could be a boom of rent-a-cops... "

We do! The police serve the general public. If you want your private location protected even more you can hire a security firm. Using your analogy, it's okay for the cop to spend an extra 5-10 minutes walking the halls of your business because you are a taxpayer, even if those 5-10 minutes are taken away from the cop's beat protecting the general neighborhoods.

- Rob

===
"For example, the NWS doesn't currently have the resources to do TV broadcasts like TWC or local media."

Actually they do... In Alaska the NWS office has a video forecast segment that is played on local PBS stations but open for anyone to grab and re-air...
 
The worst example, I can think about when it comes to data in the hands of the private industry, is lightning data, it is quite expensive. Be nice if somehow the NWS had their own lightning detection system.

Mike
 
"What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio?"

They are on the radio, or in the newspaper, for stations that prefer to use the zones read by a DJ. Odds are those won't be as good of a forecasts that a local met could provide, and that's the tradeoff radio owners have to make (free yet not necessarily the best, versus paying for something that likely provides better service as long as you are staying local.)
Click to expand...

Why would the zones read by the DJ as good as forecasts that a local met could provide? I've heard many media mets on radio say nothing more indepth than the typical zone forecast... I don't get it... So a media forecaster can make a better forecast than an NWS forecaster? Morgan (KOCO) is better than Miller (NWSFO OUN)? ...

Also, regarding radio... In my experience, after the morning shows, many of the "forecasts" made by a particular TV media station either are just taped forecasts or forecasts read by the DJ anyways. Case in point -- I often tune in to a local OKC radio station around 2-3pm, and what is the "latest forecast"? Nothing more than KOCO's forecast, that was made around 7am, being either re-read or the audio of the meteorologists being replayed... "The showers this morning should end around 11am, and we should be in partly cloudy skies by midafternoon".. This I hear about 3pm... Hmmm... How is this any better than NWS zone forecasts? At least the zone forecasts are updated in the late morning. Many of the radio stations I've listened to do this, so it's not just an isolated event...

"For example, the NWS doesn't currently have the resources to do TV broadcasts like TWC or local media."

Actually they do... In Alaska the NWS office has a video forecast segment that is played on local PBS stations but open for anyone to grab and re-air...
Click to expand...

That's good. I never thought about NWS forecasts on PBS (Public Broadcasting System)... I don't see what would be wrong with that... Granted, this isn't during "severe weather" or anything like that, which only occurs a minor fraction of the time anyways... PBS is non-profit to begin with, so...
 
"Why would the zones read by the DJ as good as forecasts that a local met could provide?"

The NWS met is forecasting for a WIDE area. A private met has the ability to just forecast for the listening audience of the radio station. The NWS does not always update forecasts when minor changes occur, and they have to concentrate on a much broader area. The NWS met may be a hundred miles away from the radio station. If you are saying that NWS forecasts can't be beat then you've got blinders on. Note the use of my word "Could" -- I'm not saying that every private met will beat the NWS, but if they are doing live hits every 15 minutes in the morning odds are the private guy will be able to provide much more detailed info than a 3+ hour old ZFP.

"Many of the radio stations I've listened to do this, so it's not just an isolated event"

That's their choice... They can get a private met locally who updates all the time. Or they can rip-n-read the zones. Or they can do what they do now. It's up to the radio station's management, but having the NWS do all this for free is not appropriate when the private sector already does it.

"So a media forecaster can make a better forecast than an NWS forecaster?"

PRECISELY. Not "does" but "can" since the outlet for a private met is much more fluid than for NWS mets.

"I don't see what would be wrong with that"

Re-reading what I posted I don't think I said there was a problem with that, you said they don't have the ability and I pointed out how they do.

- Rob
 
I feel the same way about weather service as I do the health industry:

It should all be free, and the government should pay the salaries. So this puts me 100% in favor of the NWS on this issue....sorry private guys. Before any private mets jump on me for this, I'd like to add that if the government would do its job, there wouldn't be the need for a private sector. There'd be enough goverment jobs for everyone, and the information (which is often-times life-saving) would all be free - as it should be.

It's just pathetic that doctors and nurses and everyone in the health industry don't get the same treatment. No one should have to pay for any emergency/major medical assistance. But I guess if it were fair, organized crime (insurance companies) wouldn't be neccesary.
 
You are talking about America correct? Seems a little strange to ask the government to supply your local TV met (a for-profit company), give forecasts to Northwest Airlines (a for profit company), let your local utility know when they need to buy more energy (a for-profit company ) and more... That's not what this country was developed upon! Might as well take this into other fields - get rid of accountants and have the IRS do it all. No more gas stations either - government should just buy those up and supply our fuel needs.

Sorry Tim - give up Weathergraphics and I'll drop RealEMWIN because Shane prefers the NWS develop software for PC users to plot weather data. No more chase hotline either - that should be a government service too...

All I can say it - agree or disagree with the public/private interface, that's the LAST idea I thought I'd hear on this forum!

- Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve Miller
Barry Myers has a history of fighting the NWS. Will Scott and Rubio support him anyway?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Bill Barlow
Back
Top