AccuWeather wants to shut down free data

I dont see any logic in privatizing our weather information. If a DJ is just reading the zones then it is already for a certain area not a wide area. That is why the call them zones!! I have been on both side of this as my dad was a tv met for 30 yrs and I have a humber of friends that are now tv mets. Where do they get the information to do their forecasts?? :shock: could it be the NWS. I am not saying that private companies shouldnt exist. On the contrary. Most chasers use one in one form or other for information out in the field. I use XM WXWORKS which is a Baron product. But for the general public its stupid for them to pay their tax dollars for the NWS to do what they do and then expect the citizens to pay a private company for that information. The private company should be footing the bill for the NWS then not taxpayers. Why should the companies get the information but not the public. The role of the NWS is to protect life and property by forecasting and warning of wx. They have to be able to get the information out to the ENTIRE public for it to be effective so for all you private mets that moan about losing money. The NWS Im sure is hiring but as long as I am paying taxes for the NWS I expect to get my information for free.
 
"I dont see any logic in privatizing our weather information."

I repeat - NOBODY IS PROPOSING PRIVATIZING WEATHER INFORMATION. The NWS has a policy stating they will not compete with private sectors and it's a policy that has worked quite well for years. Now they want to remove that policy "just because." That's the issue here, nothing more...

"If a DJ is just reading the zones then it is already for a certain area not a wide area. That is why the call them zones!!"

A NWS met (one person) makes a forecast for the entire NWS area. A private met only has to be concerned with the radio station's listening area. It's a PROVEN fact that the smaller your area of concern, the better your forecast will be.

"I have a humber of friends that are now tv mets. Where do they get the information to do their forecasts?? could it be the NWS."

Where did TV mets pop up in this debate? I'm talking about private sector, of which TV mets are a part. In any case private sector / TV meteorologists do NOT get their forecasts from the NWS. They make their own. That's why they are meteorologists. If you are talking about a reporter / weathercaster who has no weather knowledge then that person likely gets it from AccuWeather or NWS or TWC, but a weathercaster is not considered a meteorologist nor considered part of the commercial weather industry.

"But for the general public its stupid for them to pay their tax dollars for the NWS to do what they do and then expect the citizens to pay a private company for that information."

Many do because they want the best information available. The NWS forecast is not always the best for their needs.

"Why should the companies get the information but not the public."

You lost me there. What are you referring to by "companies getting info"?

"The NWS Im sure is hiring but as long as I am paying taxes for the NWS I expect to get my information for free."

And you will and that right has never been threatened. Are you in the same thread we are?

- Rob

PS I think I see where you got your viewpoint from -- "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 . . ."

I'd highly suggest you actually go to that link and read Mr Myers' letter. It says NOTHING about reining in free data, or XML, or anything of the like. Yes AW would like the NWS to do less, but that's not the debate Mr Myers and the private sector is involved with. TOTALLY separate issue and one that will never fly so no worries.
 
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...
Click to expand...


If you're still getting paid, what's the difference? My idea was to keep money in the pockets of private sector mets by making them gov mets and keeping money in the pockets of users by making it all free.

I never mentioned software, which isn't life-saving info, which is the point of all this. Make all the software you want, create all the nowcasting services you want. But there's no way I'll ever pay for a tornado warning or a local forecast, and neither should anyone else.

I knew I should've just stayed out of this.
 
"My idea was to keep money in the pockets of private sector mets by making them gov mets and keeping money in the pockets of users by making it all free."

There's something about running your own company which can give more satisfaction than saying you're a government employee. I just don't see how a TV station employing NWS mets would be an improvement...

"I never mentioned software, which isn't life-saving info, which is the point of all this."

NO IT IS NOT. Nobody is saying a THING about life-saving info. We're talking about going into markets served by the private sector today and saying "NWS stays out." You said private-sector mets need to be employed by NWS, Tim & I are in the meteorological private sector and while not wanting to speak for Tim I doubt we want to work for NWS.

"But there's no way I'll ever pay for a tornado warning or a local forecast, and neither should anyone else."

And this thread has nothing to do with paying for a tornado warning or a local forecast. Nobody has ever suggested you do that. The CWSA just wants NWS to keep the language that states they won't compete with private sector mets - which is unrelated to tornado warnings and zone forecast.

- Rob

PS I realize I incorrectly labeled Barry Myers from AccuWeather as Dr Myers -- Barry is the author of the letters referenced in Tim's post, not Joel (Dr) the owner of AW.
 
I am all for the private sector. They can localize the forecast for specific areas, and update as often as need. The NWS uses a large County Warning Area, and can't be as local as say a private sector who forecasts exclusively for chasers OR exculsively for a local lawn business.

I am also for the NWS. They provide great guidance products and forecasts for those who wish to not pay for the information.

The kind of "private" sector I am against is Accuweather. Awhile back, they were distributing NWS Zone Forecasts and calling them their own. They also want to try and stop the flow of free data (NEXRAD, etc.) and go back to the WSI days (at least thats what I got out of that article). I do not want to see this happen. To sum it up, I am all for the private sectors who don't play the game of Monopoly.
 
"They also want to try and stop the flow of free data (NEXRAD, etc.) and go back to the WSI days (at least thats what I got out of that article)."

I have no fear you got that wrong... Can you post the exact portion that shows it? I've received dozens of emails from Barry and others in the CWSA over the past few months and have yet to hear anyone ask for that or anything similar.

- Rob
 
Ok Rob, so you are suggesting that the private industry wants to preserve a "no competition" clause. So what exactly does that mean to you? By making your own forecast, when the NWS has already made a forecast for the same area (recognizing the regions may not exactly overlay), is this not competition? What if a severe storm is heading for a major outdoor event, let's say a NASCAR race as this is a non-public enterprise, should they not contact the appropriate individuals to alert them to the risk? Is this not appropriate, to make the NASCAR folks feel obligated to hire a private met? I disagree if so, as I think it is the burden of the private met industry to value add to what is made publicly available. I think the NWS should give out whatever they feel is appropriate to meet their mission (limits established by the Department of Commerce), and if the private industry can go beyond this and generate a market - that's great.

Glen
 
Reading between the lines, it appears to me that the main issue boils down to the NFDB:

January 8, 2004 CWSA Response to NRC Fair Weather

NRC Recommendation # 5

The NWS should make its data and products available in internet accessible digital form. Information held in digital databases should be based on widely recognized standards, formats, and metadata descriptions to ensure that data from different observing platforms, databases, and models can be integrated and used by all interested parties in the weather and climate enterprise.

CWSA Position Statement

CWSA endorses the dissemination of all NWS data and information (including experimental) in real time without delay in Internet accessible digital form to the private sector for distribution to the public in formats that are appropriate to carry out a properly defined NWS mission. The digital database should not be used to allow the NWS to expand beyond its core mission, jeopardize the existing infrastructure, or enter areas creating publicly-funded competition with the Commercial Weather Industry.
Click to expand...

The NFDB is not a "value added" product, so the the CWSA's paranoid contention that it alone will compete with commercial weather services is simply ludicrous. Just like any other form of raw, digital data it's useless in the hands of the layman as well as the meteorologist without the proper display/visualization tools. If the CWSA is against this form of dissemination of weather information, then they should be rallying against the open dissemination of model data as well.

Again, while I won't necessarily toot the NWS' horn, I'm seeing little innovation coming from the private sector. 14 day forecasts parsed from the GFS/MRF MOS simply isn't innovation. The NFBD is. And that's what I see as being the rub for the CWSA gang. They need to quit whining and turn more of their profits into R&D dollars to "out-innovate" the NWS/NOAA and give the public REAL value-added products.

Regards,

Mike
 
Rob,
I don't think you or other private sector employees need to worry about the NWS taking over the national weather market! They don't have the resources, flat out. As I said, they can't provide in-depth forecasts for airlines, as they don't have the resources ($$ , employees, etc) to do that. That's why we need private-sector companies! This isn't about whether or not there is room in the US for private sector companies...

If radio station management wants a weather forecast for their listeners, why not allow them the option to go for the free option? Well, it's not free anways, since it's being paid for by tax money. But to them, for a similar forecast, why not choose free? Why not give radio stations the choice to choose a public-service-like source or a source that charges for the use of their products/forecasts?

I still don't think I'd say that NWS forecasts for a particular city are worse than a media forecast. In other words, I don't think media forecasts are better than NWS forecasts (as you hinted). Yes, they MAY be better, but for that mattter, NWS forecasts MAY be better as well. TV/Media mets still forecast for a relatively large area (their viewing area) anyways. Sure, they can sit down 10 minutes prior to going on-air to triple-check their forecast with the latest info, but why couldn't a weather service employee do that?

Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees. C'mon now, if you're confident enough to forecast a high of 88 degree, over the NWS oft-forecast upper-80s, then good for you! But I think it leads the viewers/listeners to believe that your better than you can probably be... There is an undeniable range of error in forecasting, courtesy of imperfect surface ob networks, etc etc etc. I guess this was more a gripe about private sector weather forecasts...

Moving outside media mets... TWC and Accuweather largely rely on computer forecasts (Aw man, you mean they don't make personalized forecasts for eVERY single zip code in the U.S.?...lol), which would largely make them worse than NWS forecasts... Sure they may be adjusted for the East Coast (errr, I mean any large city...), but again, it gives the viewer/user a false sense that the forecaster is better than they really are....
 
From Slashdot -
"The National Weather Service wants to update a 1991 policy that limits what data it can put on the Internet. The proposed new policy makes putting free data on the Internet official. The Private Weather Sector wants NWS to provide its new digital forecasts only in specialized data formats and would like NWS to shut down new XML data feeds.
Click to expand...

The proposed new policy makes putting free data on the Internet official.
Click to expand...

I am ALL for that... I consider free data to be: NIDS, SATELLITE, DIGITAL FORECASTS, WARNINGS, ETC. Why shouldn't these be free?

...and would like NWS to shut down new XML data feeds.
Click to expand...

I am NOT for shutting down free NWS products...

Granted, all of this is based on what an "anonymous reader" writes... So who knows. The above from Slashdot is geared towards Accuweather wanting these services stopped, NOT the others that are in private sector.
 
"By making your own forecast, when the NWS has already made a forecast for the same area (recognizing the regions may not exactly overlay), is this not competition?"

ZFPs are fine and nobody has stated otherwise. What would be wrong would be to put out a "concrete forecast" and let the concrete co's know when the humidity would be just right for pouring cement and how long they have til the chance of rain is > 40%. Or to call the NASCAR race and tell them a small shower is approaching so they need to hold cars in for 30 minutes.

"What if a severe storm is heading for a major outdoor event, let's say a NASCAR race as this is a non-public enterprise, should they not contact the appropriate individuals to alert them to the risk?"

Sure. Severe weather and a large group of the public. Should they also call the local auto plant? No. Should they call the golf course? No. That's the role of the private sector.

"Is this not appropriate, to make the NASCAR folks feel obligated to hire a private met? "

NASCAR hires a private met so that someone is responsible - plus they can get additional information right on location. If the NWS blows the forecast there nothing that can be done. If your private met doesn't see the squall line 20 miles west of you - he gets fired and a new one hired. Just because a county is under a warning (re: Indy 500) does not mean that the track is going to be leveled. Having a private met on-site adds a lot of value. I do local concerts where I sit in front of the radarscreen and make some good money watching for showers. If the new NWS policy comes into play, the concert people can just call NWS every 5 minutes and get the latest radar update for free... I disagree with that.

"Granted, all of this is based on what an "anonymous reader" writes... So who knows. The above from Slashdot is geared towards Accuweather wanting these services stopped, NOT the others that are in private sector."

I saw that too, which is why I didn't post there because it is not based on fact. Read the actual links. Go to http://www.weatherindustry.org and see what the letters truely say. Do not base it on anonymous posts from disgruntled NWS employess...

- Rob
 
"By making your own forecast, when the NWS has already made a forecast for the same area (recognizing the regions may not exactly overlay), is this not competition?"

ZFPs are fine and nobody has stated otherwise. What would be wrong would be to put out a "concrete forecast" and let the concrete co's know when the humidity would be just right for pouring cement and how long they have til the chance of rain is > 40%. Or to call the NASCAR race and tell them a small shower is approaching so they need to hold cars in for 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Why would that be WRONG? I don't get it! Why is it wrong for the NWS, a PUBLIC entity, to make site-specific forecasts? I don't think this is too terribly like in widespread terms, again given resource issues... However, I don't think I'd say it's "wrong". How is a wrong to give people the choice to use public or private data? If they like private-sector forecasts better, then good! They'll spend the money and "buy" the private-sector products... However, I think it's worth it to at least give them the choice...

"What if a severe storm is heading for a major outdoor event, let's say a NASCAR race as this is a non-public enterprise, should they not contact the appropriate individuals to alert them to the risk?"

Sure. Severe weather and a large group of the public. Should they also call the local auto plant? No. Should they call the golf course? No. That's the role of the private sector.

"Is this not appropriate, to make the NASCAR folks feel obligated to hire a private met? "

NASCAR hires a private met so that someone is responsible - plus they can get additional information right on location. If the NWS blows the forecast there nothing that can be done. If your private met doesn't see the squall line 20 miles west of you - he gets fired and a new one hired. Just because a county is under a warning (re: Indy 500) does not mean that the track is going to be leveled. Having a private met on-site adds a lot of value. I do local concerts where I sit in front of the radarscreen and make some good money watching for showers. If the new NWS policy comes into play, the concert people can just call NWS every 5 minutes and get the latest radar update for free... I disagree with that.

- Rob
Click to expand...

Again, I don't see how this would be bad? It seems that a lot of people feel threatened by this, when, in my opinion, I don't think they need to be. There WILL be a need for private-sector companies in the future, partly for the reason Rob gave above -- there's accountability / responsibility with private companies that allows for a hire/fire scheme. I'm, nor do I think anyone, is saying that there shouldn't or doesn't need to be private sector companies. HOWEVER, I think this is an example of people who make money complaining about competition from a source (NWS) that can do part of their job for free (wide-area forecasts, etc).
 
"I don't think you or other private sector employees need to worry about the NWS taking over the national weather market!"

I'm not _worried_ but don't want them to remove the law that says they won't intrude and have no reason behind it.

"Why not give radio stations the choice to choose a public-service-like source or a source that charges for the use of their products/forecasts?"

They have that choice today. What I'm against is the NWS met's doing on-air forecasts from the NWS office, which the current policy prohibits but the future one does not.

"I still don't think I'd say that NWS forecasts for a particular city are worse than a media forecast."

Depends on where the NWS office is. If the office is in the city and the radio met outside, NWS probably will do better. I'm 70 miles from the WFO and based on my repeated verification vs NWS I do better.

"Yes, they MAY be better, but for that mattter, NWS forecasts MAY be better as well"

Totally agree.

"Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees."

That's the NWS policy now. Read the NDFD stuff (RDFxxx / PFMxxx / AFMxxx products) as they are predicting precise dew points at 7 days out... exact highs and lows for the next 7 days... cloud cover at 3 hours to the next 7 days... Don't blame it just on the media!

"which would largely make them worse than NWS forecasts"

Certainly - no debate there...

- Rob
 
Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees. C'mon now, if you're confident enough to forecast a high of 88 degree, over the NWS oft-forecast upper-80s, then good for you!
Click to expand...

LOL! The NWS DTX does exactly that - Forecasts exact degree!
Click to expand...

Hmm... from ZFP issue by DTX:
"
.THIS AFTERNOON...BECOMING MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS THROUGH 2 PM...THEN SCATTERED SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS. HIGHS 75 TO 79. WEST WINDS 10 TO 20 MPH. CHANCE OF
RAIN 30 PERCENT.
.TONIGHT...SCATTERED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS THROUGH 8 PM...THEN A
CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS DURING THE EVENING...THEN PATCHY
FOG. OTHERWISE MOSTLY CLOUDY DURING THE EARLY EVENING...THEN
BECOMING PARTLY CLOUDY. LOWS 53 TO 57. WEST WINDS 5 TO 10
MPH...BECOMING LIGHT AND VARIABLE. CHANCE OF RAIN 40 PERCENT.
"

Yes, they enter exact degrees in the Coded City Forecast, but that's because there is a need for exact degrees for the product. In products that the vast majority of the public sees -- Zones, etc -- temps are often given in either 80-85 language or "lower-80s" language... Heck, when there is very low confidence in the forecast, I've even seen "highs from mid 50s to mid 60s" for days 3-4 out. At least that CONVEYS a sense of uncertaintly, while private-sector forecasts would have likely gone with "high of 60"... This is more a gripe than anything, and isn't really related to the topic at hand, however.
 
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
11
Views
3K
Mike Smith
Steve Miller
Climate Denier Plots to Make Your Storm Warnings Worse
Replies
5
Views
4K
Caleb Grunzke
Caleb Grunzke
Back
Top