DHS use of Accuwx

[Jay McCoy]

Paying double is exactly what happened if DHS paid for the forecast. We as taxpayers had already paid for the data used in forecasting. If we then also pay Accuweather for a forecast garnered from that data instead of using the NHC forecast which was available including mets onsite at DHS then its bilking taxpayer $$. Unless ofcourse Accuweather used its own recon planes, satellites, w88d's, and bouys to get the raw data (ya right). Then it would be fair for them to charge. Otherwise they are using data we have already paid for and then charging again for the forecasts.

If people want to pay a private company for their forecasts thats fine. Let them waste their $$ but when a federal agency on the taxpayer payroll uses a private company to get the same information available from another gov't agency for free I have a BIG issue with that. If our senator from Mass. had anything to do with DHS using them I think conspiracy and embezlement charges are in order as I am sure he gets a kickback (in campain contributions ofcourse) from AccuWx.

And they wonder why we are soo against the bill they want passed :roll:

 

[rdale]

"Otherwise they are using data we have already paid for and then charging again for the forecasts."

Remove the word "again" please. DHS is paying for the forecasts. End of story. The data is paid for by everyone, for everyone. The forecasts are something you have to pay additional for. The forecasts are not a part of the data.

"agency on the taxpayer payroll uses a private company to get the same information available from another gov't agency for free I have a BIG issue with that."

MANY government agencies buy weather forecasts from the private sector. Any idea how many DTN units are in use in the public sector? Or how many AccuWeather clients are Transportation Department agencies?

"I think conspiracy and embezlement charges are in order"

Wow. All I can say to that. Wow.

 

[Joe Nield]

For me the issue isnt response but $$. The DHS is a federal department paid for by taxpayers. They have acces to NWS/NHC forecasts including inhouse meteorologists but instead turn toward a private company.

I haven't gotten through the entire thread yet, but suffice to say this is a holdover from the Tom Ridge days at DHS. Nothing like a little nod to your home state, eh? :roll:

I think what Jay means to say is that the government has its own meteorological service, which many (most?) would argue is vastly superior. Why, then, pony up more dough for a private forecast? Me, I'm sure it was just bureaucratic oversight, like I said, left over from the Tom Ridge days.