New bill proposes to ban public NWS forecasts & data

[Kurt Hulst]

here is the link to the members considering the bill, write them and tell them to vote no!!

http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Originally posted by rdale
I'm not sure you read the bill - there's no proposal of any sorts to transfer any hardware from NWS to private sector.

I did, but I misunderstood. It is only for the products, data that a private sector could/would furnish. I stand corrected.

 

[Jay McCoy]

I will not pay again for something I already have paid for with my tax dollars.

The only people I see supporting this stupid bill are people who are in the private wx sector and will benefit from this. I am not bashing those guys. I cant blame them for wanting job security and a raise but for the general public and for chasers this would be a major setback.

Where does most of the data that these companies use come from.. Yep.. from data collected from the NWS using our tax dollars. Fine they want to limit what we have access to. Let them launch their own ballons and set up their own obs stations. They shouldnt get to use our tax funded data for profit. Lets see them put up multi million dollar dopplers that would cover the nation.

 

[rdale]

"I will not pay again for something I already have paid for with my tax dollars. "

Which is what?

 

[beaudodson]

Originally posted by rdale
\"I will not pay again for something I already have paid for with my tax dollars. \"

Which is what?

Robert are you in favor of this bill passing?

 

[Jay McCoy]

Originally posted by rdale
\"I will not pay again for something I already have paid for with my tax dollars. \"

Which is what?

Everything the NWS does including pinpoint forecasts, 7 day outlooks, hydrology, climatology, etc.. are paid for with my tax dollars. What can a private company offer me that I dont already have and why should I have to. If i want to know what it will be like 5 days from now I should not have to sign up with accuweather to get my forecast (and I wouldnt anyway)

My point is where do these companies get their data?? from equipment used by the NWS such as baloons and obs stations so why should they get to use data I paid for and then try and charge me for that information.

The bill is so general in its language they could make alomst anything the NWS puts out to the public as illegal.

I am all for boycotting Accuweather and will do so. Now my partner does subscribe to WxWorks which I can see because the NWS does not offer satellite feed of radar. If a private company has a good idea and offers something others dont then they will do well. Otherwise they shouldnt be in business and shouldnt be subsidized by our tax dollars. That is what supply and demand are all about but some folks want to do away with any competition or free information so they can charge what they want. Why do you think wireless companies fight so hard to keep cities from offering free wireless. So they can charge what they want.

Like I said the only people for this are people in the private wx sector that will profit from it.

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Originally posted by beaudodson+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(beaudodson)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-rdale

\"I will not pay again for something I already have paid for with my tax dollars. \"

Which is what?

Robert are you in favor of this bill passing?[/b]

Considering he is in the weather data/program business I would only assume that he is quite interested in seeing which way this bill goes.
http://skywatch.org/
http://sky.radioweather.us/gempak.html

 

[rdale]

"Robert are you in favor of this bill passing"

I'm in favor of what I said above - NWS sitting down with industry and working on a DMZ between the two groups. If NWS continues to refuse to do so, what other option is there?

 

[Jason Toft]

Private companies that make forecasts and SELL them to the media partially disgust me. I get really, really sick of hearing, "Now here's Denis Phillips with your ACCU-WEATHER forecast!" Why can't this guy get a real meteorology degree and make his own d*mn forecast instead of taking a AMS test? The only real meteorologist we have here in the Tampa Bay area is Alan Winfield of Bay News 9, who has a Master's in meteorology. :roll: :shock:

On the flip side of this coin, private weather companies provide jobs for all those up and coming meteorologists fresh out of college, so this kinda fits with the president's plan to create more jobs, but then these private companes can't hire too many people, between 500-2500 to make a SWAG, and that's pretty much nothing! So, that throws that idea out!

Hmmm....I'm not sure. I do not support the bill, the NWS is a vital part of the country, and it should not be handed over to private companies.

Jason

 

[beaudodson]

Originally posted by rdale
\"Robert are you in favor of this bill passing\"

I'm in favor of what I said above - NWS sitting down with industry and working on a DMZ between the two groups. If NWS continues to refuse to do so, what other option is there?

Then I will take that as you are not in favor of the bill and would rather see the NWS sit down and talk with these companies.

 

[beaudodson]

Someone posted these comments...

For those of you who have doubts about the intent of
this legislation, here are the remarks from The
Congressional Record made by Sen. Santorum when he
introduced the bill on the Senate floor...

-------- BEGIN QUOTE

S. 786. A bill to clarify the duties and
responsibilities of the National Weather Service, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce
the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 to
clarify the responsibilities of the National Weather
Service (NWS) within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association, NOAA. This legislation
modernizes the statutory description of NWS roles in
the national weather enterprise so that it reflects
today's reality in which the NWS and the commercial
weather industry both play important parts in
providing weather products and services to the Nation.


Back in 1890 when the current NWS organic statute
was enacted, and all the way through World War II, the
public received its weather forecasts and warnings
almost exclusively from the Weather Bureau, the NWS's
predecessor. In the late 1940s, a fledging weather
service industry began to develop. From then until
December 2004, the NWS has had policies sensitive to
the importance of fostering the industry's expansion,
and since 1948 has had formal policies discouraging
its competition with industry. Fourteen years ago the
NWS took the extra step of carefully delineating the
respective roles of the NWS and the commercial weather
industry, in addition to pledging its intention not to
provide products or services that were or could be
provided by the commercial weather industry. This
longstanding non-competition and non-duplication
policy has had the effect of facilitating the growth
of the industry into a billion dollar sector and of
strengthening and extending the national weather
enterprise, now the best in the world.

Regrettably, the parent agency of the NWS, NOAA,
repealed the 1991 non-competition and non-duplication
policy in December 2004. Its new policy only promises
to ``give due consideration'' to the abilities of
private sector entities. The new policy appears to
signal the intention of NOAA and the NWS to expand
their activities into areas that are already well
served by the commercial weather industry. This
detracts from NWS's core missions of maintaining a
modem and effective meteorological infrastructure,
collecting comprehensive observational data, and
issuing warnings and forecasts of severe weather that
imperils life and property.

Additionally, NOAA's action threatens the continued
success of the commercial weather industry. 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. This bill restores the NWS non-competition
policy. However, the legislation leaves NWS with
complete and unfettered freedom to carry out its
critical role of preparing and issuing severe weather
warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of
life and property of the general public. I believe it
is in the best interest of both the government and NWS
to concentrate on this critical role and its other
core missions. The beauty of a highly competent
private sector is that services that are not
inherently involved in public safety and security can
be carried out with little or no expenditure of
taxpayer dollars. At a time of tight agency budgets,
the commercial weather industry's increasing
capabilities offer the Federal Government the
opportunity to focus its resources on the governmental
functions of collecring and distributing weather data,
research and development of atmospheric models and
core forecasts, and on ensuring that NWS
meteorologists provide the most timely and accurate
warnings and forecasts of life-threatening weather.

The National Weather Service Duties Act also
addresses the potential misuse of insider information.
Currently, NOAA and the NWS are doing little to
safeguard the NWS information that could be used by
opportunistic investors to gain unfair profits in the
weather futures markets, in the agriculture and energy
markets, and in other business segments influenced by
government weather outlooks, forecasts, and warnings.
No one knows who may be taking advantage of this
information. In recent years there have been various
examples of NWS personnel providing such information
to specific TV stations and others that enable those
businesses to secure an advantage over their
competitors. The best way to address this problem is
to require that NWS data, information, guidance,
forecasts and warnings be issued in real time and
simultaneously to all members of the public, the media
and the commercial weather industry. This bill imposes
just such a requirement, which is common to other
Federal agencies. The responsibilities of the
commercial weather industry as the only private sector
producer of weather information, services and systems
deserve this definition to ensure continued growth and
investment in the private sector and to properly focus
the government's activities.

We have every right to expect these agencies to
minimize unnecessary, competitive, and commercial-type
activities, and to do the best possible job of warning
the public about impending flash floods, hurricanes,
tornadoes, tsunamis, and other potentially
catastrophic events. I encourage my colleagues to
support this important piece of legislation.

 

[Dan Cook]

What a jackass.

 

[Kyle Masters]

I'm tired of the GOP trying to privatize everything. There is such a thing as the public good, which the weather service serves. For-profit entities do not always have the public good at heart, being concerned more about short-term profit motive and the bottom line. The weather service is a proper function of government, not the private sector.

I didn't have the time to read this, so I'll just throw my two cents in on this:

A prime example of companies not always working towards the private good was stated best by Sioux Falls WCM Todd Heinkampp:

He said that if you watch the local KELO TV station when they do their storm tracks, the chief meteorologist, Phil Schrek, tends to draw storms toward population, in order to increase ratings.

I tell ya, you've never heard a guy vent until you've heard Todd vent about this.

 

[Nic Wilson]

I agree with many of the points that Sen. Santorum has made. There needs to be a distinct line drawn that determines the boundary that the NWS and NOAA cannot cross. People need to realize that the private sector encompasses a much larger playing field than private forecasting companies such as AccuWeather. A majority of technological advances in meteorology that are assisting NWS forecasters and entities have arisen from the private sector in recent years. The last ten years have seen a dramatic increase in weather-impacted businesses realizing the value-added products/forecasts/services offered by the private sector can save them significant money thru more efficient operations. If protection clauses aren't placed on NOAA soon, the viability of the private sector will be hampered ---- this in turn will limit research and development and ultimately slow the advances of meteorology in US.

That being said, I don't believe that this Bill is the proper way to deal with the tensions between the public / private sector and should only be used as a last resort. I agree with Robert that the best solution will be to have representatives from each party sit down and reach compromises and spell out distinct boundaries for each's initiatives. The NWS is bound to realize this is the route it must go sooner or later, or else it will fall further behind emerging private sector technologies that are aimed at weak links in NOAA's "protection of life and property" and will be valued by citizens once familiarized with their benefits such as: road surface observations, total lightning, surface observation mesonets and numerous other up-and-coming products that will change the way we forecast.

If you want an example that the US should strive for...check out this website on a private sector / government joint initiative testbed taking place in Finland. The meteorological politics aren't as complex in a smaller country such as Finland, but they are doing things right and we should definitely take notice!

http://www.fmi.fi/research_meteorology/met...orology_30.html

 

[rdale]

"He said that if you watch the local KELO TV station when they do their storm tracks, the chief meteorologist, Phil Schrek, tends to draw storms toward population, in order to increase ratings. "

Jay Trobec is the chief at KELO, which blows all of its competition WAY out of the water, so I'm not sure what that comment is about.