New bill proposes to ban public NWS forecasts & data

Originally posted by 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/meteorology_30.html
Click to expand...

Great comments. I agree with almost all of that. There defin needs to be some talks on both sides.
 
Originally posted by 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/meteorology_30.html
Click to expand...

Someone should bring all of this to the table after this is all said and done. I don't know how that process should be started? Perhaps others do.
 
RE: Nic Wilson's comments

A majority of technological advances in meteorology that are assisting NWS forecasters and entities have arisen from the private sector in recent years.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this statement. The vast majority of advances have come through Gov't and Industry supported University research. As long as there aren't artificial barriers raised to universal data dissemination such as those proposed by Accuwx, this trend will continue. If you look "behind the curtain" this reason at least partially explains their current push. Let's not forget that the current "status quo" has greatly benefited the public at large in terms of warning accuracy, etc. Would this continue to be the case if tech advances were dictated by private sector? I don't know the answer, but there is yet to be a persuasive argument to why it would be in the public interest to even head in that direction.
 
Hello all,
As far as this bill goes, IT SHOULD DIE! Granted, there are a few things the NWS does that the private sector has "come up with" as well. I am in agreement they need to sit down and deal with these overlaps. But the wording of the bill is so vague that it could essentially tie the NWS's hand behind its back and not allow them to do anything! I support private sector groups to some degree: Accuweather and TWC, just to name the big shots, have their purpose. However, they should not be allowed to dominate the industry and force us to pay for the forecasts, radar etc. we have already payed for with our tax dollars! :evil: "Man-on-dog" Santorum's vicious, purely politically motivated bill should be shot down and buried six feet under where no one can see it! :evil: Also, to rdale:
You seem to be pretty damn supportive of this bill, you working in the private sector and all.
Bill Hamilton Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

beaudodson wrote:
rdale wrote:
"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?


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.

I question this statment you posted:
rdale Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:43 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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?

Oh, there are plenty of other options, rdale. I don't disagree that the NWS should talk with the private sector and draw up SOME boundaries; I just disagree with this bill. The wording is WAAAY too vague and everyone in this forum depends on NWS forecasts to some degree or another. So decide: do you support your fellow crew of the USS StormTrack? Or are you a mutinous scallywag that wants to kiss Sen. Santorum's ass?
Decide where your loyalties lie, rdale: are you with us or do you want to walk the plank? :twisted: :twisted:
 
"Or are you a mutinous scallywag that wants to kiss Sen. Santorum's a**?"

Nice line for someone that refers to God in his signature...
 
From http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/...1a_wx_0421.html
Myers argued that nearly all consumers get their weather information for free through commercial providers, including the news media, so there's little reason for the federal agency to duplicate their efforts.
Click to expand...

Where does he think that all that data comes from originally? Sure Acuweather and news outlets may make up forecasts and add pretty graphics, but all the raw data that they use is collected by the NWS. I would like to see accuweather try to put out all their products without using anything from the NWS. If we can't have the data, they they shouldn't be able to access it either.
 
One thing I am wondering about this bill, is what the potential impacts to NOAA Weather Radio could be. If the public was restricted access to NWS Zone Forecast products and the such, for the most part, NOAA Weather Radio will be all dead-air, or be a continuous loop of current conditions but no forecast, all in all except during times of active severe weather.

I think this bill is just complete trash. The big companies are in it to WIN. If the NWS had to restrict items like radar because the local TV stations had radar, then GRLevel3 would be useless, along with alot of commercial weather applications which SOLELY rely on data obtained by the National Weather Service.
 
"If the public was restricted access to NWS Zone Forecast products"

Nobody has said anything about that - it's the zipcode forecasts / NDFD type stuff.

"If the NWS had to restrict items like radar because the local TV stations had radar"

They won't be able to use GIS or other pretty display software on their websites, but it is SPECIFICALLY in the bill that the raw data will be protected, so the rest of your paragraph is not valid.

- Rob
 
Originally posted by Mark Farnik
So decide: do you support your fellow crew of the USS StormTrack? Or are you a mutinous scallywag that wants to kiss Sen. Santorum's ass?
Decide where your loyalties lie, rdale: are you with us or do you want to walk the plank? :twisted: :twisted:
Click to expand...

Oh, for goodness sakes! This is really going too far. I don't always agree with Rob, but I certainly respect his professional opinion. Please don't turn this into a ad hominem "us vs. them" argument.

If you guys have a beef with Joel Myers, then so be it; I'd include myself in that category as well. But to come on here and continually imply that private sector weather services are somehow inferior, whether intellectually or ethically, to government run weather services because they are "profit making" institutions is absurd and demonstrates a level of ignorance I would hope not be so prevalent on this board.

Come one Folks; show some class here. You can respectfully disagree with someone and debate them without resorting to such below the belt tactics.

As for my own opinion, I certainly don't like the vague wording of parts of the bill either (such as Sectiion 2©) and I do support the work of the NWS in regards to producing such products as routine zone forecast products. However, Rob does make a valid point in that NWS *management* (not to be confused with the folks out in the field who are busting their @$$ to do their jobs) have decided, for whatever reason, to distance themselves from the pivate sector over the last several years. I would think it's only natural that the private sector would view this as an act of hostility towards them from the mid and upper level NWS/NOAA bureaucrats. Combine this with the introduction of several NWS products which could certainly be construed as being "value-added", and it's easy to see that if the NWS isn't overstepping the boundaries of the earlier partnership, they certainly have been pushing the envelope out a bit further.

The best example I can cite is the NDFD. While I certainly have little problem with the production and distribution of the raw product by the NWS (many in the private sector are oppsed to even this), I do think that the NWS production of a full suite of graphics from the database constitutes a "value added" service that is explicitly reserved for the private sector in NWSOM Chapter A-06.

The question one must ask themself when considering the main issue is this: Does any NWS product out there go above and beyond fulfilling their core mission? I'd certainly say that there are several areas (such as NDFD graphics) in which they do.

As for the out and out paranoia that somehow the private sector is plotting to take over the collection and distribution of meteorological data, that notion is so absurd as to not even warrant a reply! Obviously, many of you don't realize that the opposite has been occurring over the past decade or so. How many of you remember DIFAX, GOES-TAP and NIDS and how many thousands of dollars (a month in some cases) it use to take to receive this data because it was only available for private sector distribution through third party vendors?

Regards,

Mike
 
OK, gentleman,
I admit it. I went too far with comparing rdale to a mutinous scallywag. It was a heat of the moment thing. I still feel very strongly on this issue,
but I do retract the pirate tirade. I agree with Mike; this really shouldn't be an "us vs. them" because if that route is taken there will be some very hurt feelings on both sides of the issue. I'm just a very outspoken 15 year old.
I apologize for any hurt feelings and exasperation I may have caused. :(
I especially apologize to rdale. The statements I made were complete overkill of the issue at large, as well as unprofessional and immature.
I got caught up in the heat of the moment, that's all. Now, let's try and discuss this more civilly; I know my first post on this topic does not reflect that intention, but as I said before, I retract that tirade. Now let's collaborate as fellow storm chasers and weather enthusiasts who value their freedom of weather information and make sure Sen. Santorum's bill is soundly defeated! :)
Sincerely,
Mark Farnik
 
Well, I just emailed my two senators here in Missouri. Neither one are on the commerce comm. but IF this bill gets out of committee and is up for a vote in the full senate, at least I know my .02 cents will be heard. I really think that if we can get this in the media, the public will put alot of pressure on the legislatiors and we just might be able to get this bill canned. :D
 
I think this seems like a pretty healthy conversation for the most part. First, I think everyone here is entitled to their opinion. I for one do not support this bill. But if someone owns a weather forecasting company and pays their taxes to have the government compete against them then they certainly have just as much right to disagree as anyone else. The reason I see this conversation as healthy is because the NWS has come along way in the last twenty years. Back then many people viewed the NWS as a corrupt weather monopoly. While the NWS has come quite a long way to opening up, we could obviously do more to increase private interest in weather forecasting and weather technology. Trying to find this equilibrium between government and industry is no easier than the atmosphere trying to find its own equilibrium.
 
Originally posted by rdale
\"If the public was restricted access to NWS Zone Forecast products\"

Nobody has said anything about that - it's the zipcode forecasts / NDFD type stuff.

- Rob
Click to expand...

A couple of months ago, I read some statistics on the usage of NDFD grib format data. It turned out that Accu-Weather was the number one user of NWS NDFD grib format data. Now, how Accu-weather uses this information for its commercial products, I don't know. Maybe someone can elaborate. Clearly, though, Accu-weather is using NWS NDFD data, in some way, for its own products... how much that mirrors some of the graphical NDFD data on weather.gov, again, I don't know.

This whole thing is about money, bottom line, and how much "dressing up"/tailoring the NWS is allowed to do to its forecasts. (This is why I think Accu-Weather is in such a conundrum, since tailoring/packaging weather forecasts seems to be one of their big company missions.) There will most certainly be at least some public outcry if NDFD derived graphical forecasts vanish from weather.gov, because the popularitiy of it is growing like an uncontrollable California wildfire. I honestly don't know what will ultimately happen, I just thought I'd share that little bit of info about Accu-weather and usage of NDFD.

Mike U
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top