-
A new feature has been added to the Xenforo software - Shoutbox. A quick chat platform
- Miscellaneous discussion
- The Vault (archive)
Weather regulations unleash tempest in Senate
- Thread starter beaudodson
- Start date
John Erwin
EF5
Read it Mike. Twice. Like most bills it's filled with lots of items that are "open to interpretation". Is a bill really needed to ensure timely release of data? How about public outcry? Was this bill brought about by pressure from the public, or by companies such as yours? Sorry, but your position on this matter is not going to come accross as unbiased IMO.
NWS making StormHawk like units? Gimme a break. Did they ever make NOAA radios? Those have been around for a loooong time.
Ben Prusia
EF4
There are a lot of differences in interpetation on what atmospheric scienteists/storm chasers view of the bill, and what the private sector view of the bill. It's almost like two distinct groups that are reading the bill in seperate ways. Everybody in the private sector on this board is telling us what to believe from their and the private sector's point of view along with their meaning of the bill, but those who are not in the private sector are telling us what to believe from their own point of view and their meaning of the bill. Because this bill is so vaguely worded, the interpetation is so much varied between, say what the National Weather Service Employees Organization (who greatly OPPOSE the bill) believe, and what our private sector friends on this board and their respective and other companies believe.
The bottom line of the private sector is the al'mighty dollar sign, and the bottom line of those not in the private sector is the status quo and progression of the National Weather Service for the future (which I support). However, this bill is hurting the companies right now as it is putting customers against the companies and the companies against the customer to prove to each other who is right and who is wrong and each other's meaning of the bill. It has outraged customers who have cancelled subscriptions to pay weather services and boycotted products and services (and may even continue to boycott such products and services even if the bill does not pass), and it has outraged the private sector who have seen a drop in profits. Even if this bill never leaves committee, there has already been damage that has been done to the private sector as a result of the bill. Public opinion on any matter, and of course THEIR MONEY will go more far than what any company and their monetary contributions and power have to say.
I feel that nobody wins if this bill passes or fails. The private sector may place a blame on NWS for part of some downfall, but the realization is that the customer base for the private sector for weather is not as big as many think. The market is small and specialized enough that there can only be so much demand in it. The more companies that come out, the more competition there is between the companies. I feel that there is more competition between all of the private sector companies together (AccuWeather-Weather Channel-Intellicast, etc), to win a few customers then there is competition between the private sector industry and the National Weather Service, itself. I say that if you can create a better 7 day outlook than the NWS and if yours is more accurate, I'll follow yours more than the NWS.
If a company chooses to take a stand in a certain issue, be prepared to lose business, you are certainly going to have customers that do not agree with you that will cancel subscriptions and stop feeding you THEIR MONEY which makes your living. The certain weather companies that have not made a stand or an agressive one at best, I applaud you. Making an agressive stand on this issue is just only going to hurt your company, and even if this bill passes, you may not recover. Should this bill not pass and you are a company, just find a product of the NWS and make it better. Improve on what the NWS has and make it better. Good example: GRLevel3.
Just my 2 cents, but certainly open to discussion.Mike Smith
Mr. Erwin,
Are you advocating the NWS charge for its output? If so, that would be the best thing to ever happen to the commercial weather industry!
If you are not advocating the NWS charge for its products, then your comparisons do not hold water.
The U.S. and Canadian postal services charge fees for their services. U.S. National Parks charge a fee. The comparison with health care does not work in the United States as the government does not run health clinics.
Let me restate what I said in an earlier post: If the USPS delivered packages free, FedEx would be out of business in a matter of months. A business cannot compete with a government's free services.
The National Weather Service's resources are finite. Doesn't it make sense to concentrate them on where they will do the most good?
Jeff Snyder
EF5
I agree with Tyler's comments quoted above. I didn't mean to say/imply that I don't think there's a need for private sector companies. With the examples given by Tyler, I think this shows that there is a definite spot for private sector businesses. I just think that private sector companies should worry more about making a product on which people will spend money. If there is a need, and a product available for fill that need, I think it'll sell. Restricting the 'derived products' from the NWS and other NOAA organizations does not scream of 'innovation', to say the least.
Mike Smith, while I do not agree with you, I certainly appreciate and respect the time and effort you've given to this discussion.mikegeukes
EF5
Worse case scenario of weather data, in the hands of the private sector is lightning data. Too bad the NWS cannot give us free lightning data, last I knew that had to pay for the data also, hopefully with more competition in the private sector, prices will drop for the data.
Mike
John Erwin
EF5
Yes, it does. Good business sense dictates that. Why would they pull money from core needs to produce other products? Does that make sense? No it doesn't.
I didn't suggest that the NWS should charge for the data. The data has been paid for already by the U.S. taxpayer. Many people also choose to buy products produced by various companies that enhance that. This is a decision made freely by an individual based on thier own needs.
This will be my last reply on this, however I'll be glad to read any objective statements on the matter.
In closing, I respect your opinion Mr. Smith, but I cannot agree with it.Mike Smith
Mike,
Re: Lightning data.
If Vaisala does not charge, how are they supposed to develop the intellectual property (i.e., theory and software), create, install and maintain the lightning detectors, wire all this together and run a 24/7 operations center to monitor it all?
Then, how are they supposed to maintain an infrastructure to communicate with their clients if they don't charge?
Folks, please get with economic reality. No one, repeat, no one will take the RISK of developing new products/services without a potential REWARD. Vaisala and its predecessors took the risk. They might well have failed (the landscape is littered with failed weather-related companies).
Sure government, theoretically, could do it. It took NWS from 1979 to 1991 to deploy the first operational NEXRAD. Unless you want twelve year innovation cycles and a non-capitalist economy (the Soviet Union was certainly a success; Cuba has cornered the market on 1959 Buicks), you are going to have to pay for innovation.
Mike
Jeff Snyder
EF5
In terms of lightning data, I don't have any problem that it's no 'free'. I mean, Vaisala put time, money, and more money into the deployment of the system, so I can certainly understand how they need to charge for it. In fact, I'd much rather a private company design and deploy a data system if they have the means to do so rather than having no data system at all; I'd rather have a pay lightning system than no lightning system. Sure, this means that I can't get real-time lightning data, since it's way over my price range. But again, that's business, and I have nothing wrong with that. If the NWS wanted it bad enough, they could build and deploy a system themselves, assuming they can avoid patent issues. Again, there's no Vaisala shouldn't be able to charge for their product, seeing how they designed and deployed the system.
I do think the NWS has the right to use their own data however they see fit. Chances are, they don't have the means nor motivation to forecast for site-specific events or other more specifc weather users, so there's still plenty of room for private sector companies. However, they should be allowed, in my opinion, to integrate GIS and weather radar, as long as it falls within their mission statement to protect lives and property. That means presenting potentially life-saving weather data in a fashion that would benefit the end-user. Would most folks read a highly technical weather warning, or would they rather look at a "pretty" graphic? Undoubtedly, the graphical approach seems most effective, and indeed, it'd further their mission to save life and property. Again, however, there are plenty of instances when private sector business would be a better choice than NWS, as in the cases mentioned by Tyler (in addition to myriad others).Mike Smith
Jeff,
While they are already producing a version of site-specific forecasts, I want to comment on a different part of your sentence, "Chances are".
If you have invested 24 years, through good times and bad, and have most of your net worth invested in a business in which you are very proud would you sit silently take a "chance"? Hope the NWS' new policy will work out OK? I doubt it. Those of us who have been around a while know that next year's success is NEVER assured.
I have taken the time this evening to make these posts because it is an important issue to our meteorological community (somthing most all of us are very proud to be part of). In my mind, there is too little interaction between the private sector, NWS and academic sectors and so we do not understand each others' points of view.
This will be my last post for the night and I sincerely thank everyone for considering my remarks.
Mike
Darren Addy
EF5
So other than "(1) The preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property of the general public", the NWS would be precluded from providing anything else that the Private Sector "is or could" provide according to the wording of this bill.
If that isn't pretty broad language, I don't know what is. It is an extremely poorly written bill, done in language that is ambiguous at best. In the Wichita Eagle article, the bill's defender lists as a couple of examples: "plotted maps and digests of severe storm reports". Give me a break. THERE is the concern that the public would soon have to pay for things the NWS provides now.
The argument that the supporters of the bill are white knights fighting for free data for all really doesn't cut it with anyone who is paying attention. It's a strawman.
Darren Addy
Kearney, NEMike Peregrine
EF5
Well - - - in general, the majority of chasers feel a little protective when it comes to NWS and SPC products ... for the obvious reason that we have come to rely so heavily on these products each day - - - and chasers as a group have typically never been known to eagerly go to bat in favor of corporate interests. At this point I'm just wanting more information and a more rounded viewpoint, I guess ... trying to learn about this from each party's perspective before rushing to make a hard and fast conclusion that may not be entirely educated.
As mentioned, the ambiguity of this bill's language simply BEGS for scrutiny. The first draft of any such bill that lawyers come up with is usually equally ambiguous in favor of protecting the broad interests of their clients. In this case, the vague wording leaves a lot open to interpretation. While it may indeed promote speed of warning issuance in one respect, this may simply be a minor selling point working to smokescreen the broader issues concerning the protection of private sector products - and all of the future products that no one has even dreamed up yet. I think it's absolutely terrific for Mike Smith to take the time to come in and offer the perspective of his organization, and also wanted to thank him for doing so. Looks to me like it's going to take a lot to sell people on this idea, though. I'm inclined to agree with Ben's assessment that this may indeed become a lose-lose situation in the end. The Internet has no doubt been a major player in the need to bring this up in the first place ... and there are likely some additional, major behind-the-scenes players involved as well ... the eve of implementing more sophisticated radar and possibly other products we are not yet aware of as well. The technology will certainly continue to evolve, won't it ...
Looks like this is generating some serious heat on both sides of the issue already. To be honest - I have to remain neutral when it comes to things like this and try to hold back from making personal judgments until all the cards are out on the table. While it's great to work to protect free enterprise ... and the intellectual property it produces ... at the same time I'm hopeful that all parties can see the reality that anything that has the potential to dramatically affect the agencies who have taken on the task of protecting my family and friends in Tornado Alley deserves some honest scrutiny. It's always good to hear both sides before rushing to a final judgment on these things, though. We really haven't heard any perspectives from the NWS yet, while we have briefly entertained the corporate and private sector viewpoints. This may well be for legal reasons - but I would really enjoy finally hearing the viewpoint from someone at the NWS on all of this (and imagine there are more than one NWS or even SPC forum members who are itching to put in a cent or two but who have to hold back for now). Wonder if they will ever produce a news release or at least something to give an indication of their side of this. Anyone know of anything (other than the article) out there already?
Ryan McGinnis
EF5
Hi, Mike! I think most of us appreciate that you're willing to go down in the trenches and hold the line on your sacred cow, but the thing is, if you examine your position even a little, it is very unconvincing. In some ways it doesn't even pass the laugh test, but in today's political climate, who knows.
I assure you, everyone here is quite literate. I daresay many of us even understand politics and the silly spins that get attached to corporate welfare bills. The language of the bill does not say what you claim it does. The language is intentionally ambiguous. The bill is designed to give people like you more political clout to get your way with the weather service. It is not designed to make weather data open to the citizens, it's designed to make weather data open to you -- and to make sure you're the only one who can use it. Really, what do you care if Joe and Jane Autoworker in Detroit can get free access to all NWS raw data? Where is your profit in that? If, indeed, that were your motivation for supporting this bill, were I a stockholder in your company, I'd hope that you'd be fired from your board, as that is a very stupid reason for a CEO of a weather company to support this kind of bill. I don't think you're stupid. I think you're being disingenuous.
It is both fortunate and unfortunate for you that accurate weather forecasts (note: I said forecasts, not "data") are essential to all Americans in order for this country to function properly. It is fortunate in that many people will pay money for this information, and this is information that you supply. It is unfortunate in that it is so essential to Americans that they've collectively created a forecasting system that pays little attention to the normal economic factors involved in determining if something is worth investing in, and you're forced to compete with it. (You don't *really* think Goodland, Kansas's multimillion dollar radar array and round-the-clock team of weather forecasters would pass the laugh test in terms of profitability, do ya?). Yes, our weather service focuses on the core principle that all Americans everywhere need, have a right to, and indeed have already paid for weather forecasting. This system is bought and paid for, and for the past century or so, it's been working quite well.
It should be no mystery to you why people might get a little hot and bothered to learn that a bill has been introduced in Congress (by a man who's quite clearly seen a few dollars come his way from your industry's lobby) that would do away with much of this system. Despite your furious attempts at spin, I remain convinced that you know that this is the true goal of the bill -- again, if you didn't, then you wouldn't be a very smart CEO, because I assure you, your competitors are well aware of the intent of this bill. And I really can't say that I blame you for supporting this bill; there's dollar signs in it for your company, and the way capitalism works, you have responsibility only to your shareholders. The problem with what you're proposing is that you want to have your cake and eat it, too -- zero investment for large return. (Well, I guess in some sense you can count a few dollars slipped to a senator or two an investment.) This is all well and good for you, but you're crazy in the head if you think that Joe Taxpayer should want to go along. You want access to enormous amounts of data gathered by technology and manpower that you did not invest in, in order that you may analyize and repackage it before selling it to prospective customers (often the same customers who paid for the infrastructure to gather the data in the first place). Which is all well and good, except that you do not propose to stop there -- you now not only want free access to the information, but you wish to silence the very dissemination of the forecast products that the information was gathered to create. Your reasoning behind this is not so much that you could create better products (if you could, likely you wouldn't need a bill like this to drum up business, because the edge you provided over the competition -- even the free competition -- would be well worth the investment), but rather that you could more easily make a dollar or two doing it, whereas right now you're not.
Fundementally, where your argument breaks down is that by nature it must assume that the gathering of the data and the forecasts aren't somehow fundementally linked. This is fairly amusing when you think about it, as clearly one is done with purpose of facilitating the other. One does not go to the forest and spend an hour sitting in a tree watching for deer with a gun in one's lap just for fun -- there is a goal attached to the practice -- shooting a deer. Similarly, one does not gather trilobytes of weather and climate data just for the hell of it -- it's there for the final product: forecasting. I don't know if you think we're naive, or what. Clearly the general public wouldn't know what in the world to do with a raw METAR or a level 2 doppler data feed (though, of course, you would). They just want to know whether to pack an umbrella or to wake up early to scrape the car. And they have a right to know that, given that they've already paid for the infrastructure to answer those questions. The public has purchased that data so that they can get forecasts. Likely they never would have purchased it to begin with if they thought that the data wasn't going to lead to free, public forecasts for all Americans.
Which is exactly the scenario you want. If forecasts are given away for free, how can you charge everyone for them? You want the right to interpret the data gathered by this infrastructure all to yourself. For free.
I dunno if you have a good nose for smelling the political winds, but it should seem clear that that's probably not going to happen. That certainly isn't good news for your company, but then nobody put a gun to your head to get into the weather industry. Like most companies, I'm sure if your products are good enough to create demand and your company is run well enough, you will find ways to make money. Without it coming out of my pocket.Mike Peregrine
EF5
Ran across tons of links to various articles across the country on this issue on the NWSEO homepage: http://www.nwseo.org ... definitely worth some time taking a look.
Kiel Ortega
EF4
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 325
I think an underlying concern with this bill is the issue of accountability (which appeared somewhere in this thread I believe). I think that people--specifically the weather savvy (and me)--look at the private industry and don't see where any accountability is held. Yes, I know it can be with the customers and whether or not they continue buisness with a weather company, but all these products being put out by private companies are always presented in a shining light (given the nature of buisness of course). However, given the "competitiveness" of the weather industry, the science (or quasi-science) behind these products is hidden. Further, most people don't see where these products fall short--only customers who are unlucky enough to have the experience. From the academic/government research world, the shortcomings and excellence of new products and techniques are always presented in a quasi-public forum (I say quasi because access to journals is limited by subscription). I dare say that the private industry is at a great advantage currently, given they can pick up new techniques/technology from the research world, work in the background in improving them or not, and then package and sell something that wasn't their idea to begin with (this is hypothetical--just a thought I had); and they don't have to share anything, including new found knowledge (the nature of buisness again). This can lead to some sticky situations if a product has great ability in protecting the public. Would a private industry sell a product that had 100% ability to tell what exactly a storm was going to do???
The major problem I see is that meteorology is still very much a science--a field that we don't understand and a field that takes a lot of hand waving to explain. And I think this is how most people see it. The weather private industry is taking such stock in a science that it is making (some) people nervous. Why? Because the point is not to further the science, but to make a profit. It really seems to be a question of values.Similar threads
