New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data

[sea2ski]

All weather sites my ass. This is Accuweather, that's why it's a Senator from the state where Accuweather is based that's introducing the bill.

[Core Shot]

All weather sites my ass. This is Accuweather, that's why it's a Senator from the state where Accuweather is based that's introducing the bill.

Accuweather is covered in Santorum

[freshies]

from the wonkette:

Santorum Says Free Weather News Has Cloudy Future
To better serve the public, Rick Santorum (R - PA) says the National Weather Service must stop offering weather information on the Internet. Last week, he introduced a bill to make it easier for commercial weather news providers (which make millions using federal weather data underwritten by taxpayers) to compete in the free market of Internet weather news, and harder for everyone else to actually get free weather news. One member of the public who really loves this bill is Joel Myers, president of commercial weather news provider, AccuWeather. Another is Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president. They also love Santorum in general, apparently, having donated thousands of dollars to his political campaigns over the years. — GREG BEATO

[summit]

If those private weather companies want to launch their own sattelites, fly their own aircraft, maintain their own ocean boueys, launch their own rockets, loose their own weather balloons, and buy their own supercomputers, *then* they can *try* and make the argument that the government is hampering their business.

Otherwise, they are tying to monopolize 100% publicly funded information for resale to the public that funded it.

"You HAVE to give us money if you want to to know what you already paid .gov to find out for you."

This shit won't fly no way no how.

I'm going to start a business where I sell information about the federal tax code. Then I'm going to get Rick ButtJizz Santorum to introduce a bill making it illegall for the government to distribute tax information to the general public.

Then I'll start Mall Ninjas Inc, a rentacop security business, and get Santorum to outlaw the FBI and the police because they are unfairly competing with me!

[bossass]

This is perhaps the most ignorant thing I've heard in a lllooooooooooong time* for the fucking record I would bet more people per capita by a FUCKING LOT use and rely on weather reports. They have these funny things called farms there you know.



*squackman's posts excluded

Hey clever guy, I was not, obviously, saying that NOAA is unneeded or does not benefit everyone (farmers included). In fact, I love NOAA. I wish everyone in the U.S., no matter how climitologically boring the place they live is, has access to what is coming to them. The point was that knowing changes in a storm cycle or the onset of a sudden weather event is crucial when you are dealing with things like traveling in small watercraft at the mouth of the Columbia River or climbing on the peak of Mt. Hood/Adams/Rainier/etc. It can mean life or death. Whether or not it rains in Omaha? Probably not life or death. My only point, that Mr. Santorum, is perhaps overlooking (or perhaps he knows and is just a fucker, which is a good possibility). Jeez, I havent' been this misunderstood in a lllooooooooooong time.

[freshie247]

That Extra Mega Sucks!The screws have no shame!

[sea2ski]

So I guess people here think that taxpayer dollars should be used to support a NOAA website because the following "for pay" sites aren't good enough.

weather.com

intellicast.com

accuweather.com

I only say this because I think I was probably like most people when I read the original article on "for pay" weather sites. "For pay" doesn't mean you have to pay for access to the information, it means someone other than the taxpayer is paying to maintain the site if I understand it correctly. When you consider that due to amount of data that needs to be updated, sites like this cost millions of dollars to maintain. The bill is probably not as stupid as it sounds.

[oosik]

When you consider that due to amount of data that needs to be updated, sites like this cost millions of dollars to maintain. The bill is probably not as stupid as it sounds.

No, it is as stupid as it sounds. The information that those pay sites use is produced by tax dollars. If they add any value at all, it is just to make it pretty and possibly more easy to read the data. For NOAA sites, they have likely automated the posting of info by now, so it makes little sense to privatize the results when the work has already been done. Weather has traditionally been considered a sort of public safety issue as well.

[summit]

Moron.

The data is already there. It is already updated. It has to be for the pay weather sites to acccess it. They just want to make sure that when NOAA puts up the data on the internet, it is for them only and the public cannot see it.

The front end interface for the public is simple, small, easy, and updates automatically from scripts.

[grrrr]

So I guess people here think that taxpayer dollars should be used to support a NOAA website because the following "for pay" sites aren't good enough.

weather.com

intellicast.com

accuweather.com

I only say this because I think I was probably like most people when I read the original article on "for pay" weather sites. "For pay" doesn't mean you have to pay for access to the information, it means someone other than the taxpayer is paying to maintain the site if I understand it correctly. When you consider that due to amount of data that needs to be updated, sites like this cost millions of dollars to maintain. The bill is probably not as stupid as it sounds.

The question is, are you as stupid as you sound? I would guess "yes."

[Tippster]

Intellicast costs money? Who Knew? We're not talking about PAY sites here, but for-profit commercial sites that generate their money through ads.

(for the record I think this is just par-for-the-course for Senator Ass-foam. He has to rank in the top 5 idiots on the Hill right now.)

Unfortunately there is precedent in keeping the data collected by a Government Agency out of the hands of the public: The CIA, NSA, and FBI are certainly funded by public moneys, yet to be honest none of their files are showing up on for-profit websites either.

[freshies]

So I guess people here think that taxpayer dollars should be used to support a NOAA website because the following "for pay" sites aren't good enough.

weather.com

intellicast.com

accuweather.com

I only say this because I think I was probably like most people when I read the original article on "for pay" weather sites. "For pay" doesn't mean you have to pay for access to the information, it means someone other than the taxpayer is paying to maintain the site if I understand it correctly. When you consider that due to amount of data that needs to be updated, sites like this cost millions of dollars to maintain. The bill is probably not as stupid as it sounds.

dude, clue in. those sites that you listed all use the NOAA weather data (that we, the tax payers, pay for/support) and just re-package it on their sites. they then make $ by advertising/click rates, etc...

if freely available data from NOAA was lost, and one had to get accurate forecasts from these sites, how long until they did start charging a fee to access this information? It's insane...clue in...uninformed citizens are what allow ass-hats in congress to pass outrageous bills like this.

[sea2ski]

You guys are all so smart. I guess I should be working for you instead of the company that owns two of the three sites I listed. I guess I should be sending my resume to all the .com experts here who told me I have no clue as to how NOAA information is used. Hell, I'm amazed all you well informed weather site experts haven't already started your own for pay weather site because it's so simple and cheap. I'm sure there are a few venture capitalists who didn't lose there shirt in 2001 who would be willing to fund your website. It seems the NWS url might become available in the near future.


PS I didn't pay enough in taxes this month and we currently have so small of a national debt. Please inform me of any businesses that the government should begin entering so I can write my Senator.

[iceman]

Way to go down in flames, man. Geez.

[Core Shot]

Your guys are all so smart. I guess I should be working for you instead of the company that owns two of the three sites I listed.

Oh, great, so there are really only 2 companies that compete with NOAA.
I feel so much better.

Once NOAA is put out of business, your company can buy the last company and corner the market. Yea!! Good for you and your stock options!!


P.S. - there's some Santorum on your chin. You might wanna wipe that off.

[Tippster]

Oh, great, so there are really only 2 companies that compete with NOAA.
I feel so much better.

Once NOAA is put out of business, your company can buy the last company and corner the market. Yea!! Good for you and your stock options!!


P.S. - there's some Santorum on your chin. You might wanna wipe that off.

Tippster quietly shakes his head and wonders about the kids of today...

[freshies]

You guys are all so smart. I guess I should be working for you instead of the company that owns two of the three sites I listed. I guess I should be sending my resume to all the .com experts here who told me I have no clue as to how NOAA information is used. Hell, I'm amazed all you well informed weather site experts haven't already started your own for pay weather site because it's so simple and cheap. I'm sure there are a few venture capitalists who didn't lose there shirt in 2001 who would be willing to fund your website. It seems the NWS url might become available in the near future.


PS I didn't pay enough in taxes this month and we currently have so small of a national debt. Please inform me of any businesses that the government should begin entering so I can write my Senator.

dude, these companies (weather.com, accuweather, weatherunderground.com, etc) do not fund the satelites, bouys, weather stations, sensors, aircraft, ships, etc that NOAA & the NWS use to collect and predict weather...WE DO. The tax payer! Then, the NOAA & NWS makes this data available on their web sites, and they also make it available to weather.com, accuweather, etc.

Where is your logic? That tax payer funded infrastructure (planes, ships, satelites, people, etc) for NOAA and NWS should not be freely availble to any person with a PC and internet connection? That this weather data and everything the tax payer funds to collect it should only be made available to these comercial sites, and that people are only allowed to get their weather data from these commercial sites? If you believe this, then i have a big does of STFUASD for you and those companies.

If/when these sites want to fund their own satelites, ships, etc to gather weather data, then let's talk. Until then, my tax dollars grant me the right to freely access this critical data....

[TomK]

Disintermediation - Some folks love it, some fear it.
Middlemen fear it's impact on thier profit, end users (and most data creators) love it.

The 'net is a great tool for information disentermediation. Accuvue want's to stop it's "competition" by law as it appears it can't compete in the marketplace. If I owned shares in Accuvue, I'd be selling.

[sea2ski]

dude, these companies (weather.com, accuweather, weatherunderground.com, etc) do not fund the satelites, bouys, weather stations, sensors, aircraft, ships, etc that NOAA & the NWS use to collect and predict weather...WE DO. The tax payer! Then, the NOAA & NWS makes this data available on their web sites, and they also make it available to weather.com, accuweather, etc.

Where is your logic? That tax payer funded infrastructure (planes, ships, satelites, people, etc) for NOAA and NWS should not be freely availble to any person with a PC and internet connection? That this weather data and everything the tax payer funds to collect it should only be made available to these comercial sites, and that people are only allowed to get their weather data from these commercial sites? If you believe this, then i have a big does of STFUASD for you and those companies.

If/when these sites want to fund their own satelites, ships, etc to gather weather data, then let's talk. Until then, my tax dollars grant me the right to freely access this critical data....

Your right, I don't fund the satellite, bouys etc. The taxpayer does. However, I guess my question to you is how this is different from a Wall Street Analyst who uses the raw data produced by the Labor Department to make informed investment decisions. They aren't paying for that information last time I checked.

As far as my logic. Well since a site like weather.com has a breakeven cost of about $10 million anually. I think it might be in the taxpayers best interest not to fund a site that provides duplicate information. Are you under the impression that an internet fairy reinterprets the information from the sources you listed and posts it at no cost to the taxpayer.

As far as why a taxpayer or Senator might not find those sites the evil corporate scum that you seem to. Well the Hurricane Warning system that the taxpayer doesn't pay for but my company does might be one reason. Maybe the study on the Global Warming effects that was a public/private partnership between my company and NOAA might be another. But I guess you think the present administration is really into funding studies like that to contradict their viewpoint. I guess the fact that we don't run commercials when hurricanes are near by the American coast because we find it tends to increase the likelihood of the site crashing wouldn't be reason enough in and of itself. Please explain the workings of these websites, I haven't seen this much wisdom posted on the TGR site since the Tanner Hall thread.


Which reminds me. Heal up Tanner. So dude, I will shut up.

[PlayHarder]

Sea2ski, it's great that your company does all this wonderful stuff but I'm pretty sure the issue isn't with the weather sites charging to use their service. Most people just seem to be upset that the weather sites are trying to eliminate their access to the data that their tax dollars are paying for.
If you guys want to interpret the data, package it and sell it - great, more power to you. However, the raw data from NOAA should still be available to the people that a) pay for it and b) want to get the data w/o the pretty interface and pop-up ads that go along with the commercial sites.

[oosik]

As far as my logic. Well since a site like weather.com has a breakeven cost of about $10 million anually. I think it might be in the taxpayers best interest not to fund a site that provides duplicate information. Are you under the impression that an internet fairy reinterprets the information from the sources you listed and posts it at no cost to the taxpayer.

Dude, the taxpayer doesn't fund weather.com. Although by Santorum's proposal, effectively they would. Which one is more superfluous?

Well the Hurricane Warning system that the taxpayer doesn't pay for but my company does might be one reason.

Oh, your company funds this?:
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2...21-211211.html
Funny, I don't see any private companies on that document.

That private companies have a role to play in broadcasting information is not disputed. What this Santorum proposal does is privatizes publically funded information.
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/julyo01/julyo01a.htm

A recent report, Effective Disaster Warnings, released by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), describes existing warning systems, the basic issues involved in providing effective warnings, and the many technologies that could be used to issue timely warnings. The report's primary conclusion is that a public-private partnership is needed to bring the appropriate groups together to implement effective warning systems. The council points out that most warnings are currently issued by federal, state, and local government authorities, but most current or potential warning delivery systems are owned and operated by private industry. The inadequate coordination among them is the result of historical approaches to warnings, unclear signals from several different branches of government, fears of government mandate, and the difficulties of finding private investors for "government-related" ventures.


Our current national warning system is the Emergency Alert System (EAS), managed by the Federal Communications Commission and implemented by private broadcasters under government mandate. This system, originally designed to allow the president to address the nation in times of national crisis, interrupts local programming. Most broadcasters and advertisers are not excited about increasing the number of regional and local warnings their stations already provide, and, as stated before, the EAS reaches many more people than those at risk from most hazards. Although digital coding technology can focus a warning on a small area and transmit it to that location, few individuals have receivers that can decode these messages.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's NOAA Weather Radio (NWR), another national system, can be transmitted to over 95% of the population. It provides regular weather forecasts for the region surrounding each transmitter and issues warnings in both audio and digital formats. Unfortunately, this system uses a federal radio frequency far away from the AM/FM bands assigned to commercial broadcasters and thus requires a special receiver. Imagine how much more effective NWR would be if it could transmit to built-in circuitry in every radio and television in the U.S. This circuitry would be able to detect local warnings and interrupt programming or even turn on a receiver, increase the volume, and issue a warning only to those to whom it applies. The Radio Data System (RDS) does this in the FM band and is in widespread use in Europe, but is not available in the U.S.


Cellular telephones are becoming an American fixture; 111 million are currently in use, and rapid growth is anticipated in this market. The technology is available to broadcast to or dial up all telephones within a cell. Imagine how many lives could be saved issuing warnings to cell phone users as a tornado weaves across the countryside! Despite the determined effort of several citizens to promote such a system, providers have been slow to respond because they fear a government mandate similar to the requirements for the EAS. Furthermore, the confused roles of public and private groups make it difficult for industry to evaluate the business consequences of adopting this system.


Many entrepreneurs are developing systems to broadcast warnings only to people at risk. Some have found limited application around nuclear reactors and oil refineries, but market potential is limited by government programs and officials who favor outdated existing systems, by liabilities associated with issuing warnings, by the unclear delineations between public and private roles, by the reticence of investors to be associated with disasters or to be involved with government programs, and generally by the fog that obscures who is responsible for what and where the business opportunities lie.


It is time to bring the people on all sides of these issues together to set some clear goals, agree on roles, and deliver to the American people the effective warnings they deserve. We do not need more government. We need an effective public-private partnership.

[freshies]

If you guys want to interpret the data, package it and sell it - great, more power to you. However, the raw data from NOAA should still be available to the people that a) pay for it and b) want to get the data w/o the pretty interface and pop-up ads that go along with the commercial sites.

thank you.

sea2ski, i am not some anti-corporate socialist: i have no problem with these sites charging info for access to weather info as well as utilizinng on-line advertising, etc for revenue streams....they can do whatever they like and adopt any business model they feel will maximize profit and shareholder value...more power to them.

BUT, as I have been ranting on here, and playharder summarized above, that raw data that is funded via tax payer dollars should be freely available to anyone.....

[grrrr]

Maybe the first clue would be that the one person in this thread who supports this idea is the one that stands to benefit from it.

This whole proposal is not much different from a recent one (fortunately killed in Congress) that would have required that Bonneville Power sell power to energy traders, who would then sell the power to the local co-ops instead of having BPA sell the power directly to the co-ops as they have since inception. That way the energy traders could take a nice little slice of profit out of everyone's pocket.

Who really gives a rat's ass if fuckingweather.com drops their ads during hurricane warnings? Or whether it costs money to run a fucking website? Those are tool arguments. Weather forecasting is an essential public service, not some fufu website fodder.

[Ski Monkey]

As far as my logic. Well since a site like weather.com has a breakeven cost of about $10 million anually. I think it might be in the taxpayers best interest not to fund a site that provides duplicate information. Are you under the impression that an internet fairy reinterprets the information from the sources you listed and posts it at no cost to the taxpayer.

So you're saying that you knowingly went into competition with the government to interpret similar weather data and now it's them who should stop providing the data and competing with you because you're not making enough money? Sounds like you chose a bad business model and are now trying to save it by outlawing the competition. Weak.

[sea2ski]

I think everyone here is missing my point.

If you are my Senator and you are down to the last million dollars you have to spend in taxpayer money under the present system of taxation. You have three potential projects to fund. They are as follows:

1) Head start program which is currently not being funded my district.

2) Body armour for the troops from my district.

3) NOAA website which contains information that people in my district use but is also provided by a private company so people in my district will have commercial free weather information.

Now you can fund all three but you will have to raise taxes or add to the national debt.

I'm guessing that everyone who is telling me that my comments are based on my own self interest would say 3 if they were my Senator or they would fund all three and either raise my taxes or add to the national debt.

So yeah my comments are based on my own self interest but then again they also might be in yours. I'll let you be the judge.

So keep flaming away, I'm starting to understand how so much pork gets put into federal budgets these days.

Also just to clear up a few points.
1) My company already has a satellite so we are not using to satellite in the link posted.
2) Advertising based websites are selling the demographics of the people who visit those sites, not information. This means it is not in my business interests to charge for the information I get from those government sources.