New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data

[50kLeg]

The weather is free!!!! Who the fuck pays for the weather?? Does this mean that we would lose NOAA weather radio also if a bill like that passed??

[summit]

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.

Your analogy is flawed.

The Wall Street Analysts aren't trying to ban public access to the Labor Department data. If they decided to try and ban public access to that data, they would be wrong, just like your company is.

NOAA has been around a lot longer than your company. Now your company comes along and wants to say "NO MORE CHOICE. We're here now and you will get your weather data from us now. We're going to change the law to get our way and our money."

How can you not see that it is wrong to pay off a senator to ban public access to public data just so you can boost your profit margins.

How many times should the American people pay for their weather? Once when they pay the government to get the data?

You want them to have to pay again to get it from a private company.They already paid for it. This is just like double taxation of Access Fees at trailheads... except that it's a private company thats reaping the secondhand profits.

Your specious argument for fund allocation shows total ignorance of the process and numbers you pulled out of your ass to make a bullshit emotional argument: "Ban public access to the NOAA! Do it for the troops!" But if you want to talk about tax money, all you need to know is: Your company is indirectly publicly funded. Our tax money is just about the only thing that gets your company the data it needs for free. Stop trying to fuck us over.

I think Skimonkey summarized it the best.

[sea2ski]

thank you.

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.....

I'm glad you put this so simply here. That freely available information costs you money to maintain in it's present form of distribution. That is the point I'm trying to make. You want to pay that's great, I however would rather not pay a dime when that information can be distributed at no cost to me with the only downside being a few banner ads. (We don't use pop ups consumers don't like them.)

[grrrr]

Nobody is missing your point. This bill isn't about saving taxpayer money, it's about corporate whoring of taxpayer money.

If this bill passed, then NOAA would be forced to shut down it's daily fire weather forecasting. I guess that's in the public interest, eh? of course, what would Senator Sputum care - he's not the one putting his ass on the line every day.

[summit]

That freely available information costs you money to maintain in it's present form of distribution. That is the point I'm trying to make.

So let met get this straight....

It's OK for BILLIONS in tax payer $$$ to be spent on datacollection and analysis.

It's OK for a few hundred thousand of tax payer $$$ to be spent making that data available to YOUR company exclusively.

But God forbid an extra $50K gets spent so the public can access the data they spent billions to collect?
You sir, are a dishonest self-serving greedy douchebag.

[grrrr]

So let met get this straight....

You sir, are a dishonest self-serving greedy douchebag.

Summit, I think that's your best post in quite a while.

[Grange]

How much does it cost on an annual basis for the NOAA data to be placed on the internet? Considering private weather companies use fancy displays when compared to the NOAA's website I'm guessing it is substantially cheaper for the NOAA therefore the cost is not worth the loss of our right to access this information.

[Billy Joe MacAllister]

You sir, are a dishonest self-serving greedy douchebag.

Right on Summit. The Republicans are sure trying to screw up this country something good.

[iceman]

I never did figure out why you jumped off that bridge, Billy Joe.

edit: And I just read the lyrics and I still don't know.

[Billy Joe MacAllister]

Well, Mr. Iceman, it wasn't like I jumped exactly.

[sea2ski]

So let met get this straight....

It's OK for BILLIONS in tax payer $$$ to be spent on datacollection and analysis.

It's OK for a few hundred thousand of tax payer $$$ to be spent making that data available to YOUR company exclusively.

But God forbid an extra $50K gets spent so the public can access the data they spent billions to collect?
You sir, are a dishonest self-serving greedy douchebag.

Do you know something I don't. I didn't see your sources for the thousands spent providing that information to me exclusively. By the way, if this kind of government sponsored monoploy is what this bill is really about it would probably easily be thrown out in court and my company would be there with corporate lawyers on your side of the issue so you can relax. I don't work for Accuweather who seems to be sponsoring the particular bill which was the basis of this original thread. Oh and as far as the $50K that you are now telling me is spent on the web site you know so much about. Please search the internet to find me this info, I think your estimates of the cost need to have a few more zeros in it. But hey, what's a few more million or $50K on the government budget. I'm sure a government that can spend $700 dollars on a $7 screwdriver is always going to provide this information at a cost equal to a system based on market forces.

I guess I am a dishonest self-serving greedy dochebag who obviously is basing my opinions on what I stand to gain. I find this is a very interesting statement to accuse me of since I probably will be working for a different company by the time this bill will actually go into effect.

I would say my comments are based on what I've witnessed working in a business that is currently doing exactly what the government does with your tax dollars. Knee jerk reactions everytime I hear the private sector is getting involved in things the government currently subsidizes isn't how I approach issues. So please hurl a few more insults my way to make me understand the importance of your viwepoint. Enough insults will always convince me that you are right and I am wrong.

Grrrr, your points are valid ones about fire info access but people aren't generally coming to commercial weather sites for that information. I would hope that information doesn't get neglected in what I see as a bill that could end up as a privatization in the distribution of public weather information.

Based on all the posts here, I guess taxpayers will continue to fund a website that provides duplicate information as the private companies because it is the only way to serve the American public. There is no need to allow market forces to be in effect on this issue. This is because there is no possible upside to the issue such as those private weather companies being able to hire more unemployed people. Status quo is always safer but I wouldn't say it's always the best way.

[Arty50]

S2S, you're just rehashing the same arguments.

Contrary to your statements, it's not all or nothing. NOAA has to provide this information via the internet whether or not it's viewable by the general public. So there are unavoidable costs related to the hardware and software programming needed to provide this information. Now do these costs go up by making this information available to the public? Probably, but I'd argue the costs are negligible at that point. The programming is essentially the same no matter how many people are taxing the server. Granted opening the server to the public places a much higher load on the hardware, but we're still talking about a web server here. This isn't exactly big iron. As a percentage of the total NOAA budget, we're talking small peanuts. And frankly, I don't think the public wants to pay for satellites and other extremely expensive monitoring equipment and then get short changed just because of the relative pennies needed to maintain a public web presence.

Once again, this is data that has been gathered 100% through the use of public funds and that doesn't require secrecy from a national security standpoint. Thus it is NOAA's duty to relay this information directly to the general public. We are paying NOAA to do exactly that.

If your company, Accuweather, et al want to fund NOAA 100%, then be my guest and keep the data private.

There simply is no valid justification for this proposed bill.

As for your argument about open markets, this is an open market. People can and do visit Accuweather and others because they feel they provide an interface they like. Now if this doesn't support Accuweather's bottom line properly, well too bad. Maybe they should be rethinking their business model. It's not like NOAA is this brand new organization that sprouted up overnight. Perhaps they should have thought things through a bit more before trying to compete in this market.

[yogachik]

sorry if it's a duplicate, but I couldn't find a link to a petition in this thread (although I ran through it quickly), and found this elsewhere. One stop petition signing


1. http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS/

[Tippster]

S2S, you're just rehashing the same arguments.

Contrary to your statements, it's not all or nothing. NOAA has to provide this information via the internet whether or not it's viewable by the general public. So there are unavoidable costs related to the hardware and software programming needed to provide this information. Now do these costs go up by making this information available to the public? Probably, but I'd argue the costs are negligible at that point. The programming is essentially the same no matter how many people are taxing the server. Granted opening the server to the public places a much higher load on the hardware, but we're still talking about a web server here. This isn't exactly big iron. As a percentage of the total NOAA budget, we're talking small peanuts. And frankly, I don't think the public wants to pay for satellites and other extremely expensive monitoring equipment and then get short changed just because of the relative pennies needed to maintain a public web presence.

Once again, this is data that has been gathered 100% through the use of public funds and that doesn't require secrecy from a national security standpoint. Thus it is NOAA's duty to relay this information directly to the general public. We are paying NOAA to do exactly that.

If your company, Accuweather, et al want to fund NOAA 100%, then be my guest and keep the data private.

There simply is no valid justification for this proposed bill.

As for your argument about open markets, this is an open market. People can and do visit Accuweather and others because they feel they provide an interface they like. Now if this doesn't support Accuweather's bottom line properly, well too bad. Maybe they should be rethinking their business model. It's not like NOAA is this brand new organization that sprouted up overnight. Perhaps they should have thought things through a bit more before trying to compete in this market.

WINNER!!

[fez]

...people aren't generally coming to commercial weather sites for that information. I would hope that information doesn't get neglected in what I see as a bill that could end up as a privatization in the distribution of public weather information.
.

This is EXACTLY my point. the commercial weather sites are revenue driven The weather they present is sensationalized to bring in traffic. It is also greatly biased toward areas with greater population centers. If you are interested in information about weather at 8000 feet in the Absarokee mountains, you are not going to get it from the commercial sites. NOAA provides more comprehensive data that allows people who are knowledgeable about weather to make informed decisions regarding their safety. This bill is sacrificing the safety of every one who needs to make serious informed decisions about the weather for the profits of a few.

The commercial sites are the polyester of weather data and are motivated by profit not information. That is why i greatly prefer NOAA. If billions of tax dollars are being spent to gather the information then I think a few million to present it to the public is money well spent. I don't stay away from the commmercial sites because of advertising, hell with firefox and adblock i havent seen an ad on a website in a dog's age, i don't use them because the data is lacking for what I want. I used to have some scripts that run and poll NOAA to let me know of special weather conditions and fire off emails to me. Once I finish school, getting those working again is on my list. Any chance once the commercial sites have gotten NOAA only into the weather data collection business and out of the public distribution business they will make access to data like this easy for people like me?

[freshies]

bottom line is that NOAA is funded by the tax payers, and therefore this data should be made freely available to any american that wants to access it. furthermore, weather data is important public information (otherwise, NOAA wouldn't even exist, or it would be scrap'ed like NEA funding and all other "non-essential" programs), many people and businesses rely on timely weather data.

there is no argument for making this data no longer freely available to the public. period.

again, if other companies/sites want to also re-package this data and serve it up - more power to them. but not at the expense of taking this out of the public domain.

[AltaPowderDaze]

i found this post as a response to an accuweather employee and thought it was interesting:

My name is Bill Borghoff and I am a student meteorologist at the National Weather Service - Milwaukee/Sullivan. I will try my best not to make this post bias to my employment, but I would still feel the same way before I began working for the NWS last May. My posting is not the official opinion of the government, but of my own.

I think this bill is absolutely rediculous and here is why. First, having the NWS only issue warnings and critical information that the private sector cannot, leaves the NWS employees without much to do 98% of the time. Second, not allowing the NWS to post their forecasts for the public, but making them update their database for the private sector's use is asinine. If the private sector can charge the public for their forecasts, then the NWS should put a huge charge on the private sector from taking their forecasts. Third, Accuweather's forecasts are horrible and it has been noted numerous times that Joe Bastardi has stated Accuweather takes the GFS directly. Where is the forecasting? Taking a model directly is not a forecast, and charging the public for that is rediculous. Fourth, what is the point of NOAA Weather Radio? What would be broadcast during times of no severe weather? Dead air?? Fifth, why should the public pay another fee for weather forecasts, if they already pay taxes for the NWS? Sixth, this bill would require all NOAA webpages to be taken off the internet so the private sector has a chance at success. How would people receive these warnings quickly and effectively, without having to log in to their "forced favorite" private sector first? Seventh, if the Weather Channel can be so successful without this bill, why can't any other private agency?

The bottom line is, the NWS is the best weather agency in the universe. Why can't Accuweather just accept it and learn to live with it? If Accuweather wants a chance at success, I suggest they sit down, live with the NWS, stop bashing the NWS for only their personal gain, stop charging people rediculous amounts of money for their "products", and most of all: HOW ABOUT DOING SOME REAL FORECASTING?

[summit]

APD: That post.... AWESOME

Arty: RIGHT ON!

But hey, what's a few more million or $50K on the government budget.

Especially when you can spend $50K to pay off a senator to put that money in your pocket instead?

.gov will spend it on something else, then you take more money from the taxpayer

Do you know something I don't. I didn't see your sources for the thousands spent providing that information to me exclusively... exclusive blah... Oh and as far as the $50K that you are now telling me is spent on the web site you know so much about. Please search the internet to find me this info, I think your estimates of the cost need to have a few more zeros in it.

Billions on data. Hundreds of thousands to put it on the web so private companies can get it. How much money do you think that generic automatic front end interface cost so the public can see what they already paid for?

They only have to make it once. IT'S ALREADY MADE! You say it costs millions and millions to let the public see what you see? So where are YOUR sources or are YOU PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR ASS in a feeble attempt to justify your case?

In case you haven't noticed, nobody is buying your bullshit. Instead of pulling numbers out of your ass try pulling your head out of your ass instead.

[sea2ski]

Realization of actual point being made by other posters.

Now removing foot from mouth and head from ass.

Note to self:

Smoking crack and posting=Same thing as posting for Sea2Ski during busy workday=bad idea

[iceman]

I love happy endings like this.

[iceman]

Well, since we're sorta on the topic...what do you guys think of this one?

The government is required to advertise contracts above a certain threshhold, it used to be $25,000, I'm not sure what it is now. They used to do this only through the Commerce Business Daily (CBD), a daily publication.

My wife's company came up with the idea of putting this data online and charging people to download it. They paid for an extra set of computer tapes to be produced and shipped every day, and then they would upload the data to their site. They would also sort the data by keyword and category and email relevant stuff to clients. It was a very successful little business, one of many they are involved in.

One day the Commerce Department announced that they would begin providing the data directly to users for free. Essentially they went into competition with my wife's company, but charged nothing.

Needless to say it's hard to compete with free, and her company is no longer in that business. Was the Government right to do this?

Discuss.

[Core Shot]

Yep.
In fact, as a taxpayer, I'm glad they are doing it for free. Hopefully it reaches a larger target market and decreases govt costs.
Sadly, they should have considered paying your wifes company or another private company to run the show, as the feds can rarely be more efficient at these things.

If this were IBM or Boeing, and they decided to not renew your wifes contract and instead chose to do it in house, would it be any different?

[Telenater]

If a company that depends on the adding value to free information can't compete with the raw provision of that same data then it's time to reconsider buisness plans.

Ice, while I sympathize, if the one and only product that keeps a company solvent is merely the repackaging of a government database, then my sympathy is limited. Technology changes, the mere act of data provision and simple sorting no longer cuts it in a modern technological society. There must be a substantial added value to the publicly available data before a company can be based on repackaging government data.

[dubu]

Just thought I would chime in. The gov does what is proposed already with many FAA forms. They sourdec out documndt distribution to a single private firm. Now to get a 2 page document in pdf format that we print out, we must pay 500$ per copy to a private company for "administrative costs".

o and does anyone else thing that accuweather, intellicast really suck. maby it is different in your area. but in the pnw their rutine forecast for winter is always the same. partly -to mostly cloudy with a chance of rain... the sites are useless. Just to rant some more their web design comes somewhere between a 15yo school project and a porn site from lathvia, yup pop ups and flashing html, so faking awsome.

[hev]

This is a very interseting thread and I definately feel strongly that this data should (and most likely will) remain free to the public. I'd also say that it is definately no co-incidence that NWS just started to offer thier data in XML (http://weather.gov/xml/) wich makes sites such as accuweather.com easier to emmulate and concerned about new competition I'd think. Ironically I actually don't think the bill does an affective job of controllnig the competation anyways but I asm not sure I fully understand the details.

The SEC is a similar orginization in some ways and they provide all their data for free in a variety of formats http://www.sec.gov Thier site is not the best so there are plenty of pay sites the re-sell this free information for a fee. I'd like to see similar things happen with weather data. The NWS should contiune to be the owner and wearhouse of publicaly available while private companies experimint with new cutting edge display techniques for users willing to pay. I know as someone interested in weather I am willing to pay to see stuff like this but will continue to use NWS as my practical weather source.