New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data

ckokotay writes "Here we go again. Apparently for-pay weather companies (specifically Accuweather) have lobbied Senator Rick Santorum to introduce a bill to ban the National Weather Service from 'competing.' The NOAA just made data available for free on the internet in XML format. Essentially, that means no more free data, and the possible elimination of the NOAA web presence all together. Nothing like being able to buy off a clueless Senator - lets hope the rest do not fall in line, as I for one, do not like to pay for my information twice." This debate picks up where the last one left off. According to the article, the bill's biggest critics are complaining of the bill's vague wording which makes it unclear what exactly is being banned.

My own private army...

Ok, here's how it'll work. I'll contract the US Dept. of Defense to do some guard detail for me, somewhere, where I contract out their services. once the DoD enters into these sorts of contracts, the next time the US invades some country I'll write Senator Rick Santorum, complaining bitterly how they've giving away their services for free and unfairly competing with my private business interests, (especially if I've contracted the DoD to guard the country they are invading.)

Once the bill motors through the Senate and House, and has the signature of the prez (Hey, the GOP loves private businesses, right?) I'll be able to direct when and where war actually takes place.

This should undoubtably improve my popularity gasp and maybe get me a gulp date with that cutie gosh I've had my eye on for a while!

Ok, Kim's check bounced, you can invade now.

XML

XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

My god...

I think I have a new sig...

Sure!

... just as soon as they build their own space launch facilities.

If I'm not allowed to see the benefits of what my tax dollars are paying for, than neither should they. That means no more access to NOAA satellites and no more help paying for Kennedy Space Center and the heavy-lift rockets they need for their geosynchronus launches.

I'm feeling generous, I'll let taxpayer-funded NORAD tell them if and when Something Bad is about to happen to their satellites, but beyond that...

Without my money going to NOAA, these for-pay services would still be stuck with nothing but ground-based radar, to the point where I doubt they'd even spring to pay for off-shore buoys (where'd the profit be?). And that means things like not being able to see hurricanes until it's too late.

They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, but I'm sure they'll get it anyway. Thanks, Congress!

Accuweather's crusade

In response to:

Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.

Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy, said:

"If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."
And then this gem from Accuweather:

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.

"Do you really need that from the NOAA Web site?" he asked.

Um, gee, if everyone already doesn't get their weather information from the National Weather Service, then what the fuck are they so worried about? Incidentally, the stated mission [weather.gov] of the National Weather Service is:

The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community.

Clear, timely, comprehensive, accurate - and now open [weather.gov] - weather forecasts are critical for many, many sectors of public and private society. The new, open formats of weather data also make its integration into myriad other services and tools trivial. It's only good for the public. I don't think Sen. Santorum realizes how critical the NWS's weather, climate, and marine data is to so many sectors of US society.

The National Weather Service is funded for this mission, among others, by the taxpayers of the United States.

I hope Rick Santorum realizes that in a world where this bill passes, there should also be a corresponding reduction of funding to the NWS, in addition to a wholesale change of its mission. In fact, what would its mission be?

The best part of all of this is that in order for the NWS to effectively be able to gather the necessary data to still predict and warn against life- and property-threatening dangers, it still has to do almost all of the continuing data collection it does now. Removing the public access to this does absolutely nothing for anyone.

Except for-profit weather forecasting providers like Accuweather, of course.

For now, at least, Johnson of the NWS notes his agency is expanding its online offerings to serve the public.

Remember, too, that a "bill" is just that. Time to remind your elected [house.gov] officials [senate.gov] of what you think...

The Obvious

Um, gee, if everyone already doesn't get their weather information from the National Weather Service, then what the fuck are they so worried about?

Clearly you're being rhetorical, but I'll fire off a response anyway:

Accuweather: For $20 I'll tell you whether you're in danger or not.

Me: I don't want to pay $20, that's crazy.
Accuweather: Oh, your safety isn't worth $20? How about you watch a bunch of commercials before we show you if you're in danger or not?
Me: I shouldn't have to sit through a bunch of ads to see that I'm in danger! Next it'll be the emergency sirens, won't it? "Emergency bulletin regarding public safety, but first, theses messages from our sponsors..."
Accuweather: We have a right to make a buck.
Me: Sure, but not at the expense of my safety!

Contact the senator

here [senate.gov]

Re:Contact the senator

My comments:

I've heard about your bill to limit access to weather data.
please research what this has done in Australia and look to how many people have been killed already because of this type of plan. A good place to research is the "sydney to hobart race 1998." That was a boat race but the organizers running the race relied on private weather information since the government had just started privatized the Bureau of Meteorology. The result was that 6 people died, several boats sank and the coast guard spent over 10 million dollars on rescue of the 115 boats. The total bill for "user pays weather" was $700 million dollars.

A second example of why this is wrong involves aviation weather and its resulting deaths. I don't want a small plane falling out of the sky because the pilot didn't get a good weather briefing. Australia also provides evidence that people will not properly check weather if it isn't free and therefor endangering other people.

Re:Contact the senator

List of senators on that committee [senate.gov].

That sucks

Seriously: tough luck to weather companies! If this is a public service for Americans given by their government, then the American public should be allowed to use that service. Considering they paid for it with their taxes, I don't see how this bill could be passed!

Re:That sucks

I'm a developer for a small weather software company and we rely on the NWS for a lot of information (forecasts, etc.) for one our products [alertmepro.com][/shameless plug]. If this becomes law, our software won't work anymore. 2 people cannot write 7 day forecasts for every county in the USA.

Write to your senator then!

Seriously, either write to them or call them up explaining that you are about to go out of business because of this proposed bill. Unless they know about you (they most likely won't), then they won't be able to lob this little bomb on Rick Santorum, who then will be unable to say that his bill is designed to protect businesses. After all, it's a bit hard to say this when other senators are giving examples of companies his bill will put out of business!

In other news....

the Weather Channel is asking cable companies to add a surcharge based on the number of windows in a subscriber's household, to recoup lost revenues due to subscriber's looking outside to see what the weather is like...

hypocrites

If accuweather is so concerned about the national weather service undermining private companies, this bill should also forbid the national weather service from providing their data to accuweather itself. By providing all this data to accuweather, they are undercutting the ability of private comapnies to set up their own weather monitoring instruments and SELL the data to accuweather.

Well

Well Senator M-O-D Santorum had better hurry up and pass the bill because he is about to have his lunch handed to him in his 2006 relection efforts:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/21/11132/98 65

He's dropping faster than a rock so if this bill is stalled or set aside Accuweather will have to find some other "go to" guy...

Not that would be too difficuly unfornataly...

Public Good

Dad gummit. I PAID for NOAA....with my TAXES. I have EVERY right under FOIA to all that data. The nly reason this is being brought up is the Accuweathers, the DTN's and to a lesser extent, the Weather Channels of the world.

The bill doesn't go far enough

If the basic idea of this bill is sound, we should consider the benefits of:

• Restricting access to economic reports
• Restricting access to research results
• Restricting access to USDA food safety data
• Restricting access to FDA drug approvals
• Restricting access to laws, including the tax code
• Restricting access to Congressional records, including proposed legislation
• I'm sure there are others

The Congressional part especially has a lot of merit, since I'm sure Congress would prefer that we not find out about stuff like this except as duly authorized sources see fit to pass it along.

Definition of Santorum according to Dan Savage

Santorum (n.)

1. That frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

2. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

What an unbelievable coincidence!

Accuweather is headquartered in Pennsylvania. And Santorum is a senator from PA. I mean, come on, what are the odds of that? ;)

Bill text

Here's the text of S. 786 [loc.gov]. Thankfully, no co-sponsors yet. Here's hoping that most Congresspeople see this bill for what it is - lunacy.

Ban Libraries

The government should just get out of the information business. The free market is the best way to ensure that we get the most [foxnews.com] unbiased [cnn.com] information [theonion.com].

The last time around

The military pointed out that if NOAA didn't do weather forecasts, the DoD would have to hire all of the NOAA forecasters just so that the military wouldn't be left without mission-critical information.

Add to that that other government agencies (both Federal and State) would have to staff up, duplicating the no-doubt-now-classified military work. Bottom line is that shutting down the NOAA forecast role will be a sizable net cost to the US, along with some unknown harm to both the economy and national security.

Great move, Senator.

Don't Worry

Aviators everywhere depend on NOAA for weather [aviationweather.gov] all the time and AOPA [aopa.org] will never let this bill get passed. AOPA has a long history of protecting the citizens from stupid laws like this so I'm not worried at all.

What can you say to this?

"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," Santorum said.

Perhaps we can we expect Senator Santorum to next intervene on behalf of the unjustifiably repressed legions of private firefighters, police, water safety testers, and maintainers of roads?

After all, it's hard to compete in the market when the government does it for free!

This is also a good time to mention Spreading Santorum, a personal crusade by the advice columnist Dan Savage to popularize the use of the word 'santorum' to describe a (mostly) gay sex act, with the intention of embarrassing the anti-gay senator: spreadingsantorum.com [spreadingsantorum.com]

Re:Doesn't make sense...

Seems like if a bunch of us got pissed off enough we could simply throw together some weather stations [melhuish.info] and provide RSS feeds through a single private web site for free.