More Santorum! Senate Bill banning NOAA weather data

[mikea]

Senator Santorum is again sponsoring a bill to ban the NOAA from making weather data public because Accuweather in his state doesn't like the competition.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2005/04/21/m1a_wx_0421.html

First they try to kill FSSs because the airlines don't use them now they will ban free weather because the airlines don't use them.

Tell Accuweather they can own the data as soon as they can pay to gather it all. Open offices Worldwide. Launch some satellites. You're not allowed to use to use the knowledge gained up to now by public research, either.

To get in on the joke, Google for "santorum" and read how the honorable Senator's name was made to be the name of... WARNING! Not for children or other sensitive viewers.

 

[poadeleted3]

I saw that earlier... If I have it correct, the commercial providers want us to pay to collect the weather info, then pay them again to get back the data our tax dollars already paid for.

 

[Anthony]

I need to give Rick a call. Sigh.

 

[Keith Lane]

Well, down in Florida we paid for water to use in our homes (water bill), paid to flush it (sewer fee) and then they sold the treated wastewater back to us to water out lawns! (Gray water).

Gotem' comin',goin, and comin' again.

Thing was if they didn't sell the gray water to us they HAD to dispose it in deep aquifer injection wells. Think BIG $$$$ (I tested those wells for 5 years with Iodine 131 tracer studies.) So it was mandated in some counties that the developers install a second water pipeline to which everyone was required to hook up their REQUIRED underground sprinkler system to.
Gotta love that sunshine state.

 

[corjulo]

As soon as they figure out how to do it you'll be paying to receive GPS signals, too.

You already do. Your taxes put the system up there. And don't call Santorum, call your local senator and congressman

 

[terzap]

Oh good grief! GRRR!

Terry

 

[bstratt]

You already due. Your taxes put the system up there. And don't call Santorum, call your local senator and congressman

Due or do?

Freudian slip?

 

[Greebo]

When you're taxes are due, you do pay.

 

[gkainz]

When you're taxes are due, you do pay.

Chuck, you're going to hate this, but only when your taxes are due, you do pay...unless I pulled a major DS and totally missed it... :dance:

 

[Greebo]

I always get your and you're wrong.

 

[Gary]

And don't call Santorum, call your local senator and congressman

Santorum is my local senator! I have not been particularly impressed by his past performance, this is worth a letter.

Anyone know where I can get a copy of the actual bill?

Gary

 

[Greebo]

I'd be interested in knowing how viable this bill really is? Is there much senatorial support? This strikes me at first impression as being pandering to his contributors without really having any hope of actually accomplishing it.

Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

 

[mikea]

I'd be interested in knowing how viable this bill really is? Is there much senatorial support? This strikes me at first impression as being pandering to his contributors without really having any hope of actually accomplishing it.

Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

Remember that cr@p like this doesn't have to pass on its own. Disney would never had gotten a dedicated bill to ban planes over Mickey passed so it was "quietly" added as an item on the Omnibus spending bill - THE NATIONAL BUDGET.

The ban on lighters was added to the National Security Czar bill.

That's what Santorum would do with this.

We all called our state reps to tell them in no uncertain terms not to vote for THAT bill to authorize the expansion of O'Hare unless it included Meigs. With all the heat they didn't vote for it. In the wee hours of the morning they dropped THAT bill and passed a different one. I registered one of the votes against my local scum on that one.

Your Senator would not vote in favor of the NOAA ban, he/she would vote for something really good for the country. *ummmm* Makes motion like swatting at a phantom buzzing fly. Did you say something?

 

[corjulo]

This is a really dump move on his part. Lots of media coverage and all of it negative. People like.....no... people in this country LOVE their weather reports. I imagine this one is going to die in committee real quick.

 

[RogerT]

You already do. Your taxes put the system up there. And don't call Santorum, call your local senator and congressman

I emailed them both this morning.

 

[AdamZ]

The article says the bill will not apply to weather forecasts that would have an affect on the safety of life and property. Commonsense would tell you that applies to Aviation. But then again were dealing with politicians. IMHO this is clearly to protect Accuweather and other weather businesses. Plenty of companies make a lot of $$$ off taking public info and presenting it in a format that makes it more user friendly. More power to them but this is a joke. I think Santorum is treading on thin ice in the upcoming election. The Ds are really aiming for him.
I urge all of you to write to your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that this is BS. For Pennsylvania Pilots here is the contact info for your Senators.

Santorum: http://santorum.senate.gov/public/

Specter: http://specter.senate.gov/

 

[mikea]

National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)[S.786.IS]

The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a [weather-related] product or service ... that is or could be provided by the private sector unless ... the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such product or service ...

Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings shall be issued ... through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services ...

To see the text of the proposed "National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005"
search for "Weather Services" or S 786 IS1S
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html

 

[silver-eagle]

I always get your and you're wrong.

It's easy. Do not use contractions. OR. Say it out. "you're" = "YOU ARE" and "your" = "YOUR (as in OWN).

Unless you've made a major mistake, it really isn't worth correcting spelling or gramatical errors (the reader KNOWS what you mean). On the other hand, it can be fun. I worked with someone who corrected EVERY note, memo, or report I wrote using a red pen. I gave her a box of them for Christmas and a ton of memos to correct.

 

[Brian Austin]

It's easy. Do not use contractions. OR. Say it out. "you're" = "YOU ARE" and "your" = "YOUR (as in OWN).

Actually, proper written English is not even supposed to use contractions. They came out of our slowly devolving verbal skills. Basically, we done got lazy.

 

[grattonja]

I would probably vote for Mickey Mouse before Santorum again anyway. But I sent him a direct email explaining that "safety of flight" is a matter of personal safety, that accuweather does not provide aviation useful weather, and that we already pay for this data. I am sure my email will get all the attention that one would expect from a responsive, national level politician. I.E. accuweather probably donated to the campaign.

Jim Gratton

 

[AdamZ]

Jim: I sent him a direct E-mail as well. I also sent one to Specter.

 

[grattonja]

Jim: I sent him a direct E-mail as well. I also sent one to Specter.

I got one to Specter as well. Good suggestion. He has supported aviation locally. He really helped LNS last year. We are getting a runway extension, and the terminal is alive for the first time, thanks to the limited service to Pittsburg.

Jim G

 

[woodstock]

Actually, proper written English is not even supposed to use contractions. They came out of our slowly devolving verbal skills. Basically, we done got lazy.

sooner or later we will all just grunt and point. this will reduce the usefulness of telephones however.

 

[grattonja]

sooner or later we will all just grunt and point. this will reduce the usefulness of telephones however.

I read somewhere last week that schools are starting to phase out/limit teaching of cursive. It seems we do not write personal letters to each other any more. Everything is typed. So we do not need old cursive writing.

Do we get to use sticks when we grunt and point?

Jim G

 

[Brian Austin]

I read somewhere last week that schools are starting to phase out/limit teaching of cursive. It seems we do not write personal letters to each other any more. Everything is typed. So we do not need old cursive writing.

Do we get to use sticks when we grunt and point?

Jim G

I hated cursive so I'm not particularly bothered by that one. Quite frankly, I can only read about 25% of people's cursive writing because of horrendous handwriting. It seems to go to he&* in high school or something.

You may use the sticks but only if you're writing in sand.

 

[grattonja]

I hated cursive so I'm not particularly bothered by that one. Quite frankly, I can only read about 25% of people's cursive writing because of horrendous handwriting. It seems to go to he&* in high school or something.

You may use the sticks but only if you're writing in sand.

At the risk of taking this in a political direction, if we cannot read cursive, who reads the Declaration of Independence? Or some of our other founding documents? Not that my cursive is decipherable by humans, anyway...

I can do the grunt and point thing but, in my office, I would need to occasionally be able to hit people with the sticks to make my point!

Jim G

 

[woodstock]

I read somewhere last week that schools are starting to phase out/limit teaching of cursive. It seems we do not write personal letters to each other any more. Everything is typed. So we do not need old cursive writing.

Do we get to use sticks when we grunt and point?

Jim G

only if it is a pointy stick.

I used to write letters like no one's business. when I went off to college I was definitely not one of those folks who disappeared - I wrote to friends all the time (this is before computers, email, etc.). wonder if anyone kept my letters. (hope not! haha)

I also used to have a ton of letters from college days but they were damaged in a basement flood of a rental I had several years ago. bummer.

 

[Brian Austin]

At the risk of taking this in a political direction, if we cannot read cursive, who reads the Declaration of Independence? Or some of our other founding documents? Not that my cursive is decipherable by humans, anyway...

THAT I can read. Same with the Constitution and some of the original Federal Papers. People considered writing an art form in those days.

 

[Anthony]

At the risk of taking this in a political direction, if we cannot read cursive, who reads the Declaration of Independence? Or some of our other founding documents? Not that my cursive is decipherable by humans, anyway...

I can do the grunt and point thing but, in my office, I would need to occasionally be able to hit people with the sticks to make my point!

Jim G

(rant on)

OK, I'll take it in a political direction (but nicely). There is no need to read our Country's founding documents like the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. The Constitution is systematically being ignored by the Courts, the media and special interest pressure groups. It seems foreign law and foreign case precedent supercedes the Constitution in many judges eyes. I say, if you're going to ignore them, just burn them to make it clear they are meaningless. (rant off)

 

[AdamZ]

FWIW, I wrote to AOPA regarding this matter and following is the response I received:



"Adam,

Thanks for the email. AOPA is aware of the bill and we are working on a response and a web story will be coming in a few days.

Regards,

Larry Barnhart
Aviation Services Department "

Glad to see they are addressing the problem!

 

[Robert]

Glad to see they are addressing the problem!

Here is our response (so far):
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050426nws.html
AOPA opposes bill that would prevent National Weather Service from providing weather products to public

AOPA is concerned over legislation that could eliminate free National Weather Service (NWS) aviation weather products for pilots. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) last week introduced a bill (S. 786) that would prohibit the NWS from offering any "product or service that is or could be provided by the private sector."

"Aviation weather products are critical to general aviation safety and must be available for use by pilots," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. "Some 40 percent of all aviation accidents are directly related to weather."

This isn't the first time that someone has tried to shut down free weather information from the government. In 2001, the NWS was forced to pull the plug briefly on its innovative Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) Web site, reportedly under pressure from commercial vendors.

"This bill has the potential to kill much of the information the NWS provides over the Internet, including ADDS," said Rudinger. "And with this legislation in place, the commercial vendors might even make a case for the complete privatization of weather products."

In the past, AOPA has successfully protected aviation weather products from so-called "non-compete" efforts. The bill has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, where Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is very aware of the importance of readily available weather information to general aviation pilots. Committee member Sen. Bill Nelson of hurricane-ravaged Florida has already expressed his opposition to Santorum's bill.

He'll be getting plenty of support from AOPA.

April 26, 2005

 

[AdamZ]

Thanks! Great Job! Robert. Lobbying is one of the most valuable things AOPA does.

 

[woodstock]

interesting comment I am passing along from an email...

this person related to me this is merely reinstating guidelines that have been in place for several years. is this true? it doesn't sound right, but I haven't dug into what laws are out there.

edit: thought I should point out it was in response to my email to friends/family asking for support in contacting the various senators to block this.

 

[mikea]

interesting comment I am passing along from an email...

this person related to me this is merely reinstating guidelines that have been in place for several years. is this true? it doesn't sound right, but I haven't dug into what laws are out there.

edit: thought I should point out it was in response to my email to friends/family asking for support in contacting the various senators to block this.

Accuweather claims they had a "Gentleperson's agreement" that the NOAA wouldn't offer some services on the web. In the meantime those pesky guvmint workers got ambitious and started making some public data available to the public. Like AOPA says, they wanted to kill the ADDS weather site. Now we know why it was labeled as "experimental" for so long.

In particular they don't like having historical weather data available. You should note that even the NOAA charges a buck or two for the historical data to make the service break even on cost.

Accuweather also claims that the NOAA made some data available to competitors and again, the great unwashed public before they got it. Santorum's bill bans that, too.

 

[woodstock]

Accuweather claims they had a "Gentleperson's agreement" that the NOAA wouldn't offer some services on the web. In the meantime those pesky guvmint workers got ambitious and started making some public data available to the public. Like AOPA says, they wanted to kill the ADDS weather site. Now we know why it was labeled as "experimental" for so long.

In particular they don't like having historical weather data available. You should note that even the NOAA charges a buck or two for the historical data to make the service break even on cost.

Accuweather also claims that the NOAA made some data available to competitors and again, the great unwashed public before they got it. Santorum's bill bans that, too.

any way you slice this, if the TAXPAYER is paying for this we have access to it from the GOVERNMENT - for free, we already paid.

to have a private provider gather it from the govt and repackage it (even if identical - and it sounds like it isn't) and then expect us to pay for it is outrageous. if they truly want us to pay for it they should add significant value to it - and I don't mean a pretty website.

 

[AdamZ]

Elizabeth: First understand that I am dead set against this bill. My tax dollars pay for the NOAA info and I am thus entitled to the information. This bill IMHO is to give an unfair advantage to a private industry. That being said if Accu Weather or any other weather provider wants to Take the NOAA info and repackage it and sell it I say more power to them. Plenty of businesses take public information and repackage it to make it more user friendly or industry specific. I know one guy who take NOAA precip info and then puts it together some how to help states and municipalities determine how much road salt they need to have handy in any given winter. ( Whoda thunk that would be a business?) If you don't want it don't buy it. Private industry's entrepreneurial actions should not however prevent me from getting info I already paid for.

On a brighter note, check out AOPA's web site. Phil Boyer was interviewed by ABC on the issue. Look for the interview this week. Hopefully Phil won't end up on the editing room floor.

 

[woodstock]

Elizabeth: First understand that I am dead set against this bill. My tax dollars pay for the NOAA info and I am thus entitled to the information. This bill IMHO is to give an unfair advantage to a private industry. That being said if Accu Weather or any other weather provider wants to Take the NOAA info and repackage it and sell it I say more power to them. Plenty of businesses take public information and repackage it to make it more user friendly or industry specific. I know one guy who take NOAA precip info and then puts it together some how to help states and municipalities determine how much road salt they need to have handy in any given winter. ( Whoda thunk that would be a business?) If you don't want it don't buy it. Private industry's entrepreneurial actions should not however prevent me from getting info I already paid for.

On a brighter note, check out AOPA's web site. Phil Boyer was interviewed by ABC on the issue. Look for the interview this week. Hopefully Phil won't end up on the editing room floor.

repackage if it adds value, sure. if it doesn't add value then some schmos are paying for something substandard. and my bet is they don't want to add value to make it more attractive, just get rid of the competition.

I agree completely - if they wanna find a market for their stuff, fabu. just don't do away with taxpayer paid services.

the links:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050428boyer.html

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/nws.html