This has been mentioned here before but the following that I received
is a good summary with contact info to make your voice heard.

For all the talk about tax cuts and the political capital the repubs
get from them, this kind of arrangement where we users end up paying
for what our tax dollars already purchased is just an invisible tax.
These invisible taxes and user fees threaten to actually cost those of
us in the bottom 99% of the economy more than we're saving in income
tax reduction.

Whatever you think about the economics and politics though,
restricting free access to weather information by mariners and pilots
is a threat to safety.

Here's what I received:

A bill is currently pending in the U.S. Sentate which may require you
to pay for weather and related info you can now get from NOAA for
free. If this
disturbs, then write to your elected representatives and express your
concern.

Here's the summary - U.S. Sentate bill 786

PA senator Rick Santorum proposed a bill that would prohibit
federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as Surfline,
AccuWeather and The Weather Channel. His proposal is that the
information that we already pay for through our taxes would only be
made available to corporations that would then RESELL the information
you! For a fee, of course. What would this mean to you?

1. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY TO GET ACCESS TO BUOY READINGS.

2. YOU WILL NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS ANY OF THE DATA GATHERED BY THE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY (THROUGH THE WEB
OR ELSEWHERE).

3. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY SURF FORECAST.

4. YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO READ A NESURF.COM FORECAST
(BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NONE).

If this disturbs you, pick up the phone now and call (or use the
webform) and voice your displeasure.

Senator Santorum's Email Submission form
Washington, D.C. Office:
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-6324

If you use the online form the Subject line should read: "National
Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) S. 786."
Your message
should mention, in the first sentence, that you disapprove strongly
to the proposed legislation.

--
Roger Long