On a point of detail: if true, that motivation would not just be pork
( = supporting less than worthy projects because they benefit the
home state), but rather purchase of influence - which is indictable if
proved.

Brian Whatcott.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:41:13 -0400, krj
wrote:

Do you find it strange that Accuweather is based in Pa. and has
contributed ~$11,000 to Santorum's campaign fund? Can you say "PORK".
krj

Tom R. wrote:
I read in the New York Times this weekend that Sen. Rick Santorum (R PA) has
introduced a bill to limit the amount of information that the National
Weather Service, a taxpayer funded organization, may disseminate to the
public. Apparently, Sen. Santorum has accepted campaign contributions from
several private weather services located in Pennsylvania which have
complained to him that information disseminated by NWS is too much
competition for the pivate services and they want to restrict the free flow
of weather information. Duh? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Tom R.

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On a point of detail: if true, that motivation would not just be pork
( = supporting less than worthy projects because they benefit the
home state), but rather purchase of influence - which is indictable if
proved.

Brian Whatcott.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:41:13 -0400, krj
wrote:


Do you find it strange that Accuweather is based in Pa. and has
contributed ~$11,000 to Santorum's campaign fund? Can you say "PORK".
krj

Tom R. wrote:

I read in the New York Times this weekend that Sen. Rick Santorum (R PA) has
introduced a bill to limit the amount of information that the National
Weather Service, a taxpayer funded organization, may disseminate to the
public. Apparently, Sen. Santorum has accepted campaign contributions from
several private weather services located in Pennsylvania which have
complained to him that information disseminated by NWS is too much
competition for the pivate services and they want to restrict the free flow
of weather information. Duh? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Tom R.

Google "Santorum" to find the out what it really means (for
those who don't read Dan Savage's column)

Evan Gatehouse

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:14:36 -0700, Evan Gatehouse
wrote:

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On a point of detail: if true, that motivation would not just be pork
( = supporting less than worthy projects because they benefit the
home state), but rather purchase of influence - which is indictable if
proved.

Brian Whatcott.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:41:13 -0400, krj
wrote:


Do you find it strange that Accuweather is based in Pa. and has
contributed ~$11,000 to Santorum's campaign fund? Can you say "PORK".
krj

Tom R. wrote:

I read in the New York Times this weekend that Sen. Rick Santorum (R PA) has
introduced a bill to limit the amount of information that the National
Weather Service, a taxpayer funded organization, may disseminate to the
public. Apparently, Sen. Santorum has accepted campaign contributions from
several private weather services located in Pennsylvania which have
complained to him that information disseminated by NWS is too much
competition for the pivate services and they want to restrict the free flow
of weather information. Duh? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Tom R.

Google "Santorum" to find the out what it really means (for
those who don't read Dan Savage's column)

Evan Gatehouse

I try to stay away from politics and politicians where possible, so I
regret I probably won't be following up on this worthy suggestion.
What does it really mean?

Brian W

What it means, if it passes is that all info that the NWS now provides,
i.e. marine forecast, weatherfax, radar displays, ham skywarn, etc.
would probably become a "pay for use" from a private company. The NWS
could not provide these if a private company wants to provide them. The
NWS still provides the data that we pay them to collect with our taxes,
but will be provided "1) through a |set of data portals designed for
volume access by commercial providers |of products or services". Meaning
high speed data links like T1 or T3 to which the general public will not
have access. Excerpts of S 786 below. Write or call your senator now to
oppose this bill!
krj

| (b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce
|shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or
|service (other than a product or service described in subsection
|(a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--
|
| (1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is
|unwilling or unable to provide such product or service; or
|
| (2) the United States Government is obligated to provide
|such product or service under international aviation agreements to
|provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological |information.
|
| (1) IN GENERAL- All data, information, guidance,
|forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by
|the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National
|Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in
|real time, and without delay for internal use, in a manner that ensures
|that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous
|and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and
|warnings.
|
| (2) MODE OF ISSUANCE- Data, information, guidance,
|forecasts, and warnings shall be issued under paragraph (1) through a
|set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers
|of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary
|of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph.

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:14:36 -0700, Evan Gatehouse
wrote:


Brian Whatcott wrote:

On a point of detail: if true, that motivation would not just be pork
( = supporting less than worthy projects because they benefit the
home state), but rather purchase of influence - which is indictable if
proved.

Brian Whatcott.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:41:13 -0400, krj
wrote:



Do you find it strange that Accuweather is based in Pa. and has
contributed ~$11,000 to Santorum's campaign fund? Can you say "PORK".
krj

Tom R. wrote:


I read in the New York Times this weekend that Sen. Rick Santorum (R PA) has
introduced a bill to limit the amount of information that the National
Weather Service, a taxpayer funded organization, may disseminate to the
public. Apparently, Sen. Santorum has accepted campaign contributions from
several private weather services located in Pennsylvania which have
complained to him that information disseminated by NWS is too much
competition for the pivate services and they want to restrict the free flow
of weather information. Duh? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Tom R.

Google "Santorum" to find the out what it really means (for
those who don't read Dan Savage's column)

Evan Gatehouse


I try to stay away from politics and politicians where possible, so I
regret I probably won't be following up on this worthy suggestion.
What does it really mean?

Brian W

krj wrote in
:

What it means, if it passes is that all info that the NWS now provides,
i.e. marine forecast, weatherfax, radar displays, ham skywarn, etc.
would probably become a "pay for use" from a private company. The NWS
could not provide these if a private company wants to provide them. The
NWS still provides the data that we pay them to collect with our taxes,
but will be provided "1) through a |set of data portals designed for
volume access by commercial providers |of products or services". Meaning
high speed data links like T1 or T3 to which the general public will not
have access. Excerpts of S 786 below. Write or call your senator now to
oppose this bill!
krj


I wonder if we simply file a Freedom Of Information Act request, required
by other laws, to get the data. I got data from several agencies who were
reluctant to send it successfully....

Wouldn't be very practical to have to file a FIA everytime I wanted to
get a WEFAX from NMG on the HF while cruising the islands.
krj

Larry W4CSC wrote:
krj wrote in
:


What it means, if it passes is that all info that the NWS now provides,
i.e. marine forecast, weatherfax, radar displays, ham skywarn, etc.
would probably become a "pay for use" from a private company. The NWS
could not provide these if a private company wants to provide them. The
NWS still provides the data that we pay them to collect with our taxes,
but will be provided "1) through a |set of data portals designed for
volume access by commercial providers |of products or services". Meaning
high speed data links like T1 or T3 to which the general public will not
have access. Excerpts of S 786 below. Write or call your senator now to
oppose this bill!
krj



I wonder if we simply file a Freedom Of Information Act request, required
by other laws, to get the data. I got data from several agencies who were
reluctant to send it successfully....

In article ,
krj wrote:

What it means, if it passes is that all info that the NWS now provides,
i.e. marine forecast, weatherfax, radar displays, ham skywarn, etc.
would probably become a "pay for use" from a private company. The NWS
could not provide these if a private company wants to provide them. The
NWS still provides the data that we pay them to collect with our taxes,
but will be provided "1) through a |set of data portals designed for
volume access by commercial providers |of products or services". Meaning
high speed data links like T1 or T3 to which the general public will not
have access. Excerpts of S 786 below. Write or call your senator now to
oppose this bill!
krj

| (b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce
|shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or
|service (other than a product or service described in subsection
|(a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--
|
| (1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is
|unwilling or unable to provide such product or service; or
|
| (2) the United States Government is obligated to provide
|such product or service under international aviation agreements to
|provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological |information.
|
| (1) IN GENERAL- All data, information, guidance,
|forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by
|the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National
|Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in
|real time, and without delay for internal use, in a manner that ensures
|that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous
|and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and
|warnings.
|
| (2) MODE OF ISSUANCE- Data, information, guidance,
|forecasts, and warnings shall be issued under paragraph (1) through a
|set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers
|of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary
|of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph.

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:14:36 -0700, Evan Gatehouse
wrote:


Brian Whatcott wrote:

On a point of detail: if true, that motivation would not just be pork
( = supporting less than worthy projects because they benefit the
home state), but rather purchase of influence - which is indictable if
proved.

Brian Whatcott.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:41:13 -0400, krj
wrote:



Do you find it strange that Accuweather is based in Pa. and has
contributed ~$11,000 to Santorum's campaign fund? Can you say "PORK".
krj

Tom R. wrote:


I read in the New York Times this weekend that Sen. Rick Santorum (R PA)
has
introduced a bill to limit the amount of information that the National
Weather Service, a taxpayer funded organization, may disseminate to the
public. Apparently, Sen. Santorum has accepted campaign contributions
from
several private weather services located in Pennsylvania which have
complained to him that information disseminated by NWS is too much
competition for the pivate services and they want to restrict the free
flow
of weather information. Duh? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Tom R.

Google "Santorum" to find the out what it really means (for
those who don't read Dan Savage's column)

Evan Gatehouse


I try to stay away from politics and politicians where possible, so I
regret I probably won't be following up on this worthy suggestion.
What does it really mean?

Brian W

I wrote an aide to our Independent Senator. It helps for these folks to
realize they have constituents (voters or contributors) who care about
an issue when they start horse trading.

Some advocacy groups, e.g., Boat US, are already working on this. I know
my Senator appreciated hearing about this since it means that not only
my family, but trade organizations think this a bad bill.

Those who think they are too smart or can't be bothered to voice their
opinion in a democracy are fated to be governed by those who are dumber
and demand to be heard.

h

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?

(d) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCLOSURES- An officer, employee, or agent of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Weather
Service, or any other department or agency of the United States who by
reason of that status comes into possession of any weather data,
information, guidance, forecast, or warning that might influence or affect
the market value of any product, service, commodity, tradable, or business
may not--

(1) willfully impart, whether directly or indirectly, such weather data,
information, guidance, forecast, or warning, or any part thereof, before the
issuance of such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning
to the public under subsection (c); or

(2) after the issuance of such weather data, information, guidance,
forecast, or warning to the public under subsection (c), willfully impart
comments or qualifications on such weather data, information, guidance,
forecast, or warning, or any part thereof, to the public, except pursuant to
an issuance that complies with that subsection.

The way I read this even the Navy would have to encode their broadcasts to
keep us from using them. Also no NWS people could speak at any cruising
association meeting.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

In article xq%re.122720$sy6.18607@lakeread04,
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote:

(d) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCLOSURES- An officer, employee, or
agent of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
National Weather Service, or any other department or agency of the
United States who by reason of that status comes into possession of
any weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning

emphasis:

that might influence or affect the market value of any product,
service, commodity, tradable, or business may not--

(1) willfully impart, whether directly or indirectly, such weather
data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning, or any part
thereof,

Emphasis:

before the issuance of such weather data, information, guidance,
forecast, or warning to the public under subsection (c); or

The way I read this even the Navy would have to encode their
broadcasts to keep us from using them. Also no NWS people could
speak at any cruising association meeting.

Naaah, it just means they can't play favorites.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Jere Lull" wrote in message

The way I read this even the Navy would have to encode their
broadcasts to keep us from using them. Also no NWS people could
speak at any cruising association meeting.

Naaah, it just means they can't play favorites.

I hope you are being fecitious. The way the bill reads NWS or any other
Federal agency personal with weather data is specifically and totally
muzzeled. No statements or sharing weather information of any kind to
anybody any time unless Accuweather can't do it. (Not won't but can't.)

The commercial services are into mass marketing their product and are not
going to provide a service if they can't make a profit and marine weather is
not a profit maker. Say goodby to WEFAX. Say goodby to VHF weather radio.
Say goodby to sea state and wind forcasts.

You guys better get off your asses and say something to your Senators or we
may be sailing blind or paying $50+ to get a weather forcast anytime you
sail outside the harbor.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com