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"?