I've already emailed both of my senators expressing my views on this
bill. One good point to make is how bad congress will look
if/when the media gets a hold of this story. I personally believe that
there are enough pilots, boaters, and individuals who use the NOAA
and NWS sites that they are poking a beehive with a stick from a
very short distance. I'd like to see the media out this story and
then watch the sponsors run for cover!!

Don W.



Geoff Schultz wrote:
"mickey" wrote in news:1122074020.328211.306630
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


I've decided to post only because this matter is important to me,
owning a boat and relying heavily on NOAA for my weather information.
I urge everyone to read the bill. it can be located on

http://thomas.loc.gov/
using bill number S.786
Weather Underground also has it available he
http://www.wunderground.com/education/santorum_s786.asp

Also, BoatUS has an article about it:
http://www.boatus.com/gov/sb786.htm


These two web sites provide a much better background than the prior
discussions in this forum did. There was too much name calling and not
enough discussion on the facts. I strongly suggest that people read them
and understand them.

Most importantly make sure that you write your senators. I just did. We
can't let this pass!

-- Geoff

"Don W" wrote

I've already emailed both of my senators expressing my views on this
bill. One good point to make is how bad congress will look
if/when the media gets a hold of this story. I personally believe that
there are enough pilots, boaters, and individuals who use the NOAA
and NWS sites that they are poking a beehive with a stick from a
very short distance. I'd like to see the media out this story and
then watch the sponsors run for cover!!

Unfortunately probably less than 5% of the population cares at all and of
them 80% are to lazy to make their opinions known or consider it a waste of
time because they figure that Congress is bought and paid for anyway..

--
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

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:ZsEEe.176066$sy6.72742@lakeread04:

because they figure that Congress is bought and paid for anyway..


And, they'd be correct...

--
Larry

I'm glad to see this bill is of interest to a few people, even if we
are just a few. I'd like to point out that the BoatUS website's
article has a link to a sample letter which you can use to send to your
congressperson. (Did I mention I live in DC so I don't have any such
luxury?) I'm including the text here without permission from BoatUS.
You can find a word file on this link:
http://www.boatus.com/gov/Sample786ltr.doc
which is from this article:
http://www.boatus.com/gov/sb786.htm
The text is at the end.

As a matter of personal opinion, I'd like to say that what I find most
disturbing about this bill is that it does not limit the types of data,
files, forecasts, etc. that NOAA will provide. It only limits the
dissemination fo that information. In other words, NOAA will likely
continue to produce the same files and forecasts that we are used
to--but they will only be available to private, for-profit companies.
So, all taxpayer-funded NOAA work will no longer be available to the
public for free, but will continue to be available to for-profit
companies (assumedly for free). As I said on my last post, I do not
mind paying for weather. (In fact, I _do_ pay for weather, and by that
I mean I pay in cold cash, not in seeing ads.) But I feel that if I
pay a company for weather, I expect them to do their own legwork and
provide me with their own analysis--I certainly don't want to pay them
for files which they have for free.

on a different note, There was a post herea bout an alternative to the
recently-purchased WeatherMatrix...does someone know what it is?

The text from BoatUS:
--start of letter--
Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

_____________

--end of letter--

Although its good to have a starting point, I would advise against
copying someone elses boilerplate. From what I've read some in
congress feel that if you don't care enough to take the time to
write your own letter then you don't care very much.

Also, there are professional organizations that inundate congress with
copied letters in much the same way that professional spammers hit
our email. The result is that copies of letters are mostly ignored.

If you are opposed to the bill, you might want to take the letter
and paraphrase it.

Don W.

mickey wrote:
snip

Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Don,
I agree. In fact, there was a show on NPR today about just that. It
seems that even a personalized note ahead of the form letter will
attract attention. The idea is to personalize the message so the
reader knows it's coming from an actual person rather than a spamming
organization.

mickey

Don W wrote:
Although its good to have a starting point, I would advise against
copying someone elses boilerplate. From what I've read some in
congress feel that if you don't care enough to take the time to
write your own letter then you don't care very much.

Also, there are professional organizations that inundate congress with
copied letters in much the same way that professional spammers hit
our email. The result is that copies of letters are mostly ignored.

If you are opposed to the bill, you might want to take the letter
and paraphrase it.

Don W.

mickey wrote:
snip

Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,