|
S-786 NWS bill
Received the following message from Senator Bill Nelson:
Keeping Hurricane Forecasts Free and Accessible The National Weather Service (NWS) website got nine billion hits in the six-week period last summer when Florida was repeatedly hit by hurricanes. A bill introduced into the Senate would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies who offer their own forecasts through paid services and ad-supported Web sites. If this bill becomes law, the NWS may have to take down websites like this one http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ that predicts tropical storms. I talked with some NWS forecasters just before Dennis struck. They told me about a private forecasting company based in Pennsylvania that had been tracking Dennis, too. But that company predicted Dennis would go into New Orleans or Mississippi, whereas the NWS tracked that storm to the area between Pensacola and Ft. Walton Beach-exactly where it made landfall. If we did not have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast, the people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with disastrous results. The bill that threatens this service is slated to come before the Senate Commerce Committee. I am a member of that committee, and I will continue my battle to make sure this excellent government service--that can mean the difference between life and death--is preserved. Please do not reply to this message. For additional information about Sen. Nelson, visit his website at http://billnelson.senate.gov "billnelson.senate.gov |
That sounds a lot better than the BS response I received from Saxby
Chambliss and non response from Johnny Isakson. But Nelson is a Democrat. Santorum is the third most powerful senator on the Republican side and it seems that all the Republican senators are following their leadership like sheep. To scared to object to even the most idiotic proposal. While it is probable that 786 will not make it into law by itself, look for it to be snuck in as an amendment to some other unrelated bill. -- 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 "krj" wrote in message .. . Received the following message from Senator Bill Nelson: Keeping Hurricane Forecasts Free and Accessible The National Weather Service (NWS) website got nine billion hits in the six-week period last summer when Florida was repeatedly hit by hurricanes. A bill introduced into the Senate would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies who offer their own forecasts through paid services and ad-supported Web sites. If this bill becomes law, the NWS may have to take down websites like this one http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ that predicts tropical storms. I talked with some NWS forecasters just before Dennis struck. They told me about a private forecasting company based in Pennsylvania that had been tracking Dennis, too. But that company predicted Dennis would go into New Orleans or Mississippi, whereas the NWS tracked that storm to the area between Pensacola and Ft. Walton Beach-exactly where it made landfall. If we did not have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast, the people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with disastrous results. The bill that threatens this service is slated to come before the Senate Commerce Committee. I am a member of that committee, and I will continue my battle to make sure this excellent government service--that can mean the difference between life and death--is preserved. Please do not reply to this message. For additional information about Sen. Nelson, visit his website at http://billnelson.senate.gov "billnelson.senate.gov |
Dave wrote:
This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in exploiting the naivete of the unthinking. You mean, the way people with actual facts who disagree with you, prove you wrong, and so you have no recourse but to be condescending & insulting in the hopes you might come out looking better? Yes, the guvmint people got it right once and the other guys got it wrong. But had it not been for the former policy of NOAA in not competing where private industry is willing and able to provide a forecasting and analysis service, there would be no alternative sources of analysis and forecasts. You mean like the ones that got it wrong? What a great alternative, especially considering that the taxpayers are already funding the right answer and your side wants to deny the service to those who have paid for it. .... We would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one -- as the only available forecast. Sort of like the way the Bush Administration uses gov't funds to pay for fake news, and wishes heartily that this was our only source of info? Sounds good, nyet? DSK |
Dave,
This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in exploiting the naivete of the unthinking. Give it up! Your statement is just abusive. First you call anyone who disagress with your position "the free lunch bunch". Then you suggest that anyone inclined to agree with them is naive and unthinking. If you want anyone to respect your opinion, you've got to show respect for the right of other people to have differing opinions. Otherwise you're just trying to start an argument. Don W. Dave wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:36:03 -0400, krj said: If we did not have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast, the people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with disastrous results. This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in exploiting the naivete of the unthinking. Yes, the guvmint people got it right once and the other guys got it wrong. But had it not been for the former policy of NOAA in not competing where private industry is willing and able to provide a forecasting and analysis service, there would be no alternative sources of analysis and forecasts. We would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one -- as the only available forecast. |
You mean like the ones that got it wrong?
Dave wrote: Doug, if I had $5 for every time NOAA got the marine forecast wrong, I'd be a wealthy man I agree. But that has ZERO relevance to the issue at hand. In the case you were discussing above, NOAA got it right and the commercial forecasters got it wrong... in big way, with lives at stake. ... I'm sure even you recognize the fallacy of arguing from the proposition that the private company erred once to the conclusion that the private company gets it wrong more often than NOAA. So, the private companies can use NOAA data which we paid for, to get more accurate forecasts? Can you back that premise with any facts? .... We would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one -- as the only available forecast. Sort of like the way the Bush Administration uses gov't funds to pay for fake news, and wishes heartily that this was our only source of info? The odor of red herring is overwhelming me. You can mask it with your sanctimonious air and atmosphere of condescension. DSK |
You sir are a nut case.
-- 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 "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:45:56 -0400, DSK said: Yes, the guvmint people got it right once and the other guys got it wrong. But had it not been for the former policy of NOAA in not competing where private industry is willing and able to provide a forecasting and analysis service, there would be no alternative sources of analysis and forecasts. You mean like the ones that got it wrong? Doug, if I had $5 for every time NOAA got the marine forecast wrong, I'd be a wealthy man. I'm sure even you recognize the fallacy of arguing from the proposition that the private company erred once to the conclusion that the private company gets it wrong more often than NOAA. .... We would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one -- as the only available forecast. Sort of like the way the Bush Administration uses gov't funds to pay for fake news, and wishes heartily that this was our only source of info? The odor of red herring is overwhelming me. |
In article ,
Don W wrote: Dave, This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in exploiting the naivete of the unthinking. Give it up! Your statement is just abusive. First you call anyone who disagress with your position "the free lunch bunch". Then you suggest that anyone inclined to agree with them is naive and unthinking. If you want anyone to respect your opinion, you've got to show respect for the right of other people to have differing opinions. Otherwise you're just trying to start an argument. Don W. Davey (I mean DAVE) has been doing this for quite a while. It's kinda entertaining to listen to him sometimes. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
Dave wrote:
My experience is that when one gets paid based on the quality of his results, those results are likely to be better. And all you need to do in order to have a horse that make a jump of height X is to take one horse at a time, and shoot each one that cannot make the jump. So, you are making the claim that commercial weather broadcasters should be allowed to sell us data that we have already paid for because their forecasts are more accurate? Don't bogart that joint, my friend. DSK |
Dave wrote:
heavy snippage _with_ prejudice You sir, do not know McLuhan. At all times, avoid oblique references that intimate some knowledge of ideas beyond your ken. Isn't it time you got your saggy little cheerleader butt back to alt.republican.bush.worship? |
In article , Dave
wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:36:03 -0400, krj said: If we did not have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast, the people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with disastrous results. This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in exploiting the naivete of the unthinking. I agree with you completely, sir! Those fee for service people, who take taxpayer funded data, value-add it and then onsell it to the public, are definitely exploiting the unthinking. Especially when they get it wrong! If they were actually collecting the data themselves, using their own funded satellites, met stations and the like, well, that'd be different. But they're not. They sure are a free lunch bunch, hey, Dave? PDW |
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 Here are some excerpts: -Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than [emergency warnings] ) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless ... -Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings [available from NOAA] shall be issued ... through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services So, basically, Data as well as forecasts (aka analysis) will be available from NOAA to commercial providers, but not to the public. Currently, commercial providers are available, and used by many including me, which take data from NOAA and other sources and provide their own forecasts (analysis). I do not have a problem with any of this, but I _do_ have a problem with making the NOAA information available _only_ to commercial providers, who then may charge for them. just my 2 cents. |
You left out a few things like:
2d1) Prohibits NWS personnel from disseminating, disclosing or commenting on any data gathered by the NWS unless a commercial service is unable to provide it. It also prohibits ANY Federal agency from disclosing to the public any weather related data that may come into their possession. That includes the Department of agriculture, FAA and the Navy weather broadcasts. That means no more web site, no more VHF weather broadcasts, no more Perfect Paul on SSB, no more NAVTEX, no more SSB we no more free GRIBB files. It also puts a number of small but specialized services like CaribWX out of business because they can't afford the T1 line. If you want any weather information while off shore you buy a $1,000 receiver and pay $600 a year (or more) for a subscription. Your NAVTEX and wefax receivers will be junk. 2(d2) says that even after the information has been published NWS analysts cannot make comments or even be interviewed on news broadcasts to discuss any weather event EVER. That means that NOAA people can't address cruising clubs or work with boat show seminars. They can't even defend themselves after the commercial services get it totally wrong like they did last hear after the NWS gave them the correct information. If the NWS had not been able to give the correct forecast for the hurricanes last year and the only forecast available was from the commercial services the loss of lives and property would have been much greater. No matter how you sugar coat it, it still stinks because it is a bull**** bill. -- 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 "mickey" wrote in message oups.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 Here are some excerpts: -Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than [emergency warnings] ) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless ... -Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings [available from NOAA] shall be issued ... through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services So, basically, Data as well as forecasts (aka analysis) will be available from NOAA to commercial providers, but not to the public. Currently, commercial providers are available, and used by many including me, which take data from NOAA and other sources and provide their own forecasts (analysis). I do not have a problem with any of this, but I _do_ have a problem with making the NOAA information available _only_ to commercial providers, who then may charge for them. just my 2 cents. |
"Dave" wrote Think about it for a minute. Are you paying for these other services now? Why not? What does your local TV station's forecast cost? Are they in the business of handing out gifts? Are they losing money and hoping to make it up on volume? I'll give you a hint. Think radio, TV and WWW sites. If you actually believe that,call your local TV station and ask them to include the 500mb chart in their evening broadcast. Maybe you could tell me where the 48 hour wind and wave forecast charts are on the Weather Channel's web site? Do you think maybe that Accuweather will send you a daily GRIBB file so you can use the routing features of Raychart or MaxSea? Kinda hard to add popups to a GRIBB file. How much do you suppose they would charge you for that service? It is pretty obvious you have never sailed outside your bathtub. -- 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 |
"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 |
Nomen Nescio ] wrote in
: Geoff Schultz writes: mickey wrote: 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. Geoff: This might seem naive, but could you suggest a good letter form that might be sent to my senators? I don't have the first idea how to write a letter that they won't just toss. FWIW, they're both Repugs, and they are probably in the pocket of the commercial entities that seem to be pushing this bill. Here's what I just sent: I am writing about SB 786: "National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005'" which I consider to be absolutely rediculious. This bill would prohibit the dissemination of weather forecasts and charts by the National Weather Service to the public. They would still provide this information to private companies for dissemination for a fee. I am a cruiser who spends 6-7 months per year in the Caribbean. I, and the vast majority of other cruisers in the US and elsewhere, rely on these forecasts by the NWS which are transmitted via VHF, radio faxes and the Internet. While cruising there are no other sources for this information with paying for costly new equipment, per minute connection charges via satellite, and monthly subscription fees to private weather prediction services. Local weather forecasts do not begin to provide the level of detail necessary to safely plan passages. The loss of this service would greatly endanger many people and boats. I can not fathom why anyone would support this bill, unless they're in the pocket of some company who would benefit from the NWS being prohibited from disseminating these forecasts. I strongly suggest that Senator _____________ vote against this bill. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. |
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 |
Send them an email. That's what I did and have received replies from both
(probably their staffers). Due to enhanced postal security my Senators have indicated they prefer email. "Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message ... Geoff Schultz writes: mickey wrote: 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. Geoff: This might seem naive, but could you suggest a good letter form that might be sent to my senators? I don't have the first idea how to write a letter that they won't just toss. FWIW, they're both Repugs, and they are probably in the pocket of the commercial entities that seem to be pushing this bill. We can't let this pass! Agreed. --- - Those who complain about others not being "team players" are the same ones who never give up the ball. ----- |
"Eric Schneider" wrote
Send them an email. That's what I did and have received replies from both (probably their staffers). Due to enhanced postal security my Senators have indicated they prefer email. I would be interested to know how they responded. Both Georgia Senators responded with mealy mouthed BS. Either they don't have a clue what the bill says or they are waiting for instructions from the Republican leadership. -- 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 |
"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 |
WaIIy wrote:
Wake up. wake up? take your own advice and do a little due diligence with respect to your good ol' boy Blackwell's activities during the last "election" held in the land of the free. I thought Ohioans stood for the principles of democracy. Maybe I was wrong. sheeple |
They responded by indicating that the bill has been sent to committee and
they would take my concerns into consideration if/when the bill is presented to the full senate. Eric Schneider "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:flEEe.176065$sy6.6710@lakeread04... "Eric Schneider" wrote Send them an email. That's what I did and have received replies from both (probably their staffers). Due to enhanced postal security my Senators have indicated they prefer email. I would be interested to know how they responded. Both Georgia Senators responded with mealy mouthed BS. Either they don't have a clue what the bill says or they are waiting for instructions from the Republican leadership. -- 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 |
WaIIy wrote in
: On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:33:01 -0500, Geoff Schultz wrote: I can not fathom why anyone would support this bill, unless they're in the pocket of some company who would benefit from the NWS being prohibited from disseminating these forecasts. Yup, an insult usually gets great results. You might want to rethink your letter. I guess that I don't see this as an insult. It's calling things the way that I see them. Perhaps you think that politicians should be treated with kid gloves. I don't. It might even get a smile from their staffers. :-) You know that the actual senator will never read the e-mail. -- Geoff |
"Eric Schneider" wrote
They responded by indicating that the bill has been sent to committee and they would take my concerns into consideration if/when the bill is presented to the full senate. That is almost word for word what mine wrote except that they quoted from the nice sounding first paragraph of the bill and ignored restrictions in the second. -- 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 |
"WaIIy" wrote
I see, Glenn.... all the democratic senators are against it? Wake up. As a mater of fact, yes. Of the 27 Senator who have gone on record against the bill all have been Democrats. To date, no Republican senators have spoken out against the bill. -- 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 |
WaIIy" wrote
Do you have a url about the ones against it? I couldn't find anything. Not everything is on the web but if you break away from the tube every now and then and put a little effort into it it is not hard to find out. I have been actively following this bill since April when it was introduced. I read newspapers and call around to lobbyist and political committees. Thus far I have talked to government relations people at: the NWS Employee's Union, Boat US, National Marine Manufacturers Association, National Boating Foundation and the AOPA. As of my last poll on June 29 the AOPA claims 31 Democrats. The others say 27. All have found the Republican senators to be uniformly non-committal on the subject. -- 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, |
Nomen Nescio ] wrote in
: That's how a Repub says he's going to ignore you... These people have no idea about how to treat constituents. Follow the Party Line, just like the Soviets did. The rich folks and corporations continue to benefit on the backs of the poor. Anyone who doesn't realize this nation is becoming a Fascist government doesn't know history... (Yawn)....doesn't matter who is in power...it's always the same. -- Larry |
(Yawn)....doesn't matter who is in power...it's always the same. -- Larry First intelligent political post I've seen in a while. Gordon |
"Gordon" wrote in
: First intelligent political post I've seen in a while. Gordon You may quote me, Gordon....(c; When the Dept of Transportation (the name of a bureaucracy, not a state-of-mind) had a dog and pony show about a new 8-lane parking lot they've now created near my home, as I predicted, I stood up in the public speaking time, pointed to the STUPIDEST traffic light in SC and said, "Good God, you're making it worse!" The lady ask if she could quote me in the newspaper. I agreed. They're resurrected my comment in a recent article on this pig, making me sound clairvoyant...(c; -- Larry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com