I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought
I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by
the Associated Press.

According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,
the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm
with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability
of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for
free to the general public. Among the products removed from public
access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS
would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and
the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided
by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and
repackage it for target markets."

According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.
Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the
National Weather Service, his political action committee received a
$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading
provider of weather data."

If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might
want to contact the senators from your state.

John

On 30 May 2005 15:16:26 -0700, wrote:

I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought
I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by
the Associated Press.

According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,
the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm
with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability
of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for
free to the general public. Among the products removed from public
access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS
would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and
the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided
by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and
repackage it for target markets."

According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.
Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the
National Weather Service, his political action committee received a
$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading
provider of weather data."

If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might
want to contact the senators from your state.

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promotio...e=wxinfoaccess




Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

I prefer to believe the news sources rather than accuweather, which
would stand to gain from any restrictions placed on information
disseminated by NOAA. You can choose to believe a for-profit
competitor, but I don't.

John

On 30 May 2005 16:56:21 -0700, wrote:

I prefer to believe the news sources rather than accuweather, which
would stand to gain from any restrictions placed on information
disseminated by NOAA. You can choose to believe a for-profit
competitor, but I don't.

What I believe in is listening to both sides and developing my opinion
based on all aspects of the issue - not just one.

Take the time to read the bill, listen to both sides, then make up
your mind.

Just for the record, if you go back a few days when this first came
up, I made my opinion known. Go find it.

Later,

Tom

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:11:34 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Take the time to read the bill, listen to both sides, then make up your
mind.

Sec. 2 b seems to state that only severe warnings will be issued. I'm
not a lawyer, but that's how I read it.

The text of the bill can be found he

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:24:08 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:11:34 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Take the time to read the bill, listen to both sides, then make up your
mind.

Sec. 2 b seems to state that only severe warnings will be issued. I'm
not a lawyer, but that's how I read it.

The text of the bill can be found he

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786:

While you are correct, that has always been the case actually. The
meat of the bill is in 2.c.

Elliot Abrams has been after this for years. His contention is that
the NWS is holding back information to release to the public before it
is released to the private sector. In effect, he is saying that the
NWS is violating the "no compete" clause of NOAA/NWS charter to
provide hydrological and climatological information and data to all
parties involved.

He has a valid argument. The NWS is chartered to protect life and
property by issuing warnings of severe or potentially severe weather
and they do exactly that - issuing the warning first, then
disseminating the information to other concerned parties. In effect
the news agencies and private weather agencies are anywhere from five
to fifteen minutes behind the NWS in providing the same information to
the public.

As an example, I have a pretty extensive weather station here and I
provide real time data to the NWS in Taunton during severe weather
situations in particular during the summer. Being a amateur radio
operator, I also am a observer and I can report to the NWS using
either packet reporting, online data or voice confirmation via
telephone or radio. In a sense, I know what's going on pretty much
before the NWS does, but my point is that the NWS has access to all my
data, and the data of other weather observers in the area, as part of
their data collecting effort. They use this information to develop
threat assessments which they then issue to the public first.

What the bill proposes to address is not limiting the information that
is given to the public by the NWS, but to give equal access to the
information to all concerned parties - the public and private weather
agencies. Which means that they want the data that I privately
provide to the NWS voluntarily - I'm not sure I want to do that. In
particular I spent a lot of money on this over the years and I do it
not only as a hobby, but as a service to the public agency that is
charged with providing data.

My concern is that by giving equal access to the real time information
to everybody at the same time creates a logjam of information and the
very real possibility of misinformation being promulgated by competing
business interests. The possibility that the Weather Channel and
AccuWeather putting out different severe weather forecasts (which by
the way is not all that unusual) for areas far from where they are
located begs for creating a disaster by competition.

The NWS has several local offices at various places around the country
and are staffed with full time meteorologists who are familiar with
local conditions, patterns and information. AccuWeather and the
Weather Channel cannot hope, even with the information, to provide
that kind of local "nuance" with respect to weather.

I'm four square on the side of the NWS on this one - if AccuWeather or
the Weather Channel want the real time data, let them access it as a
cost of doing business - it will help offset the costs of the NWS to
boot. :)

Sorry for the rant.

Later,

Tom

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought
I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by
the Associated Press.

According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,
the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm
with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability
of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for
free to the general public. Among the products removed from public
access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS
would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and
the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided
by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and
repackage it for target markets."

According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.
Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the
National Weather Service, his political action committee received a
$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading
provider of weather data."

If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might
want to contact the senators from your state.

If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, then
you know
what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:23:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought
I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by
the Associated Press.

According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,
the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm
with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability
of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for
free to the general public. Among the products removed from public
access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS
would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and
the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided
by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and
repackage it for target markets."

According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.
Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the
National Weather Service, his political action committee received a
$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading
provider of weather data."

If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might
want to contact the senators from your state.

If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, then
you know what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA
sucks.

Just a tad of hyperbole there me thinks. Up around here, they are
pretty good. And if you are used to an area, you know damn well when
the wind is from the SW 10-15 you'd best stay the hell out of Fisher's
Island Sound. :)

But that wasn't the point of the discussion - the use of publicly paid
for data to be used exclusively by private interests and all the
attendant complications and implications for the future was the
discussion.

Later,

Tom

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:23:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought
I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by
the Associated Press.

According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,
the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm
with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability
of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for
free to the general public. Among the products removed from public
access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS
would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and
the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided
by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and
repackage it for target markets."

According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.
Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the
National Weather Service, his political action committee received a
$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading
provider of weather data."

If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might
want to contact the senators from your state.

If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water,
then
you know what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA
sucks.

Just a tad of hyperbole there me thinks. Up around here, they are
pretty good. And if you are used to an area, you know damn well when
the wind is from the SW 10-15 you'd best stay the hell out of Fisher's
Island Sound. :)

But that wasn't the point of the discussion - the use of publicly paid
for data to be used exclusively by private interests and all the
attendant complications and implications for the future was the
discussion.

I think publicly-paid-for-data should be available equally to *all* at no
charge...and that includes private companies. Afterall, they pay taxes too.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:50:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:23:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought
I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by
the Associated Press.

According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,
the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm
with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability
of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for
free to the general public. Among the products removed from public
access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS
would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and
the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided
by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and
repackage it for target markets."

According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.
Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the
National Weather Service, his political action committee received a
$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading
provider of weather data."

If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might
want to contact the senators from your state.

If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water,
then
you know what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA
sucks.

Just a tad of hyperbole there me thinks. Up around here, they are
pretty good. And if you are used to an area, you know damn well when
the wind is from the SW 10-15 you'd best stay the hell out of Fisher's
Island Sound. :)

But that wasn't the point of the discussion - the use of publicly paid
for data to be used exclusively by private interests and all the
attendant complications and implications for the future was the
discussion.

I think publicly-paid-for-data should be available equally to *all* at no
charge...and that includes private companies. Afterall, they pay taxes too.

I agree, but you need to look beyond being fair. There hasn't been,
in this discussion, any argument against sharing the data. The
problem is what use that data is being put to and just how it will
affect the functionality of the NWS.

The discussion pretty much detailed what and where the problems might
lay with this proposal.

Read through the thread - it's pretty interesting even if I say so
myself. :)

Later,

Tom