Scary thought here, but there's a bill in Congress that would apparently make it illegal for the government to compete with private weather suppliers. This means they would have to pull down their website and not offer anything for free, except in cases to protect "life and property." So... no more NWS website, and maybe a cut back NHC, JTWC, etc.
I can't believe this could actually happen. What do you think?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/con ... _0421.html
Free NWS weather could be going away
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.
-
The Big Dog
- Category 5
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:30 am
- Location: West Palm Beach, FL
-
chadtm80
We have been discussing this all day here as well
http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... 60&start=0
http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... 60&start=0
0 likes
-
george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Carbondale, Pennsylvania
-
The Big Dog
- Category 5
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:30 am
- Location: West Palm Beach, FL
chadtm80 wrote:We have been discussing this all day here as well
http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... 60&start=0
Yeah, I just saw it in the hurricane forum, too. Don't know how I missed that. You can delete this one if you want.
0 likes
-
donsutherland1
- S2K Analyst
- Posts: 2718
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Free NWS weather could be going away
This legislation, which goes beyond its author’s stated rationale of addressing the termination of the National Weather Service’s (NWS) former "non-competition and non-duplication" policy, is not a good idea.
Briefly, its conforming amendments restrict the National Weather Service's broad mandate of " the issue of storm warnings, the display of weather and flood signals for the benefit of agriculture, commerce, and navigation..." to the much narrower "issuance of severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public."
This represents not a restoration of the "non-competition and non-duplication" policy Senator Santorum uses as the rationale for introducing the legislation, but a dramatic scaling back of the scope of National Weather Service's ability to issue warnings. Expressly excluded is the ability of the National Weather Service to further develop its products/services for the interest of agriculture. Indeed, the second conforming amendment strikes the existing language that states such a authority ("and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to prepare future estimates for the National Weather Service which shall be specially developed and extended in the interests of agriculture" would be removed).
Aside from its adverse impact on the National Weather Service, I believe that this legislation would also have an anti-competitive impact on the private sector, mainly by protecting larger concerns from possible competition from smaller rivals/independent forecasters. Should the NWS be restricted in distributing or refining its products, which it developed with taxpayer dollars, it could actually drive smaller concerns and independent meteorologists from the marketplace by making the real acquisition costs of these critical tools cost-prohibitive.
The basic tools--data, model output, radars, etc.--offered by the NWS should remain as widely available as possible. In a proper sense, these tools are commodities from which value-added products/services e.g., forecasts are derived.
What the Santorum legislation would achieve is not solely preventing the NWS from entering into existing markets in which the private sector already competes for profits. Instead, it would use the legislative process to carve a new profit center out of the public domain by limiting others' access to tools with which smaller organizations and independent meteorologists could compete.
If such tools were suddenly made cost-prohibitive on account of the NWS's being prohibited from offering or enhancing them, it would effectively cut off smaller concerns and independent forecasters from competing with their larger rivals. Increased barriers to competition would stifle entrepreneurship, reduce innovation, and inhibit the growth of competitive excellence. In such an environment, value added would slow and long-run forecasting accuracy would probably be less than would otherwise be the case.
In the end, it is one thing to prevent the NWS from competing with the private sector from its offering customized value-added products and services to markets currently served by the private sector. I'm all for such a policy. However, it is an entirely different matter to bar the NWS from offering tools from which possible competitors could develop value added products/services to gain a foothold or expand market share in the private meteorological services marketplace.
Briefly, its conforming amendments restrict the National Weather Service's broad mandate of " the issue of storm warnings, the display of weather and flood signals for the benefit of agriculture, commerce, and navigation..." to the much narrower "issuance of severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public."
This represents not a restoration of the "non-competition and non-duplication" policy Senator Santorum uses as the rationale for introducing the legislation, but a dramatic scaling back of the scope of National Weather Service's ability to issue warnings. Expressly excluded is the ability of the National Weather Service to further develop its products/services for the interest of agriculture. Indeed, the second conforming amendment strikes the existing language that states such a authority ("and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to prepare future estimates for the National Weather Service which shall be specially developed and extended in the interests of agriculture" would be removed).
Aside from its adverse impact on the National Weather Service, I believe that this legislation would also have an anti-competitive impact on the private sector, mainly by protecting larger concerns from possible competition from smaller rivals/independent forecasters. Should the NWS be restricted in distributing or refining its products, which it developed with taxpayer dollars, it could actually drive smaller concerns and independent meteorologists from the marketplace by making the real acquisition costs of these critical tools cost-prohibitive.
The basic tools--data, model output, radars, etc.--offered by the NWS should remain as widely available as possible. In a proper sense, these tools are commodities from which value-added products/services e.g., forecasts are derived.
What the Santorum legislation would achieve is not solely preventing the NWS from entering into existing markets in which the private sector already competes for profits. Instead, it would use the legislative process to carve a new profit center out of the public domain by limiting others' access to tools with which smaller organizations and independent meteorologists could compete.
If such tools were suddenly made cost-prohibitive on account of the NWS's being prohibited from offering or enhancing them, it would effectively cut off smaller concerns and independent forecasters from competing with their larger rivals. Increased barriers to competition would stifle entrepreneurship, reduce innovation, and inhibit the growth of competitive excellence. In such an environment, value added would slow and long-run forecasting accuracy would probably be less than would otherwise be the case.
In the end, it is one thing to prevent the NWS from competing with the private sector from its offering customized value-added products and services to markets currently served by the private sector. I'm all for such a policy. However, it is an entirely different matter to bar the NWS from offering tools from which possible competitors could develop value added products/services to gain a foothold or expand market share in the private meteorological services marketplace.
0 likes
-
snow_wizzard
- Category 4
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:15 am
- Location: Covington, WA
-
chadtm80
snow_wizzard wrote:This crap is beyond belief! As a lifelong Republican I am appalled by what is going on under the Bush administration. I think it is time for people who love the weather to write to their congressmen and Senators!
I am appalled too, but Bush dosent have anything to do with it
0 likes
-
NWIASpotter
- Category 5
- Posts: 1961
- Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:58 pm
- Location: Terril, Iowa & Ames, Iowa
- Contact:
-
The Big Dog
- Category 5
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:30 am
- Location: West Palm Beach, FL
NWIASpotter wrote:Does anybody watch this stuff carefully enough to let us know where exactly this bill is at??
I'm assuming right now it is just on the table, which means it may not even get anywhere for years the way the system works... LOL...
It's apparently still in committee, and someone on the thread in the political forum said that Santorum hasn't found any co-sponsors yet.
0 likes
-
donsutherland1
- S2K Analyst
- Posts: 2718
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:49 pm
- Location: New York
NWIASpotter,
The bill was introduced on April 14 and referred to the appropriate committee that has jurisdiction over such legislation. Whether or not hearings are scheduled remains to be seen.
In my view, this legislation likely will not enjoy strong support. Indeed, there is a piece of bipartisan legislation introduced by Michigan's Congressman Ehlers-R (H.R. 50) that would preserve the integrity of the National Weather service: http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109 ... C7C:e13957:
Having said this, I believe it is important that one e-mail the members of the Senate Commerce Committee. I will certainly be doing so.
The bill was introduced on April 14 and referred to the appropriate committee that has jurisdiction over such legislation. Whether or not hearings are scheduled remains to be seen.
In my view, this legislation likely will not enjoy strong support. Indeed, there is a piece of bipartisan legislation introduced by Michigan's Congressman Ehlers-R (H.R. 50) that would preserve the integrity of the National Weather service: http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109 ... C7C:e13957:
Having said this, I believe it is important that one e-mail the members of the Senate Commerce Committee. I will certainly be doing so.
0 likes
-
Brent
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 38095
- Age: 37
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
- Contact:
chadtm80 wrote:snow_wizzard wrote:This crap is beyond belief! As a lifelong Republican I am appalled by what is going on under the Bush administration. I think it is time for people who love the weather to write to their congressmen and Senators!
I am appalled too, but Bush dosent have anything to do with it
If he signs it...
0 likes
#neversummer
Return to “USA & Caribbean Weather”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CaptinCrunch and 16 guests