National Weather Service Bill: S. 786 (Santorum, R-PA) - 4/1

[Russell Turpin]

Some of the followup articles on this issue describe how some of AccuWeather's executives were heavy contributors to Santorum's campaign.

I think it is a fine thing for private companies to repackage and enhance weather data, and to sell the result. But I don't think they should get dibs on the data that has been created with my tax money. None of the private companies have any interest in doing the heavy lifting that goes into creating the data and models in the first place. The proposed bill is nothing but corporate welfare. It will hurt particularly those who have a special interest in the weather.

[SeaBelle]

The idea that the government with our tax dollars should collect data, the heavy lifting, but be prohibited from making those data available to us in a meaningful way is just plain crazy. The idea that the government is unfairly competing with private firms that repackage data just compounds this craziness.

It's not just weather data. What about charts? What about street maps? What about satellite photos?

I'm not against firms using government data, materially enhancing it, and reselling the product. For example, if a firm collects data about the location of businesses (restaurants, hotels, etc.), adds government collected street maps, and sells the result to the public, that's OK with me as long as the government data is available in usable form to the the citizenry.

Let's talk about charts. There is an international standard for ENCs , Electronic Nautical Charts, and many governments including ours are converting its data to this format. Current techology, specifically the internet, enables our government to distribute this information very inexpensively. There is no good reason to give private firms the right to distribute these charts TO THE EXCLUSION of our government freely distributing it to us.

Let me be very clear. I have no objection to private firms doing their own heavy lifting and owning the results of their labor.

[bobdugan]

Hey guys,

This thread is about Rick Santorum's whacko bill to destroy the Weather Bureau, not about climate change. NOAA's weather data is helpful to all sailors, no matter what their position on other issues.

Let's get back on message, please.

--Joe Myerson

Several messages were deleted to get the discussion back on track.

Bob (Assistant to the Assistant Webmaster)

[Joe Myerson]

Hi Jack:

I wholeheartedly agree with your point, and so, apparently, does NOAA.
As Didereaux and others have pointed out in another thread, raster (scanned) charts are being made available in free, dowloadable and software-compatible form by NOAA. These will be easier for most of us to use than the existing vector-formatted ENCs.

They've started with the Chesapeake region, but one can only hope they move north and east soon.

On the Santorum thread: The trade association for commercial weather companies (call 'em lobbyists, or sleazeballs if you want) has actually set up a web site promoting the Senator's shameless bill (which is going nowhere, as is, I hope, Santorum's re-election campaign). It's called, in typical Washington style:

www.freetheweather.com

because, of course, it's really about making us pay for the weather.

Don't visit that website unless you need a good shot of outrage to get your morning going.

--Joe Myerson

[Andy Denmark]

First, thanks to Rich for pointing out this obvious political cronyism.

This topic was posted back in the spring and the same thing happened that is happening now. The immediacy of this vote is now upon us and Rich has pointed out that we need to respond with letters to our senators and congressmen. Got that? Letters to our senators and congressmen --- NOW.

What we got instead of the sense of urgency that this subject should inspire was a forum where the very mention of weather caused some (Joe Baltar, aka elbows wychulis as the leadoff) to get on their soapboxes and go off with global warming rants, political reactionaries to tear loose on their criticisms of a (admittedly dumbass) senator, the value of the NWS (my God, isn't that obvious?), charts from the government, ad nauseum.

All of these things are pertinent, some in better context than others, but that isn't the point Rich is trying to make. All of these topics can be discussed later down the board. What seems to have happened (again) is that the focus of the poster's message has been lost in the clutter of personal agendas.

What is necessary, and soon if our input is to have any affect, is to take the few minutes necessary to fire off a few letters to the appropriate legislators expressing your views about this. After mailing your letters then we can get back to the topics addressed in the other aspects of this thread.

I wrote the same letter to my congressmen and senators back in the spring, changing only the addresses, and received meaningless replies (typical, I'm afraid -- after all Santorum is on line to make a bid for the presidency next time around and none of the NC Republicans want to go against his agendas or risk losing favor) After that is done we can get back to the topics that make this board the great forum that it is.

The vote on this Bill is right around the corner. Wait too long and your input will be meaningless. I read this to be the point Rich was trying to make to us all.

As they say down here in NC, "git 'er done!"[/b]
________
Arizona Dispensaries

[bilofsky]

Did I miss something? Maybe one of the deleted messages referred to an upcoming vote?

According to this page on Thomas, it's in the Senate Commerce Committee, whose members are listed on this page. The chair is Ted Stevens from Alaska, where I suspect they consider NOAA to be rather useful.

[Joe Myerson]

Andy et al:

"Git 'em" is right!

This overt effort to pay back a big contributor (Senate Bill 786) is still bottled-up in committee, and, according to Gov-Track.com, it has no co-sponsors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't all send letters to each member of the committee. It could still reappear as a rider to some other bill.

And (webmaster, I hope I'm not getting off base here) Santorum is up for re-election. (PA members, take note.) Should he actually run for President in 2008, nobody who cares about the weather should forget this prime example of legislation-for-sale!

Getting off my soapbox, I'd be happy to send copies of the letters I sent back in April to all the Senators on the committee. I think it's safe to say that the bill won't go far, but that disgusting website is still up there.

--Joe Myerson
(Sorry for the indignation, but I'm a weather-radio addict, even in the off-season.)

[Andy Denmark]

After the spring posting on this topic I had a chance to talk with the son of one of my old sailing friends in Annapolis who is a full-time, paid lobbyist. He is astounded by the lobbying effort focused on getting passage of this bill. According to him, some of the most influential lobbyists on Capitol Hill are pushing passage of this Bill very hard.

Evidently Santorum has a lot of power and is not afraid to use it by insisting on favors from Commerce Committee members. The Committee is being pressed hard by these lobbyists to get this Bill out to a vote, not kill it. While this seems unlikely on the surface because of the Committee's makeup, there's a strong undercurrent pressing diligently to move it forward to ultimate passage.

As Joe says, the realistic place to stop this deadly Bill is in Committee. If it comes before the House and Senate for a vote then its passage is virtually guaranteed due to the majority's affiliation with Santorum (and their fascination with him as a front-running presidential candidate. There's a scary proposition!)

I use the term "deadly" because I believe that lives will be lost if this becomes a for-pay service. It won't be the fat cat in his 60 ft. Hatteras' but the old man with his grandkids fishing from his 14 ft. aluminum skiff who can no longer get the weather channel on his handheld VHF because it now costs $19.95 per year!

Like Joe, if anyone is interested in the letters I sent and the dicy responses I received back, I'll be happy to send copies to anyone who PM's me for same. The lack of a stance from either of NC's two senators is truly disgusting and I know several folks here who got the same "form letters" I received that say essentially nothing.

I urge everyone who reads this to write their Senators and Representatives now to stop this awful piece of legislation that will negatively impact so many people.
________
Michigan Medical Marijuana Dispensary

[Oswego John]

Andy and Joe,

What is this bill called. I see in another earlier post something referred to as Senate Bill 786. When we write , is that what we call it?

Later,
O J

[rtbates]

If you can find out who gives the biggest bucks to his election efforts I bet you'll find out WHY he supports this bill. IT'S BIG BUSINESS, WEATHER, I'd venture to guess.

[Andy Denmark]

Here are the particulars as I know them:


S. 786, the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005


This Bill was introduced by Senator Rick Santorum on April 14, 2005
________
MARIJUANA BUBBLER

[Joe Myerson]

Andy's got the bill's number and title right. He's also got me scared; I thought this puppy was dead, rather than still deadly.

Randy: AccuWeather, with headquarters in State College, Pennsylvania, is a major contributor to Senator Santorum. The co-owners of AccuWeather made a small contribution before the bill was introduced. Imediately afterwards, they upped their contribution, so it took a while for it to show up in the public record.

The sleazy web site called "freetheweather.com" is hosted by the trade association for commercial weather companies.

Being located in Massachusetts, I'm not sure how much impact my letters to Senators from other states had. But those Senators on the Commerce Committee who are not from coastal states all have agricultural or hunting-and-fishing interests, and each of those groups should be vitally interested in Weather Service forecasts and data.

FWIW, the organizations representing professional and amateur airplane pilots have come out strongly against this piece of trash, and "Offshore," "Sail," "Good Old Boat," and--I think--"Cruising World" have all published editorials against the bill. I didn't check the powerboat magazines, but they should also be calliing on their readers to write letters.

Some of the committee members will only accept e-mail letters from constituents, so I ended up using Snail Mail for many of my letters. I got less-than-meaningful responses from some, and silence from the rest of them.

Still, this is a good time to send out letters. We need to remember the navigator's creed: Constant Vigilance!


--Joe Myerson

[Joe Myerson]

I posted this back in April, but here's a link with the names of all the Senators on the appropriate committee:

http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html

--Joe Myerson

[John D.]

The House of Representatives has already reported this out of committee, House Report 109-118, Commerce Appropriations Bill FY2006:

"The Committee urges the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service to take maximum advantage of capabilities and services that already exist in the commercial sector to eliminate duplication and maximize the accomplishment of the core mission of the National Weather Service."

That is straight from the AccuWeather script.

Don't get used to the free, online charts either, because the same report says:

"The Committee notes that NOAA is examining its current contracting strategy and exploring means to achieve expansion of contracting opportunities with the private sector in mapping and charting. The Committee understands that NOAA expects to publish a final, updated contracting policy by March 2006."

The majority leadership in this Congress have been excluding the minority from final conference committee decisions, and have brought "reconciliation" between differing Senate-House bills to new heights (lows?), with laws being made up from scratch in closed conference sessions. If Santorum is on the conference commitee, this could become law.

So, call your representatives also, not just your Senators.

John D.
CD27 "Lilypad"
Maryland's 1st Congressional District
(represented by Wayne Gilchrest - R)

[bilofsky]

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) replied to my email:

"The NWS provides a reliable and effective public service that is utilized by over six million Americans each day. S.786 eliminates this valuable service and unfairly penalizes people by requiring them to pay for information that should be available free of charge. This bill is
currently in the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member. Rest assured that I am not in favor of this bill and that I will work with my colleagues to prevent this bill from reaching the full Senate floor. "