Should Taxpayers Pay Twice For Weather Data? 359
theodp writes "Thanks to O.M.B. Circular A-130, taxpayers now enjoy free access to SEC, Patent Office, and IRS data over the Internet. Now the Bush administration must decide whether to order the National Weather Service to make taxpayer-funded weather readings freely available on the Net, ignoring complaints from an industry trade group that doing so violates pre-Internet era agreements."
Re:Uh oh..? (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps they just didn't bother to read the weather report. Much of the data is provide free (see the BOM [bom.gov.au]) and updated regularly.
Public Property (Score:5, Informative)
Data our taxes pay for, is public domain.
I don't think the courts would allow it any other way (should it get that far). If it does... think about what this could lead to:
- private companies like lexis-nexus being the only access to things like the Library of congress?
- private news networks the only way to read bills proposed on the state or federal level?
- Law Student need to read cases? Be prepaired to pay CourtTV several hundred dollars a month for access.
The Supreme Court is pretty conservative by any account, and tend to favor business over citizens rights (in the past 10 years)... but there's no way even they would let this one slip by.
Even their statements: public domain.
Data government creates is for the people.
You mean... (Score:4, Informative)
did anyone even read the article? (Score:5, Informative)
This article had nothing to do with making current weather information free! It is allready free, the US has the best weather service in the world, is the top country in the world for weather research, and its all FREE!! Check out MeteoFrance's website, you have to pay for info. Before you have a knee-jerk reaction: RTFA.
Personally, I don't think its a big issue, the only people who need a CD of archived data for the whole US would be researchers. As far as if you were curious about old weather data for your hometown you could probably go to your local weather field office and ask them for it (or check their website).
Re:Part of their mission statement (Score:5, Informative)
Private industry wants to take over actually collecting the data. They can't tell the NWS what to do with data the NWS collects, but they want to take collection of data out of the NWS' control. That's what the article is saying.
What's so wrong about this is research is rarely profitable in a short period of time. Industry is about impressing shareholders as much as it is about producing a product. I'm of the opinion that taking data collection out of the hands of the government will stifle research to improve our ability to collect this data.
This is extremely important, especially in areas such as radar. The WSR-88D radars, many of which were deployed in the early 1990s, were developed through years of research. They have the important feature that their predecessors don't of being able to detect motion, not just reflectivity. This allows meteorologists to detect things such as rotation and better issue warnings (particularly tornado warnings)! It's important that this research continue.
That's really why private industry's stance on this is dangerous and flawed.
You have a misconception of copyright... (Score:3, Informative)
Data isn't "public domain" - it's free, because you can't copyright data at all.
What MAY be covered by copyright is a PRESENTATION of data - i.e. a photo, diagram, map, etc. I can freely distribute a list of temperatures at various coordinates if I can get a copy of it no matter who first obtained that data, but I can only distribute a color-coded map of that data with permission from that map's creator.
Re:Uh oh..? (Score:3, Informative)
1: Steal Underpants
2: ???
3: Profit!
Canada (Score:2, Informative)
For example, Environment Canada [ec.gc.ca] has tons of information available, including:
Please note that most of the time the above linked pages state "CDROM", there is a link near to an ISO! (e.g. the line For those with a high speed Internet connection a HYDAT CD-ROM image [ec.gc.ca] (105MB ZIP) is available for download.")
NWS Does Offer WAP Services Already... (Score:3, Informative)
Article summary is hyper-incorrect, as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, the already-made decision has been covered by slashdot, not once, but twice! (If a duplicate story is "dupe", perhaps an incorrect triplicate story should be referred to, appropriately, as "tripe".)
And the answer is a resounding no, taxpayers will NOT have to "pay twice" for access to weather data.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week began providing weather data in an open-access XML format, alleviating concerns that commercial providers would continue to play a dominant role in how weather data gets to the public.
"The public should not have to pay twice for access to basic government information that has been created at taxpayer expense," wrote Ari Schwartz, an associate director of the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, in a July 28, 2004, essay.
Earlier this year, NOAA made the data available in XML as a test, called the National Digital Forecast Database. After receiving comments from the public and commercial providers, the agency made the decision permanent this week. Now anyone can get information in an XML format directly from the National Digital Forecast Database website.
Full story [wired.com]
slashdot coverage #1 [slashdot.org]
slashdot coverage #2 [slashdot.org]
Of course, this information has always been publicly accessible: it's just a matter of ease. The National Weather Service now makes its weather feeds accessible to anyone in open formats [weather.gov], like XML and RSS. Of course the commercial weather reporting industry is against it: surprise, surprise.
Re:Part of their mission statement (Score:5, Informative)
That used to be correct. You, Private Citizen, have always been free to collect the raw data from the NOAA. The policy the commercial weather firms arranged with the NOAA fourteen years ago was a statement that the NOAA wouldn't compete with the commercial firms, in terms of providing "finished" content.
I think the "competition" you were asking about occurred in 2003 when the NOAA started experimenting with making "point forecasts" available to the public: the weather firms cried foul. The NOAA decided to revisit their policy last year, and they requested public comment. The public outcry was loud and clear: if the NOAA was processing data at public expense, the NOAA was expected to make the processed data available to the public. And, surprisingly enough, it became their new policy despite complaints from the commercial firms. It's called the "Fair Weather Policy". [noaa.gov]
So, the point forecasts are now available on-line. [weather.gov] How has that changed things? Not much. People still turn to the local TV station for weather in the morning, and they tune in to The Weather Channel if they're heading to the beach or the mountains.
I think where the main effect has been felt is in the industrial sector. For example, concrete companies typically rely on a very precise two hour forecast to ensure their new sidewalks won't get rained on. They used to pay lots of money to private meterologists who "insured" their forecasts (for $499.00 we'll guarantee you'll see no rain in the next two hours or we pay you $10,000.) But with NOAA point forecasts available, as a concrete company I'd be likely to take my own chances regarding rain.
Re:Part of their mission statement (Score:5, Informative)
The data is already processed. Those images you see are just representations over level III data plotted over base maps. They already produce all of that level 3 data.
So, the only thing they would be doing is plotting data they've already got.
By the way, you're also incorrect about the government's priorities. After posting, I examined the NWS site and apparently they're creating new images for some radars which plot the data over a view of the terrain. And they've also produced some radial velocity images along with it. This data isn't available for most of the radar sites, but it is being developed.
Furthermore, not too long ago, the NHC was requesting comments on modifying some of its images issued to the public.
If the NWS didn't feel these things were important, would they be doing these things?
Re:Actually (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Part of their mission statement (Score:5, Informative)
What's new here is the technology allows the NWS to provide forecast data for an exact location. It was simply a byproduct of producing an accurate forecast. The NWS simply stuck on a web front end to allow everyone access to it.
I still think the industry is not going to serve themselves well by pushing this into Congress. Right now, the vast majority of the public is blissfully unaware that if they type weather.gov instead of weather.com into their browsers, they get good local information with no advertising. Once the Commercial Weather Services Association starts raising a stink in the Senate, I think the NWS is going to make a lot of front pages around the country. I believe the NWS will get a lot more customers at the expense of The Weather Channel.
robber barons, then and now (Score:4, Informative)
What do you mean, used to
* Prescott Bush and Union Bank [google.com]
* Savings and Loan Scandal [google.com]
* Ken Lay and Enron [google.com]
-kgj
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-- Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
[Source [ratical.org]]
At least it's +5 Funny (Score:2, Informative)
There's no shortage of gross, inexcusable fuckups [salon.com] by Bush. Whatever the govt's eventual position, this doesn't even register.
But sure, go ahead and paint all critics as desperate nitpickers. Good luck with that. It's almost as good as the much cherished "straw man" technique.
Re:Raw, unadulterated data... (Score:3, Informative)
For those needing aviation data, the
*Rawinsonde - A radio transmitter attached to a balloon that transmits pressure, temperature, and humidity data back to a base station so that the composition of the atmosphere can be determined.
Re:That long silence you hear... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the long silence is us trying to figure out what the hell this political story posing as a tech story is trying to portray.
The data from the Weather Service has been free for quite a while now. I've been involved with the NWS's SKYWARN program for over a decade, and have witnessed the emancipation of weather data first hand.
I remember when the only source of doppler radar data was Intellicast, and the free data updated every 15 minutes (or more). Starting in 1994, the Modernization Act not only streamlined the NWS and upgraded the radar technology, it also improved the amount of data and its accuracy being presented to the public.
During the Clinton administration, the NWS had initiative to push weather data into all the EMA offices. This resulted in the EMWIN system that provided free satelite weather data, and its internet based system INWIN. Now all the weather services have a homepage that provides the weather observations, now casts, forcast discussions, satellite pictures, and doppler radar data that is updated every 7 minutes (which is impressive, since it takes 7 minutes for the doppler radar to do a full scan).Raw data have been available for quite some time using FTP transfer protocol.
So after witnessing all these improvements during the 8 years of the Clinton administration, am I suppose to pretend that this is a Bush initiative that will happen soon?
THE BIG LIE (reposted) (Score:3, Informative)
The internet weather companies, and their front organization, are continually propagating the lie that "these services already exist" in the private sector. The fact is that they are trying to steal the commons and then charge the community for access to it. They DO NOT launch their own weather satellites, NOR do they build and man their own NexRad radar sites. They get the weather data THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES AT TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE and repackage it with talking heads and lots of ads, except that the product they deliver is often 15 or more minutes behind the actual weather, minutes that can mean the difference between life and death when a tornado is bearing down. NOAA NextRad sites are usually less than 7 minutes or less behind the actual weather. I can access the Omaha site and determine the approaching weather within 7 minutes of accuracy. The Weather channel makes available only 75 access points to cover the entire country. Lincoln is not one of them, so I am stuck with a North Central regional map. Not very handy if I wanted to determine last spring if the F4 tornado that hit Hallam 20 miles to the south west was going to roll over Lincoln or pass south of it. The desktop access app from the Weather Channel would cost me $60/year and is a box smaller in size than the NOAA nexrad animations, but it is surrounded by tons of ads which cycle constantly, eating bandwidth and slowing response time for the actual weather information update.
The reason why the weather companies are taking this political tack (Part Duce) is because they lost a recent PUBLIC battle to persuade NOAA sites to shut down public access. NOAA requested public input on the question and recieved over 1,400 responsible replies. The response was in favor of continuing free public access to NOAA weather sites by a ratio of better than 99 to 1. Now they are working behind CLOSED DOORS lobbying congress and , no doubt, buying with 'campaign donations' what their poor logic couldn't win in the court of public opinion.
Re:They should not be forced to do this. (Score:4, Informative)
try this out, goto the NOAA aviation website and do a TAF (terminal area forecast) aka the local weather. You'll have to put in an airport so try KPMD (Palmdale airport, Palmdale CA) You have two options raw data or translated
Here are the two so you can see the difference.
KPMD 241130Z 241212 23008KT P6SM SKC
FM1500 VRB03KT P6SM SCT200
FM0100 24008KT P6SM BKN100
and translated
Forecast for: KPMD
Text: KPMD 241130Z 241212 23008KT P6SM SKC
Forecast period: 1200 to 1500 UTC 24 January 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (230 degrees) at 9 MPH (8 knots; 4.2 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: clear skies
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period
Text: FM1500 VRB03KT P6SM SCT200
Forecast period: 1500 UTC 24 January 2005 to 0100 UTC 25 January 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: variable direction winds at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period
Text: FM0100 24008KT P6SM BKN100
Forecast period: 0100 to 1200 UTC 25 January 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the WSW (240 degrees) at 9 MPH (8 knots; 4.2 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 10000 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 10000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period
The whole point for the coding was for bandwidth since this info use to be sent out by teletype, which by the way is the same information the weather stations use to provide the weather. The only ones that provide better local coveral are the ones that have their own weather radar, but they are far and few between.
You can goto http://www.weather.gov/ [weather.gov] to see what they are screaming about it's even simpler than the aviation site.
The cost out of pocket to the tax payers a year is about $3 each and it might cost an extra nickle to provide the automated websites. Money well spent in my book.