New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data 567
ckokotay writes "Here we go again. Apparently for-pay weather companies (specifically Accuweather) have lobbied Senator Rick Santorum to introduce a bill to ban the National Weather Service from 'competing.' The NOAA just made data available for free on the internet in XML format. Essentially, that means no more free data, and the possible elimination of the NOAA web presence all together. Nothing like being able to buy off a clueless Senator - lets hope the rest do not fall in line, as I for one, do not like to pay for my information twice." This debate picks up where the last one left off. According to the article, the bill's biggest critics are complaining of the bill's vague wording which makes it unclear what exactly is being banned.
Contact the senator (Score:5, Informative)
Google Santorum (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Contact the senator (Score:5, Informative)
Many senators are just conduits for corruption. (Score:2, Informative)
There are many, many senators and representatives who are just conduits for corruption. Most people in the U.S. are overwhelmed and just don't want to know how corrupt their government is.
I wrote a short article that discusses a small percentage of that corruption -- Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]
You're going to have a lot of angry pilots... (Score:1, Informative)
Yet another stupid bill brought to you by Corporate America(R).
Better yet... (Score:3, Informative)
Santorum, Rick- (R - PA) Class I
511 DIRKSEN
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: santorum.senate.gov/contactform.cfm [senate.gov]
Source [senate.gov]
Bill text (Score:5, Informative)
What about GOES? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My own private army... (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is, it's cheap! Only $3550.00 [nictusa.com] for the favor.
(Thanks to BooBoo at Fark for the link)
a coordinated, but funny effort (Score:3, Informative)
International agreements. say it must be free (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that by agreement national weather services share data with each other without charge - other than data distribution charges.
If the US started to charge for this, they might run into problems with (say) the UKMO.
It is standard practice for met organisations to make their model data freely available, Environment Canada does this:
http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/grib/index_e.html
The WMO lays it out pretty clearly:
http://www.wmo.ch/web/pla/Res40Cg-XII.d
If the US govt decides not to offer XML anymore, that's fine, they'll probably have to provide the grib... Grib is a lot bigger than the XML...
Google for "free grib data". GRIB is the file format used by the computer models.
So, if we really wanted to, we could parse the GRIB data and relay it as XML for everyone else.
Jason Pollock
Call the Senator Rick Santorum (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Canadian Open Source Weather (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Contact the senator (Score:4, Informative)
Now, using the web forms and e-mail is probably useless. You need to print it out, sign it in blue ink, put a stamp on it, and mail it. Which very few slashdotters will ever do.
sPh
good ole ricky boy ... (Score:2, Informative)
maybe he's right
Re:The proper response... (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks, Google.
The Bill's number is S.786
Title: A bill to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Re:Canadian Open Source Weather (Score:3, Informative)
This likely expains why radar maps and forecasts are unavailable for my city.
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA. Don't rely on biased
It may work like in Germany (Score:3, Informative)
Weather spotter necessity (Score:5, Informative)
I just returned from spotting in extreme southwest Iowa (and am actually headed back out, as we have flash flooding to assess). I'm a trained weather spotter (not a chaser, mind you) and am an amateur radio operator. I'm one of two active spotters covering the far southwest-most county. Unlike spotting in a major metro (where I was first active), rural spotting often requires you work without a lot of coordination from net control at the NWS offices. We have to move to cover the storm, and this requires we watch NWS radar data very closely - both to allow us to be positioned to get a good view of activity (e.g. the north of most typical Midwestern supercells is a great place for hail but not for visibility - get southeast of it!), and to cover our backsides when things suddenly change and we're too close to the action.
I've used Intellicast, Accuweather and other sites. Their free data is delayed, poor, lacking sufficient detail, and simply not usable. As I donate annual training, several thousand dollars of equipment, radios, mobile broadband Internet, and my time, I'm not about to also purchase a subscription to Accuweather just so I can assist NWS and save lives. (A note about the NWS XML example: I've actually prototyped an XML to APRS relay of NWS data that uses their XML feeds - it's not just webpages we require!)
The people that will suffer will be those of you who are not weather aware and count on the quiet volunteers out there watching your back. Santorum's bill might prohibit our access to open source information and provide a handful of investors with financial gain, but it'll be someone's grandma in a rural community who will pay for that gain.
Please email your Senators on this bill and let them know that open source information is our property. Your weather spotters and ultimately our communities depend on this access.
Particulars from the bill (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The last time around (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/researchproj.htm [navy.mil]
I get what i need from here...
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat-bin/display10?SIZE
And here...
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat-bin/display10.cgi?
Re:Contact the senator (Score:3, Informative)
On most issues a congressman or senator gets less than a hundred letters, even less than ten. Any issue that gets a lot of letters that are clearly from a) constituents, b) different people, and c) not form letters gets a lot more attention from the office.
At this point a well written original email on a subject will also get some attention and make the office look again at a bill. Remember to put the bill number in the letter, and turn off the flamer. Showing that it was cc'ed to the newspaper is probably not a bad idea though.
Re:let me just say.. (Score:4, Informative)
Sen. Santorum rated this honor for some of his past comments and deeds.
For this one he deserves a liberal dousing of the stuff.
Re:Accuweather's crusade (Score:1, Informative)
Just barely [wikipedia.org]
Re:let me just say.. (Score:3, Informative)
Follow the money trail (Score:1, Informative)
Presented by the Federal Election Commission
Contributions Arranged By Type And Recipient
MYERS, JOEL N DR
STATE COLLEGE, PA 16801
ACCU WEATHER
Contributions to Political Committees
SANTORUM, RICHARD J
VIA SANTORUM 2000
05/16/2000 1000.00 20020202948
06/07/2000 300.00 20020202948
SANTORUM, RICHARD J
VIA SANTORUM 2006
10/09/2003 250.00 24020050667
12/31/2003 250.00 24020050668
12/31/2003 1750.00 24020050667
Total Contributions: 3550.00
Re:XML (Score:1, Informative)
And here is the same content in LISP:
Now note: Is there or is there not whitespace before the "C" in "Contents"? The LISP makes it explicit, no matter how you break the lines. XML does not.
Now, you can make lots of rules to try to sort out what the XML expression should do, and there are such rules, but notice that you can pretty well figure out exactly what the LISP expression means without my telling you anything at all, just by looking at it.
This, in a nutshell, is why XML sucks: It's a way more complex syntax for a problem that was solved 40 years ago.
Here's the text...TFA is right..... (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the bill and TFA is right. Also, it's very short, which tells me the senator from PA has no idea why this is a bad idea. DO fill out a web form for your senator. Make this bill die on thefloor of the senate.
Why this bill is so bad (Score:5, Informative)
It is absolutely false that the NWS spends lots of time producing forecasts of warm and sunny. This is nothing short of a lie. Forecasts are issued twice daily in most situations. It will still be necessary for the NWS to produce a forecast in all cases because even if it's warm and sunny today and tomorrow, it's very useful for example to monitor and be aware of a storm system that will have an impact a few days out. Forecasts are produced more often or are updated when a change in the weather is expected, such as showers and thunderstorms. This is referred to as nowcasting and is a necessary function of the NWS. While I can't cite this as a fact, I would expect a much greater amount of time is spent nowcasting or forecasting significant weather than is spent producing these forecasts of warm and sunny.
The National Hurricane Center disseminates information about tropical cyclones and is not disseminating these forecasts of warm and sunny that the private industry suggests NOAA spends too much time doing. The NHC has an extremely important function and is working to improve its products for the purpose of providing better alerts to the general public about approaching threats. To suggest the NHC is hampered by such duties as producing warm and sunny forecasts is a lie.
Furthermore, it is extremely important that accurate weather data be available to emergency managers and to weather spotters. These are important beneficiaries of data such as radar data and nowcasts produced by the NWS and the Storm Prediction Center. While emergency managers will likely pay the fee and get access to data provided by private industry, it is less likely that spotters, which are the general public, will be willing to pay. Effectively, this could cripple an important means of detecting severe weather. I guarantee that without accurate radar data, I'm not going to try to spot a tornado and relay the information in; it's just too dangerous.
I am a meteorologist and I have also heard the opinions of many other meteorologists that I attend school with. The consensus about companies such as the Weather Channel is that they do not provide accurate timely data. Their on-air personalities generally have little knowledge of meteorology. They operate their own forecast model which my fellow meteorologists do not believe produces quality and reasonably accurate solutions. And I've heard that many of the actual meteorologists at the Weather Channel lost their jobs. Anyone who's watched their broadcasts probably has noticed their tendencies to focus on the East and West Coasts even when the middle of the country is receiving severe weather. They hardly do a reliable job of disseminating information about potentially dangerous weather to the public. Is this really who we want in charge of forecasting and providing information to the public?
I find this bill to be based around lies and to have the ability to be extremely harmful to the ability to detect severe weather. The Senate should not approve this bill.
Uhm... (Score:4, Informative)
Ex-employee of AccuWeather (Score:5, Informative)
During my years at AccuWeather, there seemed to be only two things Joel Myers tried to accomplish - to stop NOAA, and to prevent the employees from creating a union. Joel Myers treats his employees like slave labor. He entices young meteorology students from Penn State into signing contracts with them - then works them rediciously long hours without compensation. If you want to quit, they will sick their horde of corporate lawyers on you quicker than you can bat an eyelash. Their lawyers write up big complicated contracts with their customers, which happen to have automatic renewal clauses if AccuWeather is not notified by certified mail within 60 days of the end of the contract. This is the way they run their business. They don't give a shit about their employees, customers, or the general welfare of American citizens who support NOAA with their tax money.
Anyone in Happy Valley reading this, avoid working at this place like the plague!
By the way, for those of you who don't know Rick Santorum, you may remember him from a few years ago when he made national headlines by comparing homesexuality to incest and beastiality.
Several years ago, before Rick Santorum was a big shot politician, I was living in Pittsburgh and he was running for some local office, going door to door trying to get support. I was in middle school at the time, in the yard playing with my dog. She saw Santorum coming and didn't like him at all.. she ran to him, started barking and growling. I guess she was a good judge of character.
Contacting Senators And House Members (Score:3, Informative)
That's a great site for looking up your Senators and Representatives. I wrote Virginia's senators and Pennsylvania's senators over this issue. I probably got the link from Slashdot originally so I'm returning the favor if this is where I originally found it.
I think this is a case of a Senator putting a business agenda ahead of the welfare of taxpayers. Our tax money pays for the National Weather Service and we have every right to see the weather data via our taxpayer funded organization.
Re:My own private army... (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no.
Never, in fact. [opensecrets.org]
Global Crossing and Worldcom tilted marginally Republican, but close enough to call it even.
Incorrect: copyrighted laws (Veeck) (Score:3, Informative)
I have no disagreement with the rest of your comment.
Re:Sure! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Contact the senator (Score:2, Informative)
Now, the bad news. I know for a fact that you are just plain wrong on the question of whether congressional mail gets read, and I can provide a stack of replies from my rep to prove it. Some (the ones related to hot politicial topics like the war or social security where the topic is producing copious mail to the office) are canned "Dear Constituent" letters, but many are specific point by point responses to my letters. Letters which were, incidentally, sent using the Web form that you and your fellow decriers spew on about the uselessness of.
Maybe I'm blessed with an especially engaged and diligent rep (and staff, of course, I don't delude myself to believe every word comes personally from the congressman's pen) but if what you claim is true, then a lot of people need to get to work replacing their reps with individuals who will be responsive to the constituency's communications and concerns.
By discouraging political communication you are serving a disinformation campaign that leads to political disengagement and apathy. That you were moderated +5 insightful shows your campaign is working, which is too damn bad.