If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Congress meddling with your free weather services   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 179
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

15893 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 May 2005 at 9:56 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-20 01:42:36 AM  
Yet another example of why Sen. Santorum is an a$$.
 
2005-05-20 01:49:41 AM  
heh. Who do we side with? The government who is stealing jobs from good hard working Americans? Or the evil companies who are trying to take away our free service and make us pay for it?
 
2005-05-20 02:01:33 AM  
StomachMonkey: heh. Who do we side with?

I come down firmly on the side of the gov't weather service.

Oddly enough, it has a tie in to the whole RIAA/MP3 stuff... Just because your business model can't adapt doesn't mean we should shoulder the burden of proteting you.

Are the oxygen companies going to complain about us breathing free air too?
 
2005-05-20 02:11:55 AM  
Weather nazis! I hate those guys.
 
2005-05-20 02:21:06 AM  
WTF, so the private companies want to prevent us from getting free data from the very same source they use? A source we pay for? To hell with that.
 
2005-05-20 07:58:42 AM  
Fnord: Are the oxygen companies going to complain about us breathing free air too?

As the founder of "O2," a bottled oxygen company, I say yes. In fact, I plan to file suit in federal court against all of you for piracy of my patented product.
 
2005-05-20 08:40:51 AM  
I suspect the pasty white, lifeless hand of Rick Santorum is behind this.
 
2005-05-20 09:12:20 AM  
If Jesus sends a tornado, only the Faithful need to be warned.


/especially since they're the ones in trailer parks.
 
2005-05-20 09:41:00 AM  
How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving...

"To be honest with you, I don't really pay much attention to who contributes to my campaign," Santorum told ABC News.


Ahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
 
2005-05-20 09:59:19 AM  
Just reading this gets me so frustrated, I don't know where to begin.

Message to PA Residents, can you please get rid of him?

Thanks.
 
2005-05-20 09:59:30 AM  
From link:
"We work hard everyday competing with other companies and we also have to compete with the government," said Barry Lee Myers, executive vice president of AccuWeather Inc.


So Barry, what you are saying is that taxpayers are paying the government. The government has all this info that they can give back to the taxpayers. But instead, the taxpayers should pay (again!) to get this info from you?
 
2005-05-20 09:59:43 AM  
the nws is one of the few things in government that actually works. lots of free websites use this nws data.
 
2005-05-20 09:59:53 AM  
Meh... Just visit Canada's Weather Network site. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ It will give you free, in-depth coverage of your freedom hating country.
 
2005-05-20 10:00:30 AM  
RE:2005-05-20 02:21:06 AM Freak


You beat me to it.
 
2005-05-20 10:00:45 AM  
I live in Boston. I stopped following weather forecasts the day after I was born. The forecasts are ALWAYS wrong here.
 
2005-05-20 10:01:07 AM  
Idiots all.

It's not a farking "free service". I pay for it. I pay too damned much for it. Hell, at the end of the day, about half of what I make goes to state, federal, highway, etc., taxes.

I'm so damned sick of people saying that government services are free. They're not. They are stinking expensive.

Oh, and while I'm ranting, I'm tired of people saying that a doctor's visit or prescription only costs the co-payment. You pay for it if you have insurance...even if it's "free" from your employer.

/end rant
 
2005-05-20 10:02:13 AM  
I don't care whether I get my weather from Accuweather or the NWS. I do care where the $$$ for the NWS comes from. If the NWS uses my tax dollars to collect meteorological data, only to turn it over to Accuweather, who then wants to charge me for it? No freaking way. If Accuweather wants to assume the $782mil bill for the NWS *then* charge me for it? I'm fine with that.

I'm not subsidizing their corporation though. No way.

And Sensenbrenner is a tool.
 
2005-05-20 10:03:33 AM  
www.wunderground.com
 
2005-05-20 10:03:52 AM  
Screw santorum. I love NOAA's site, and if he takes it away, I am going to hire fifteen 6'5 gay men to pound him in the butt.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/index2.html
 
2005-05-20 10:03:54 AM  
It's gonna be really great when Santorum winds up dead in a ditch.
 
2005-05-20 10:04:05 AM  
starting to get pissed at republican's. already pissed at liberals, dem's, muslims, christians, humans...

/slowly losing my farking mind.
 
2005-05-20 10:05:10 AM  
Also, seconded on the need for NOAA.

All us surfers are gonna.. well. We're gonna camp out.

That's what we'll do.
 
2005-05-20 10:06:07 AM  
the National Weather Service must not provide any product or service "that is or could be provided by the private sector."

With this principle in place, I guess we can kiss the post office goodbye. Asshat.
 
2005-05-20 10:06:42 AM  
Pfffffffff...Big deal. Like the sh*t is ever right anyway.
 
2005-05-20 10:06:51 AM  
We can carp about it or do something about it .
First find your Senator :

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Then fill this out .

Dear Senator ________,

Senator Santorum's proposed bill to restrict public access to the
National Weather Service, N.O.A.A., & The National Hurricane Center, is
a threat to the safety & security of all American citizens who reside
in coastal areas. These services are VITAL to our daily lives and the
safety of our children & homes. Many coastal residents depend upon
N.O.A.A. Weather Radio and it's excellent prediction services, as well
as the reliably accurate information on the web sites of each National
Weather Service, N.O.A.A., & The National Hurricane Center.

The safety of recreational & commercial boaters, fishermen,
vacationers, retirees, and countless others is safeguarded by the
N.W.S. and it's Tax Funded Services.

Limiting access to information that is FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER, in favor
of private business is at best a very bad idea. Please fight this
shortsighted bill.

Sincerely,
 
2005-05-20 10:07:43 AM  
"With this principle in place, I guess we can kiss the post office goodbye. Asshat."

As if the post office doesn't need a little competition.
 
2005-05-20 10:08:06 AM  
Dope-slap:

Limiting access to information that is FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER, in favor
of private business is at best a very bad idea.


Good idea, but the quoted sentence sure doesn't make much sense.
 
2005-05-20 10:10:10 AM  
I mean Santorum, Sensenbrenner is the Tool from Wisconsin who wants the FCC to regulate cable and satellite, and fine Radio DJs their first born child if they say "poopie" on the air.

/Get my conressional asshats mixed up sometimes
 
2005-05-20 10:10:59 AM  
Honestly i have found that the NOAA service is alot mor accurate than any of the pay sites. at least in my area.
 
2005-05-20 10:11:16 AM  
StomachMonkey

heh. Who do we side with? The government who is stealing jobs from good hard working Americans? Or the evil companies who are trying to take away our free service and make us pay for it?

You mean, like the good hardworking Americans who gathered the information in the first place?

If AccuWeather wants to privatize weather information, then let them gather the information themselves. Let their employees maintain all the weather stations. They can buy the hurricane chase planes and fly them into the storms. They can outfit the stormchasers and send up the weathersondes at airports every day.

--------------------

For a company to say that a government service belongs to them alone is idiotic. The government provides services for everyone, not just those who can make a buck from it. If NOAA is doing all the work of pulling in the weather information, then we the people have already paid for it. I don't think that paying an additional "privatization surcharge" above and beyond my taxes is appropriate.

CS
 
2005-05-20 10:12:04 AM  
Man and I voted for this guy once. All of once. You can email him at:

http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.Cont actForm&CFID=14109654&CFTOKEN=38806858

Lets use the power of fark to attempt to fark this guy's inbox. Well the inbox his interns read at least. Cant the senate servers take us on?

/pa resident
//pulling the OTHER lever next time around
 
2005-05-20 10:12:05 AM  
Wow, I am pissed enough to send Dope-Slap's letter. I rely on NOAA for all sorts of things.
 
2005-05-20 10:12:47 AM  
Are you actually telling me the other companies can't make money, when the raw material for what they are selling comes to them at practically $0. That must mean they are not offering any more than the government is (i.e. no more data analysis, no more in-depth observation, etc.) in which case they should not make any money: they are creating no value.

/except in Republican-land where we should always have free enterprise, right?
//but only for people who give you campaign help
 
2005-05-20 10:13:02 AM  
Oops Dope Slap beat me.
 
2005-05-20 10:14:26 AM  
Fair is fair: When Accuweather launches their own weather satellites, then they can complain about not being able to keep up with competition from the government.
 
2005-05-20 10:14:46 AM  
Heh, already sent a letter about this to both of my Senators.

I am firmly of the opinion that Rick Santorum is an idiot of the first class.
 
2005-05-20 10:15:20 AM  
This is a repeat. It's also a good idea because the federal government should not be in the business of providing consumer weather services. They never have in the past but they are starting to with the Internet stuff.
 
2005-05-20 10:15:35 AM  
Please. If the corporations want to compete, they can build their own weather centers. And you know what? They have! In the Dallas area, the Belo corporation owns its own doppler radar system which consistantly beat the pants off of the NOAA center in Washington. Why? Because they were *only* focusing on North Texas and thus could predict it more accurately.

And as a result, they are *the* source for weather in the Dallas area. The other groups relying on government data couldn't remotely compete. And Belo raked in a lot more money.

It's an amazing situation where a government-funded program AND free enterprise can coexist. NOAA concerns itself with large-scale forcasts for, say, coordinating airline flights - which NEED a single stable source. Local companies give focused forecasts for their respective areas.

It's not hard. It's just that these asshats want a free ride - all the benefits of "free enterprise" with none of the work.
 
2005-05-20 10:15:46 AM  
"The government who is stealing jobs from good hard working Americans?"

The only reason these jobs exist in the first place is because the government organization exists. If these private companies actually had to have their own radar and satellites you think there would be any? At least anywhere close to this much coverage?

The government has to do it anyway for our military, so I don't even see the issue here. The cost for them to inform us of their data (radio/tv/etc) is nothing compared to the cost they have to spend on collecting it anyway. If this goes through it's a government handout to business, an actual threat to public safety (relatively minor, but examples are easy - combinations of a leaky basement, a big storm, and electronics on the ground that can be moved with warning), and is just plain stupid to boot - just what we need is a system with financial incentives to lie about the weather, what'd ya know it's gonna be 70/sunny forever on Myrtle Beach, where the Weather Channel happens to own a hotel!
 
2005-05-20 10:15:59 AM  
This is just crazy. Just because some companies made a fortune making selling Taxpayer funded data back to them dosn't mean they should get to do that forever. Oooh, we can pay twice.

Only the most crazed libretarian would say wether forcasting isn't the governments job...
 
2005-05-20 10:16:45 AM  
Xaneidolon

It's not a farking "free service". I pay for it. I pay too damned much for it.

I'm sure a private weather monitoring service would charge far less then the (approximately) $2.64 a year to let you know when hurricanes, tornadoes and floods are coming.

Kind of how gas bills in Georgia soared to previously unimaginable heights once those efficient private companies got involved. And funny how they use the old government workers to build, maintain, repair, install....why.....they do absolutely everything but bill.
 
2005-05-20 10:17:07 AM  
OK, this idea is just farking stupid. I'm a college student studying meteorology, and I know for a fact that the forcasts of AccuWeather suck compared to the forecasts of the NWS. This is why AccuWeather started to lose customers when the NWS started to make their information more available. Plus, the NWS is also responsible for all the weather related warnings that go out across the country. If the NWS is forced to back off, that information may be hard to find for some people. But, in the end, it is just AccuWeather trying to force their customers to come back.
 
2005-05-20 10:17:58 AM  
autopr0n:

This is just crazy. Just because some companies made a fortune making selling Taxpayer funded data back to them dosn't mean they should get to do that forever. Oooh, we can pay twice.


That's incorrect. The raw data and consumer services based on that data are absolutely not the same thing.
 
2005-05-20 10:17:59 AM  
Shut up Major Thomb you cock.
 
2005-05-20 10:19:02 AM  
Shut up Major Thomb you cock.

Oooh...am I making your little brain work too hard...
 
2005-05-20 10:20:17 AM  
Xaneidolon

"Limiting access to information that is FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER, in favor of private business is at best a very bad idea."

Good idea, but the quoted sentence sure doesn't make much sense.


How about this:

Furthermore, the information in question is produced by agencies that are funded by tax dollars. We as taxpayers have a right to access it. To suggest that this information be given only to corporations, for no other reason than to allow those corporations to charge for it, is insane.
 
2005-05-20 10:20:47 AM  
a100b100:

I'm sure a private weather monitoring service would charge far less then the (approximately) $2.64 a year to let you know when hurricanes, tornadoes and floods are coming.


I'm not arguing that the government should get out of the weather business (maybe I would in another conversation, but that's another conversation). I'm saying that I pay for it already and I don't want the plug pulled on something I'm already paying for. Get it?
 
2005-05-20 10:21:57 AM  
This is like Amazon.com saying the Library of Congress should be shut down.

Santorum is slimy (get it?)
 
2005-05-20 10:22:13 AM  
Also on the Santorum checklist:

* The IRS will no longer be allowed to provide tax forms for free. You will need to buy these from a private sector firm. You will also need to pay the same firm to find out what the current tax law is.

* Traffic lights will no longer display their information. Instead, you will need to buy service from TrafficLights.com, who will install a device in your car telling you whether the light is red or green (NOTE: The lights will turn on in emergencies).

* Public Television - later Elmo.

* Welfare checks will now be distributed through Welfare Brokers. This will be a nice new addition to the private sector, and will allow check cashing establishments to give out the checks and cash them at the same time. There will be a minor 10% fee for this.

* In order to vote in the next election, you will not be able to use a voting booth purchased by the government. Instead, you will need to rent time at a private voting booth, and your vote will be forwarded to the government. This one is the highest priority for the Senator, especially with the "Inner City/Blue State surcharge".
 
2005-05-20 10:23:24 AM  
What Accuweather, WSI, etc. do is total bullshiat. You're paying twice for that stuff, people. And, the pay for forecasting jobs at those places is pitiful. When I got out of school the Burger King was paying better.

I can't stand tuning on to the local weather dolts and seeing the radar billed as "Channel x Doppler X0000" or whatever when they're just getting a feed from NWS and processing the data with their own systems, if they're not just getting it online.

Yes, there are a lot of private radar systems that beat the pants off the WSR-88D, but a lot of that is in software. And like others, I'm not against privatization of the weather service, I just don't like tax funding of their raw materials.

/former meteorologist
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report