Xaneidolon

Well crap, that means we agree. Where's the snarky fun in that?

enave:

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.

Much better.

/just got the farkit extension
//thanks Fnord

Hey Dope-slap

Done and Done, Thanks =)

This bill is insane. We already PAY for this information with our hard earned money they take in Taxes. Its especially important to those of use who are stuck living in Floriduh with Hurricane season right around the corner.

animal900
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

That's a private company, not the government's weather service though... this is the government's weather service:
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca"

Tentacle

That's a private company, not the government's weather service though... this is the government's weather service:

So? It's still free, and it's great!

PuckinWebGuy

Also:

The Emergency Broadcast System brings you this important news. We just saved alot of money on car insurance.

That's incorrect. The raw data and consumer services based on that data are absolutely not the same thing.

I'd be more than willing to beleive you, if you would explain the difference, I'm not much of a weather buff. So please explain the difference between the weather data and the "consumer serivces" and justify why I should pay more.

Furthermore, why can't I get the raw data from NWS and extrappalate whatever I want from it? I should have the same access to the NWS that Accuweather does if it's funded by federal tax dollars. Right?

/Not being a cock
//I don't really understand the difference between "raw data" and "consumer services"

Jesus, this is old news. And, yes, Santorum is behind it, you see his home state has AccuWeather, and they hate the fact that they charge for a service the gov't gives out for free, so they want that shiat-canned. By the way, AccuWeather gave $3500 to his campaign, ergo, he was bought.

Santorum's a slave, the kind from which there is no emancipation.

WHY WOULD ANY OF US PAY TO GET THE WEATHER WHEN GUESSING IS MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT THEY EVER "FORECAST"

/lives in Michigan

Weather forecasting is about as reliable as a baby's arse, anyway.

May as well read the entrails of a sacred goat here in Boston to predict the crappy weather in this crappy town.

Fedex and UPS compete with the USPS, and they're not complaining. The private weather forcasters can either improve their services or close down!

Kuroneko, you are 100% on the money. They should improve or get out of the way...

Thank you.

Any surpise this moron is a Republican? I mean, look at that shiat-eating grin on his face.

10.0.0.1:

I understand the argument that the FEDs don't need to spend our tax money on this service, that we should be able to get a better "price" through private industry

OregonVet: I, even with Libertarian leanings, feel this service is essential.

I'm a straight-up libertarian, but I don't think I want the government out of the weather business. It's probably a good thing to pay for - military, coast guard, alerting citizens re hurricanes, etc., other reasons I cannot think of right now - but it's not a good thing to pay for twice.

fudgefactor7
Shiat-eating grin?
Don't you mean "frothy-mixture-of-lube-and-shiat-eating-grin?"

Don't mind Major Thomb. He spent too much time with Harry Cox when he was a small child.

Soon as I saw Santorum's name in there, I knew which side he'd be on.


Evil! Evil! Eeeeeeviillll!!!

enave:

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.

You're misunderstand the purpose here. The purpose is to prevent a government agency from extending its reach and socializing part of the market. This is not any kind of restriction to the data.

I can't stand nonessential government agencies and the fatasses who work at them.

/bitter this morning

DIRTY SOCIALISTS TRYING TO GIVE FREE WEATHER TO THE MASSES!!!

YOU ONLY DESERVE THE WEATHER FORECAST IF YOU CAN PAY FOR IT!

BACK TO WORK PEASANTS!!!

/shouting
/kicks a peasant

MrJesus: It's gonna be really great when Santorum winds up dead in a ditch.

I live on the other side of the country so I'll have an alibi.

Whoa. I was just reading a book called 'Death Freak', and in it, the main character is in Russia and he notices the weather forecast isn't in the newspaper, so he asks the concierge at the hotel check-in desk. The guy basically tells him that the weather forecast isn't given to the public and he's certainly not going to say anything to an American, because the weather forecast is considered important to national security. If your enemy knows it will be sunny and clear in three days, then they'll know when to fly in the bombers...shiat like that.

I thought, 'holy crap, how stupid could the russians get?'

far be it for me to think our own government would ever think of doing anything in a similar vain...

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania countered, "It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942." He said Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

Major Thomb, keep defending this guy.

The Homer Tax:

I'd be more than willing to beleive you, if you would explain the difference, I'm not much of a weather buff. So please explain the difference between the weather data and the "consumer serivces" and justify why I should pay more.


Sure, weather data is just that. Temperatures, maps, etc. Consumer services based on that data are consumer aimed presentation on radio, television, Internet, etc. What's started the issue is the national weather service going beyond just providing data and coming up with consumer aimed products. Essentially they're creating a weather version of PBS with no authority to do so.

For the love of Jebus, vote these pricks out in '08.

Man I sure wish I could buy a Senator for $3,500, that would be awesome.

orrinbloquy: Major Thomb, keep defending this guy.


I couldn't care less what "guy" is involved. If you set your opinion about something based on who said it, you're not thinking clearly.

Well, I emailed my senator, Evan Bayh. What next?

The commercial services USE the free NWS data. Okay. What does "use" mean? Do they BUILD on it? In other words, do they ADD to the free data and make it better? Or are they just spewing it right back at the consumers in its original form?

So either:
1) The commcerial services need to admit they're just a bunch of greedy scammers, or...
2) The commercial services need to promote the ADDED VALUE they bring to the table.

With all their whining, they seem to be saying that they really don't add anything to the NWS data. At least nothing worth paying for. But they enjoy selling it to us, so the government should stop giving it to us and should only give it to them.

Quite a nice little scan they've got set up -- the reselling of free data. How can I get in on that?

NathanAllen: Man I sure wish I could buy a Senator for $3,500, that would be awesome.


Yea, I have $3,500 laying around. Who can I give it to get my law passed? I bet they'll fall all over themselves for that massive sum.

Major Thumb, you are a naive fool if you think campaign contributions have nothing to do with this piece of legislative filth.

Major Thomb
I agree that the gov't shouldn't be socializing sections of the free market. But who has the capital to run the kind of monitoring network the NWS does? No one. Plus the NWS will never go away. The military needs it too much to let it die. We need to know what the jets will be flying into, what kind of gear to be issuing troops, etc. So our tax dollars are going to pay for the system in some form or another. So we deserve to get access to the data, since we did pay for it. Surely you don't think freedom of information is bad? Accuweather is failing, not because NWS is socializing the market, but because their business model is horrible.

I could go start a company that builds private roads, has hundreds of billboards and chargesa toll. But no one would use my roads. So does that mean the gov't is socializing the road industry? Every DOT should be shut down because it is unfair to me.

/if this bill does pass, anyone want to form a private road building company with me?

The specific complaint from the likes of accuweather is that the government is doing their(accuweather's) job just fine. So they're trying to get part of the government shut down because they have an unprofitable business model. Except they don't want to shut it down, they just want to make it so that only they can access the information, so that they can continue selling it, since the public would no longer have access to the information.

Saying that noaa and what "weather services" provide aren't the same thing makes no sense. Anyone who says this: Have you visited the NOAA site and checked out all the info? All the different radar and satellite maps, general forecasts, my favorite prototype digital forecasts which will give you forecasts down to the hour...

I ride a motorcycle, and not knowing the weather could mean killing myself instead of commuting the next time I go to work. Same thing for when I go out sailing. Maybe even when I fly a kite, except I don't know if my kite strings are conductive. As many people have said, we already pay for this service. To have it taken away from the public, and given to private companies so that they can sell it back, especially when it's information that's critical to the wellbeing of the public, is absolutely ridiculous, unthinkable, and inexcusable regardless of how you look at it.

Sen. Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate leadership, has at least 14 such commercial weather companies in his home state of Pennsylvania, including powerhouse AccuWeather. In April, Santorum introduced the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005, which states that with the exception of the "preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property of the general public," the National Weather Service must not provide any product or service "that is or could be provided by the private sector."

And this is another fine example of why Rick Santorum is the first and last name in anal sex residue.

Andulamb:

The commercial services USE the free NWS data. Okay. What does "use" mean? Do they BUILD on it? In other words, do they ADD to the free data and make it better? Or are they just spewing it right back at the consumers in its original form?

They add presentation and distribution. A television broadcast tower isn't exactly cheap. Neither are the staff meteorologists.

crogers6790:

I agree that the gov't shouldn't be socializing sections of the free market. But who has the capital to run the kind of monitoring network the NWS does? No one.


Nor does anyone want to get rid of that. The issue is all in the news and entertainment industries. What's the government starts creating and distribution consumer style products, they're are directly competing in a commercial market place using tax money.

If this goes through, they'll probably start charging for the weatherbug program, but still force us to download the POS with other downloads.

Stupid Farks!

the National Weather Service must not provide any product or service "that is or could be provided by the private sector."

I agree with honk. But not only the post office, all of goverment's services could conceivably be supplied by private sector, so let's apply this reasoning to the whole govm't while we're at it!

Dope-slap

Thank you, while complaining makes us feel good, it is more important that we do something. I would add the bill's title and number - National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005, S. 786.

fudgefactor7

So Santorum was bought for $3500. Almost any Farker could beat this, so can we buy a politician for us? Who should it be?

/has a feeling though that this bill is one of those just-for-show-doesn't-have-a-chance-in-hell-of-passing ones.

EatMyShorts: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.

Great, so I'm now going to have to pay you to breath? You'll probably hit me with two lawsuits. 1) Failing to pay for O2 you generated; 2) My unlawful production of CO2 without a contract.

BTW, wasn't NOAA around a hell of a lot longer than these commercial companies? So, you know what that tells me? These commercial companies need to FARKING DEAL WITH IT! _YOU_ STARTED COMPETED WITH NOAA!!!! Not the other way around. These are probably the same people that biatch about aircraft noise when they bought a house near the airport, 30 years after the airport was constructed.

Um, Major Dhumb?
Have you ever checked it out?
My Local Forecast, dumbfark

"The government who is stealing jobs from good hard working Americans?"

Right, because the government employees doing the NOAA and NWS work aren't Americans/aren't getting paid.

Free-market cultists act like government spending disappears from the economy.

Major ThonbThey add presentation and distribution. A television broadcast tower isn't exactly cheap. Neither are the staff meteorologists.

Have you used noaa.gov lately? It has all the weather information I might ever want. Ever. No repackaging needed. No television broadcast. No extra meteorologists. The companies who would make money off of this aren't worried about TV and radio news. Those are already paid for. It's the free data, especially the wonderful internet transmission, that they want to censor from the public. Seriously, check it out. You'll never have to wade through the pages and charges of Accuweather again.

Major Dhumb
I forgot to mention, kindly return to your economics text and use the index to look up the term "market failure."

mrshadow:

BTW, wasn't NOAA around a hell of a lot longer than these commercial companies? So, you know what that tells me? These commercial companies need to FARKING DEAL WITH IT! _YOU_ STARTED COMPETED WITH NOAA!!!!

That's wrong. They have never produced consumer programming in the past. Everything they release is just straight forward data presentation and nothing else. The difference now is with additional the Internet, they've started to go beyond that.

Major Thomb
It's also a good idea because the federal government should not be in the business of providing consumer weather services.

Why not? The government is going to get this information anyway for its own needs (flight plotting, military, etc.), and now the only thing they're doing is putting it on the internet. Why is this bad?

JereIC:

Why not? The government is going to get this information anyway for its own needs (flight plotting, military, etc.), and now the only thing they're doing is putting it on the internet. Why is this bad?


There's nothing wrong with making the data available. The problem is when they present it in a way aimed at consumers and pull market share. That's socializing part of the market.

Jack31081
Holy crap. I read that book. Isn't that the one where an American and a Russian assassin team up to kill each others' enemies, thus defeating the powerful predictive computers their agencies employ?

"Oh my god."
"What?"
"- We've lost India!"

/that was in the book.
// Oh, and this Santorum appears more and more to be a silly person.