US Senator Santorum sells out citizens - cheap

[John Ousterhout]

"Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say
would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action
committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of
AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data."

"Joel Myers and his brother, Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice
president, have donated more than $11,000 to Santorum and the Republican
Party since 2003"

entire story:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SANTORUMS_STORM?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

- John Ousterhout -

[[email protected]]

Wow! A very-well established multimillionaire Senator selling out for
the HUGE sum of $2000? Amazing! Think I could get him to name a highway
after me if I sent him a check for $1.50 ? I'm sure it couldn't
POSSIBLY be any other reason why he supports the bill...like the fact
that the NWS itself reversed a long-standing policy of not copmeting
with private companies. Before last year when the NWS reversed its 1991
rule, it didn't directly compete with private companies that have
risked capital and effort to provide a service needed by the public. Do
you REALLY want to have federally funded government agencies (with all
of the wonderful efficiencies the federal government brings with it)
using their state subsidization to compete with the private sector?

[turbo]

> Wow! A very-well established multimillionaire Senator selling out for
> the HUGE sum of $2000? Amazing! Think I could get him to name a highway
> after me if I sent him a check for $1.50 ? I'm sure it couldn't
> POSSIBLY be any other reason why he supports the bill...like the fact
> that the NWS itself reversed a long-standing policy of not copmeting
> with private companies. Before last year when the NWS reversed its 1991
> rule, it didn't directly compete with private companies that have
> risked capital and effort to provide a service needed by the public. Do
> you REALLY want to have federally funded government agencies (with all
> of the wonderful efficiencies the federal government brings with it)
> using their state subsidization to compete with the private sector?
>

When my tax dollars are paying for satellites and nexrad radars, I want that
data that comes from them without having to pay for it again. Anytime a
congress critter is accepting money from a company then introducing
legislation that narrowly benefits that company, we should be suspect.

[David O]

John Ousterhout > wrote:

>"Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say
>would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action
>committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of
>AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data."
>
>"Joel Myers and his brother, Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice
>president, have donated more than $11,000 to Santorum and the Republican
>Party since 2003"
>
>entire story:
>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SANTORUMS_STORM?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
>- John Ousterhout -


Thanks for the link John.

To all:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation makes it easy to send your concerns
about this bill to your Senators. Go to http://www.eff.org, click
"Action Center" on the top navigation bar, then click "Protect Public
Weather Data". Fill in your correct name and address etc., select
your state, customize the prepared message as you wish, and send it
off.


Here is AOPA's position on the bill,

"AOPA opposes bill that would prevent National Weather Service from
providing weather products to public

AOPA is concerned over legislation that could eliminate free National
Weather Service (NWS) aviation weather products for pilots. Sen. Rick
Santorum (R-Pa.) last week introduced a bill (S. 786) that would
prohibit the NWS from offering any "product or service that is or
could be provided by the private sector."

"Aviation weather products are critical to general aviation safety and
must be available for use by pilots," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice
president of regulatory affairs. "Some 40 percent of all aviation
accidents are directly related to weather."

This isn't the first time that someone has tried to shut down free
weather information from the government. In 2001, the NWS was forced
to pull the plug briefly on its innovative Aviation Digital Data
Service (ADDS) Web site, reportedly under pressure from commercial
vendors.

"This bill has the potential to kill much of the information the NWS
provides over the Internet, including ADDS," said Rudinger. "And with
this legislation in place, the commercial vendors might even make a
case for the complete privatization of weather products."

In the past, AOPA has successfully protected aviation weather products
from so-called "non-compete" efforts. The bill has been referred to
the Senate Commerce Committee, where Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
is very aware of the importance of readily available weather
information to general aviation pilots. Committee member Sen. Bill
Nelson of hurricane-ravaged Florida has already expressed his
opposition to Santorum's bill.

He'll be getting plenty of support from AOPA."


David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wow! A very-well established multimillionaire Senator selling out for
> the HUGE sum of $2000? Amazing! Think I could get him to name a highway
> after me if I sent him a check for $1.50 ? I'm sure it couldn't
> POSSIBLY be any other reason why he supports the bill...like the fact
> that the NWS itself reversed a long-standing policy of not copmeting
> with private companies. Before last year when the NWS reversed its 1991
> rule, it didn't directly compete with private companies that have
> risked capital and effort to provide a service needed by the public. Do
> you REALLY want to have federally funded government agencies (with all
> of the wonderful efficiencies the federal government brings with it)
> using their state subsidization to compete with the private sector?
>

Normally I'd agree, but in this case the taxpayers spent all the money
(billions) for the sensors and funded all the weather research. As a
result, the taxpayers have a right to the product of their investment. It
would be different if the private weather companies were going to buy all
the satellites, radars, and other reporting stations and launch there own
balloons accross the country twice a day.

Mike
MU-2

[John Galban]

wrote:
> Do
> you REALLY want to have federally funded government agencies (with all
> of the wonderful efficiencies the federal government brings with it)
> using their state subsidization to compete with the private sector?

Are you serious? These "private sector" companies are merely
regurgitating data that you already paid to have gathered and
processed. Do you really want to pay them again? If they want to add
value, to the data by further processing it, let them charge what they
want (like Jeppeson). I just find it a little objectionable to pay
some private company for a Nexrad image that was generated by my tax
dollars.

I find this akin to a city turning over a public street to a private
company and letting them charge you a toll to use the street that you
paid to construct. It's ludicrous.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "John Galban" > said:
> I find this akin to a city turning over a public street to a private
>company and letting them charge you a toll to use the street that you
>paid to construct. It's ludicrous.

Yeah, and _that's_ never happened. *cough*407ETR*cough*

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs.
-- Mike Andrews

[Matt Barrow]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> wrote:
> > Do
> > you REALLY want to have federally funded government agencies (with all
> > of the wonderful efficiencies the federal government brings with it)
> > using their state subsidization to compete with the private sector?
>
> Are you serious? These "private sector" companies are merely
> regurgitating data that you already paid to have gathered and
> processed.

Gee..why would someone subscribe to something like Meteorlogix Aviation
Services?

> Do you really want to pay them again? If they want to add
> value, to the data by further processing it, let them charge what they
> want (like Jeppeson).



>I just find it a little objectionable to pay
> some private company for a Nexrad image that was generated by my tax
> dollars.

Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?

> I find this akin to a city turning over a public street to a private
> company and letting them charge you a toll to use the street that you
> paid to construct. It's ludicrous.

How about a private company/party developing something and then govt taking
it over? "The "takings" clause in the USC?

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:oFPle.82$sZ5.1034
@news.uswest.net:

>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
<Snipola>

>>I just find it a little objectionable to pay
>> some private company for a Nexrad image that was generated by my tax
>> dollars.
>
> Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
<Snipola>

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php

As well as many other websites.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:oFPle.82$sZ5.1034
> @news.uswest.net:
>
> >
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> <Snipola>
>
> >>I just find it a little objectionable to pay
> >> some private company for a Nexrad image that was generated by my tax
> >> dollars.
> >
> > Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
> <Snipola>
>
> http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
>
> As well as many other websites.
>

While airborne?

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
>> news:oFPle.82$sZ5.1034 @news.uswest.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> <Snipola>
>>
>> >>I just find it a little objectionable to pay
>> >> some private company for a Nexrad image that was generated by my tax
>> >> dollars.
>> >
>> > Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
>> <Snipola>
>>
>> http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
>>
>> As well as many other websites.
>>
>
> While airborne?

Good point. I was thinking preflight.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > > Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
> > <Snipola>
> >
> > http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
> >
> > As well as many other websites.
> >
>
> While airborne?


To get access to this data while airborne, I have to pay a private
company. I don't care about that, because I'm paying the company to
transmit the data to me, just like I pay my ISP to provide an Internet
connection when I pull the data off of the web. The bottom line is that
my tax dollars are being spent to generate the data, and therefore I
shouldn't have to pay a private company for access to the data if I
otherwise have a means of access.


JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > > > Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
> > > <Snipola>
> > >
> > > http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
> > >
> > > As well as many other websites.
> > >
> >
> > While airborne?
>
>
> To get access to this data while airborne, I have to pay a private
> company. I don't care about that, because I'm paying the company to
> transmit the data to me, just like I pay my ISP to provide an Internet
> connection when I pull the data off of the web. The bottom line is that
> my tax dollars are being spent to generate the data, and therefore I
> shouldn't have to pay a private company for access to the data if I
> otherwise have a means of access.
>

The government prints currency, but the corporations & financial
institutions generate wealth.

(And the people continue to line up at the public trough.)

[james]

Rick Santorum has the brains of, well, Santorum. Thanks to Dan Savage
Santorum has a not so pleasant double meaning which is well deserved of
his thinking and policies.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Santorum&btnG=Google+Search

(not for kids)

[OtisWinslow]

Yes I do. Providing services that take care of our safety and
welfare are one of the few inherently government functions.
The last thing I want is for the greedy private sector
to be doing it.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
.. Do
> you REALLY want to have federally funded government agencies (with all
> of the wonderful efficiencies the federal government brings with it)
> using their state subsidization to compete with the private sector?
>

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
>>>>
>>>><Snipola>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
>>>>
>>>>As well as many other websites.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While airborne?
>>
>>
>>To get access to this data while airborne, I have to pay a private
>>company. I don't care about that, because I'm paying the company to
>>transmit the data to me, just like I pay my ISP to provide an Internet
>>connection when I pull the data off of the web. The bottom line is that
>>my tax dollars are being spent to generate the data, and therefore I
>>shouldn't have to pay a private company for access to the data if I
>>otherwise have a means of access.
>>
>
>
> The government prints currency, but the corporations & financial
> institutions generate wealth.

Well, one out of two ain't bad. Financial institutions don't create
wealth either.


Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 May 2005 00:00:08 -0700, "james" > wrote in
om>::

>Thanks to Dan Savage
>Santorum has a not so pleasant double meaning which is well deserved of
>his thinking and policies.

www.spreadingsantorum.com/
Satirical attempt to name the frothy mix of lube and fecal
matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex after Senator
Rick Santorum.

[Andrew Gideon]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Well, one out of two ain't bad.Â*Â*FinancialÂ*institutionsÂ*don'tÂ*create
> wealth either.

In an indirect sense, by helping move capital to where it can be best
leveraged, they do.

I'm not sure how this applies to our tax dollars paying for data that
companies want to sell to us again. Someone else on this thread mentioned
Jeppeson, which I think is a useful model. Jepp does a *lot* to add value
to the data for which we've paid. They don't complain that the government
sells charts; they simply sell better (at least in the opinion of enough
people to keep them in business) charts.

At least some of the weather companies do provide valuable packaging. I
don't happen to recall the maker of the unit, but I like the software
provided to pilots at an FBO I frequent. There's nothing there I cannot
get elsewhere, but the packaging - really, just the UI - is much cleaner
than the NSW's sites provide.

Then there are the services that combine weather with flight planning, which
is a significant value added and well beyond what the government does.

But rather than actually earn their fees, some companies would prefer to
whine and try to take the product of our tax dollars and sell them to us
again. It's nothing but a con job at that level: selling something to the
people that already paid for it.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> that have
> risked capital and effort to provide a service needed by the public

What privately owned weather satellites orbit the Earth today? Who paid for
the weather monitoring stations across the country? Who pays for the
weather ballons?

That's *my* capital being risked there.

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
. ..
> Yes I do. Providing services that take care of our safety and
> welfare are one of the few inherently government functions.

Since government is, in essence, the legal use of force, I'd like to hear
your rationale for that.

> The last thing I want is for the greedy private sector
> to be doing it.

Yes, let power lusting, greedy government types handle it.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In article >,
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
> >>>>
> >>>><Snipola>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
> >>>>
> >>>>As well as many other websites.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>While airborne?
> >>
> >>
> >>To get access to this data while airborne, I have to pay a private
> >>company. I don't care about that, because I'm paying the company to
> >>transmit the data to me, just like I pay my ISP to provide an Internet
> >>connection when I pull the data off of the web. The bottom line is that
> >>my tax dollars are being spent to generate the data, and therefore I
> >>shouldn't have to pay a private company for access to the data if I
> >>otherwise have a means of access.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The government prints currency, but the corporations & financial
> > institutions generate wealth.
>
> Well, one out of two ain't bad. Financial institutions don't create
> wealth either.

Generate.

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> > Well, one out of two ain't bad. Financial institutions don't create
> > wealth either.
>
> In an indirect sense, by helping move capital to where it can be best
> leveraged, they do.
>
> I'm not sure how this applies to our tax dollars paying for data that
> companies want to sell to us again. Someone else on this thread mentioned
> Jeppeson, which I think is a useful model. Jepp does a *lot* to add value
> to the data for which we've paid. They don't complain that the government
> sells charts; they simply sell better (at least in the opinion of enough
> people to keep them in business) charts.

Exactly.
>
> At least some of the weather companies do provide valuable packaging. I
> don't happen to recall the maker of the unit, but I like the software
> provided to pilots at an FBO I frequent. There's nothing there I cannot
> get elsewhere, but the packaging - really, just the UI - is much cleaner
> than the NSW's sites provide.

The FSS briefer can be using RAW data that's four hours old. Also, their
dissemination capacity is minimal.

What companies like Jeppesen, XM, and Meteorlogix provide is a whole slew
of enhanced, timely, value-addded services.

>
> Then there are the services that combine weather with flight planning,
which
> is a significant value added and well beyond what the government does.
>
> But rather than actually earn their fees, some companies would prefer to
> whine and try to take the product of our tax dollars and sell them to us
> again. It's nothing but a con job at that level: selling something to the
> people that already paid for it.

IIUIC, the taxpayers paid only for the raw data collection.

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> wrote:
>
> > that have
> > risked capital and effort to provide a service needed by the public
>
> What privately owned weather satellites orbit the Earth today?

Quite a few, actually. Communications mainly, but not exclusively.

> Who paid for
> the weather monitoring stations across the country? Who pays for the
> weather ballons?

Government, but it doesn;t necessarily have to be that way. Government paid
for them, but government builds/creates NOTHING.

>
> That's *my* capital being risked there.


Bureaucracy at it's best. People keep demanding more, then wonder why we're
in the state we are.

[Matt Barrow]

"james" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Rick Santorum has the brains of, well, Santorum.

He has the brinais of a statist politician...him and about 530 others
alongside him.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you get a Nexrad image directly from NOAA/NWS?
>>>>>>
>>>>>><Snipola>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nws.noaa.gov/radar_tab.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As well as many other websites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>While airborne?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To get access to this data while airborne, I have to pay a private
>>>>company. I don't care about that, because I'm paying the company to
>>>>transmit the data to me, just like I pay my ISP to provide an Internet
>>>>connection when I pull the data off of the web. The bottom line is that
>>>>my tax dollars are being spent to generate the data, and therefore I
>>>>shouldn't have to pay a private company for access to the data if I
>>>>otherwise have a means of access.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The government prints currency, but the corporations & financial
>>>institutions generate wealth.
>>
>>Well, one out of two ain't bad. Financial institutions don't create
>>wealth either.
>
>
> Generate.
>
>

They don't generate wealth either, since generate is a pretty close
cousin to create.

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/generate

Matt