Why does Rick want weather info restricted?

[JohnH]

Notice the company this "donor" represents:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/ind_detail/MYERS|JOEL+N+DR|STATE+COLLEGE|PA|16801|ACCU+WEATHE R/

Talk about a blatant bribe. Weather info you've paid for sold off for a
measly $4050.

[John T]

JohnH wrote:
>
> Talk about a blatant bribe. Weather info you've paid for sold off
> for a measly $4050.

That's only direct contributions... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[PPT33R]

What REALLY slays me is that people in the 'hinterland' actually buy
into the jingoistic BS both parties sling to their base voters.

I have lived in DC too long. As a fellow worker stated, "you can't be
too cynical in this town."

You can say Reps or Dems stand for something, but the ONLY thing they
ACTUALLY stand for is re-election. The Reps are just as much dirty scum
as the Dems. The difference is Rick goes on Fox News to proclaim he is
a soldier of god and for the "family". Bull. He is for re-election of
Rick and propagation of his sychophants.

I can GUARANTEE that Rick wouldn't give one **** about this issue if
Accuweather wasn't in his district or making sizeable donations.

[Larry Dighera]

On 29 Jul 2005 07:37:27 -0700, "PPT33R" > wrote in
. com>::

>I can GUARANTEE that Rick wouldn't give one **** about this issue if
>Accuweather wasn't in his district or making sizeable donations.

As repugnant as I find Santorum's arrogant attempt to permit big
business to block this nation's citizens access to something for which
they pay for and own, so that big business can charge us again for it,
one could make a case for the Senator's advocacy of Acuweather's
interests as a duty of his office to represent residents of his state.
But a scrupled representative would not entertain advocacy that
swindles the rest of his constituency. :-(

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> But a scrupled representative would not entertain advocacy that
> swindles the rest of his constituency.

That's the issue. And it's apparently one that's tough for some politicians
to grasp. We even see it in our small town where people that know the
mayor or council members (which means people that contribute) receive a
level of advocacy beyond everyone else.

Given that the prices are so low, it is a severe temptation to give up the
moral stance and buy myself a politician or two.

What's especially odd to me is that some people, on our town's mailing list,
have expressed the idea that there's wrong with "helping your friends" or
"hiring people that you already know and trust" as if that were the entire
picture.

- Andrew

[Blueskies]

"JohnH" > wrote in message ...
> Notice the company this "donor" represents:
>
> http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/ind_detail/MYERS|JOEL+N+DR|STATE+COLLEGE|PA|16801|ACCU+WEATHE R/
>
> Talk about a blatant bribe. Weather info you've paid for sold off for a measly $4050.
>
>

I hope you folks do more than moan and groan here. The following is what I received back from my Senator:

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me regarding your opposition to legislation that
would change the duties of the National Weather Service. I share
your views.

Many people, including Michigan's farmers, fishing industry, and
recreational boaters depend on access to information about last-
minute changes in the weather. It is vital that all Americans
continue to have access to free weather data.

As you may know, the National Weather Service Duties Act of
2005 was introduced by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania on
April 14, 2005. This bill would prohibit the National Weather
Service (NWS) from providing a product or service that the private
sector could offer. This bill is before the Commerce Committee.
Although I do not serve on the Commerce Committee, I will voice
my strong opposition to this bill if it comes to the full Senate for a
vote.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do
so again if I can be of assistance to you and your family in the
future.


Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

[[email protected]]

JohnH wrote:
> Notice the company this "donor" represents:
>
> http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/ind_detail/MYERS|JOEL+N+DR|STATE+COLLEGE|PA|16801|ACCU+WEATHE R/
>
> Talk about a blatant bribe. Weather info you've paid for sold off for a
> measly $4050.

I'm largely in agreement and even though I'm a Republican I don't care
much for Santorum. While I do feel this is a pretty clear-cut case of
rent-seeking, there is an issue here in that we don't want the
government crowding out private investment in the market. A good
example of this is the way in which some municipalities are starting to
provide free wi-fi services, which is obviously not being looked on
kindly by companies which have made investments in order to bring a
service to market. This is different from simple competition because
the government in many cases has unique powers at law (such as
exemption from permitting and zoning procedures).

That being said, the AccuWeather situation is in my mind quite
different because the NWS has been around since forever ago and one can
make the argument that fundamental weather forecasting is a matter of
public welfare no different from national defense or fire departments.
The change here is the Internet, which has made it easy for the general
public to have access to NWS data which were previously known only to
insiders like us, who knew how to call for a preflight briefing for a
trip to the beach.

-cwk,

[[email protected]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > But a scrupled representative would not entertain advocacy that
> > swindles the rest of his constituency.
>
> That's the issue. And it's apparently one that's tough for some politicians
> to grasp. We even see it in our small town where people that know the
> mayor or council members (which means people that contribute) receive a
> level of advocacy beyond everyone else.

The smaller the puddle, the muddier the water.

I live in Boston where we've had the mother of all boondoggles going
for over a decade aka the Big Dig. A good friend of mine works for one
of the state agencies that investigates contract fraud and he said that
the worst scams he saw were not being done by Modern Continental or
Bechtel, but in the set-aside programs designed to give small
contractors a piece of the action.

Having lived both here and in New York it's been my subjective
experience that there's more corruption here, largely I think because
it's smaller. The city of Boston itself is fairly small and if you know
50 people, chances are one of them knows somebody in fill-in-the-blank
office. Building permits, parking tickets, whatever. NYC by contrast is
so large (~15x) that subversion through familiarity is much more
difficult.

-cwk.

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> That being said, the AccuWeather situation is in my mind quite
> different because the NWS has been around since forever ago and one can
> make the argument that fundamental weather forecasting is a matter of
> public welfare no different from national defense or fire departments.

I would add to your argument that the NWS provides the information that
Accuweather etc. are selling. Thus, we're already paying for that
information in our tax dollars.

If Accuweather etc. were synthesizing the information completely on their
own, I'd be more sympathetic.

[Though then of course the issue of the age of the NWS would become more
significant.]

> The change here is the Internet

I agree. We're seeing this in many industries, where the many-many
communication capabilities of the Internet are eliminating (or at least
"impacting") those that previously served as "middlemen" between provider
and consumer of some service or product.

[On the other hand, some have done quite well becoming a new sort of
"middleman" (think Amazon or EBay or Halfprice, for example). It'll be
interesting to see how that works out for them in the long term.]

Your example of municipal wi-fi is one that still sees me on the fence.
Consider the Cable providers and RBOCs. They were assigned local
monopolies in agreement with municipalities. But if the investment
required for the service had been sufficiently low, would it have made more
sense for the municipality to do it itself? Or would it have made more
sense to permit unbridled competition?

And where is the line between, for example, roads and non-physical forms of
"connectivity"?

- Andrew

[vincent p. norris]

>You can say Reps or Dems stand for something, but the ONLY thing they
>ACTUALLY stand for is re-election. The Reps are just as much dirty scum
>as the Dems.

Uh, are you saying that politicians are as evil as Ken Lay and the
heads of the oilcompanies, drug companies, and so forth?

That's discouraging!

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>I'm largely in agreement and even though I'm a Republican I don't care
>much for Santorum.

As your statement demonstrates, there's a large difference between
Republicans and the Extreme Right.

vince norris

[John]

JohnH wrote:

> Notice the company this "donor" represents:
>
> http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/ind_detail/MYERS|JOEL+N+DR|STATE+COLLEGE|PA|16801|ACCU+WEATHE R/
>
> Talk about a blatant bribe. Weather info you've paid for sold off for a
> measly $4050.

While I disagree with the bill under discussion, I don't think it is a "bribe" either. The NWS had
been restricted from offering many weather products that were more refined than the basically raw
data & forecasts they have always produced. This restriction ended December 2004.

Now imagine if you were a business that had invested in broadcasting music over satellites for
example and the government now decided that it was going to use its satellites to broadcast music to
anyone for free. (For the sake of the argument ignore the copyright aspects of the music itself,
just focusing here on the act of broadcasting). You'd probably be unhappy with having to compete
with the government producing a final product (sat. transmission) as well.

So is there a coincidence that Santorum and Accuweather are in the same state? Not all. Probably
filed a bill at the request of his constituents, and Accuweather does hire a lot of people in
central Pennsylvania. Even if Santorum himself disagrees with the bill, it would be nice of him to
file a bill on behalf of constituents. Many politicians wouldn't bother.

Finally it is important to note that under no circumstances would Aviation or Marine forecasts be
affected under the bill.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:18:59 -0400, John > wrote in
>::

>
>Finally it is important to note that under no circumstances would Aviation or Marine forecasts be
>affected under the bill.

What of observed weather, satellite images, etc? I doubt that the
bill's proposed change would fail to impact pilots negatively.

[JohnH]

> Now imagine if you were a business that had invested in broadcasting
> music over satellites for example and the government now decided that
> it was going to use its satellites to broadcast music to anyone for
> free. (For the sake of the argument ignore the copyright aspects of
> the music itself, just focusing here on the act of broadcasting).

The difference here is us taxpyers have paid for these satellites on which
this private company wants a free ride. Huge difference. If Accuweather
wants to launch THEIR own satellites (as per your example), more power to
them.

> You'd probably be unhappy with having to compete with the government
> producing a final product (sat. transmission) as well.

Ridiculous. It's more like the taxpayers paying for the musicians and
infrastructure for a broadcast, then having some company charging you
admission to hear it.


> So is there a coincidence that Santorum and Accuweather are in the
> same state? Not all. Probably filed a bill at the request of his
> constituents, and Accuweather does hire a lot of people in central
> Pennsylvania. Even if Santorum himself disagrees with the bill, it
> would be nice of him to file a bill on behalf of constituents. Many
> politicians wouldn't bother.

Right. Maybe I will go into the public park entrance fee charging business
and pay off. uh - I mean "lobby" my senator to pass a bill making it into
law. Since it's what I want, he should mindlessly do as I ask, right?

> Finally it is important to note that under no circumstances would
> Aviation or Marine forecasts be affected under the bill.

Many sources which aviators and mariners use would be affected.

[Mike Rapoport]

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
> The difference here is us taxpyers have paid for these satellites on which
> this private company wants a free ride. Huge difference. If Accuweather
> wants to launch THEIR own satellites (as per your example), more power to
> them.
>
The taxpayers have also funded all the research that the private companies
use for their forcasting.

Mike
MU-2

[vincent p. norris]

> Even if Santorum himself disagrees with the bill.....

Why would he disagree? It is part of Republican political philosophy
to privatize everything and allow the market free rein.

vince norris