Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

"FlyBoy" wrote in message ...

As a private pilot, I make frequent use of the NWS's Aviation Digital
snip...

I urge those who care about this
issue to sign the online petition, join the online forum, and write
their own senators with their opinions of this bill.

1: NWS ADDS: http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
2: S. 786: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786:
3: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS/

FlyBoy



This could end up like things in Russia. Public money funded resources are deemed too inefficient to be run by the
government, so the assets are put up for bid to private companies. The private company acquires the asset, and then
sells the service to the public.Very bad idea for the NWS, very bad idea for our freeways, very bad idea for our
airways...

Blueskies wrote:

"FlyBoy" wrote in message ...

As a private pilot, I make frequent use of the NWS's Aviation Digital
snip...


I urge those who care about this
issue to sign the online petition, join the online forum, and write
their own senators with their opinions of this bill.

1: NWS ADDS: http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
2: S. 786: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786:
3: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS/

FlyBoy




This could end up like things in Russia. Public money funded resources are deemed too inefficient to be run by the
government, so the assets are put up for bid to private companies. The private company acquires the asset, and then
sells the service to the public.Very bad idea for the NWS, very bad idea for our freeways, very bad idea for our
airways...

I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money. The problem that many of us, me included,
don't like to accept is that aviation is not self-supporting and is
subsidized heavily from other revenue sources. A private enterprise
wouldn't likely have this subsidy so the user costs would reflect the
true cost of the sytem and this likely would be ugly ... even if GA only
had to pay for the meager subset of services that it really needs. Most
GA airports simply couldn't survive without subsidies.

I don't know if this is true for freeways or not, but I'm not sure they
are self supporting either if you consider the total costs, both capital
and expense to maintain them.

It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


Matt

On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::

If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.

It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of
collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::


If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of
collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel.

I was talking more about the delivery of services costs than the
collection costs. I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you
know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation
infrastructure? I don't, but I'll bet it would be several dollars a
gallon at least. I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of
the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need
to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example) or I'd make an estimate
of the cost per gallon. I suspect the fuel consumption figures are
available with some research, but I doubt all of the costs of the rest
of the system area readily available.


Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of
the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need
to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example)

since I don't use GPS, my "fair share" would be zero.

Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide
regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of
the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need
to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example)


since I don't use GPS, my "fair share" would be zero.

Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide
regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero.

How do you see that? Somebody has to pay for the satellites. Sure the
military needs them anyway, but if this was all private enterprise, then
you'd pay for your fair share of the use.


Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide
regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero.

How do you see that? Somebody has to pay for the satellites. Sure the
military needs them anyway,

Exactly. we already paid for the satellites. And nothing on the GPS SV's
is there for me. Everything is there to meet military requirements. This
isn't like the Shuttle where NASA paid big bucks to add military-specific
capabilities which meant lotsa extra weight so that every single launch
costs extra money to haul the the extra weight into orbit.


but if this was all private enterprise, then
you'd pay for your fair share of the use.

Well, the GPS SV's aren't private enterprise.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation infrastructure? [...] I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system

Costs are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are
invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be
figured in.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high
that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation
infrastructure? [...] I don't know where to get an accurate
assessment of the real cost of our aviation system


Costs are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are
invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be
figured in.

Such as?

Matt

Costs [of public infrastructure] are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be figured in.


Such as?

I'm not going to answer specifically, because I can't prove them. They
are hidden - that's what hidden means. But consider the following.

Where I live we recently discussed (with great heat) attracting
corporations to move into our town so that we would get a bigger tax
base. The more taxes paid by corporations, the less we'd have to pay in
property tax. The arithmetic is quite simple and very compelling. It's
also wrong. However, while we can all speculate as to why, it is
virtually impossible to prove. The only verifiable numbers are the tax
rolls, and they clearly show that corporations would pay tax that would
otherwise have to be paid by homeowners.

Nonetheless, looking at neighboring towns and graphing the mil rate
(homeowner tax rate) against the corporate percentage, those towns with
the highest corprorate presence have the highest mil rate. They have
the highest traffic density, the worst schools (schools are supported by
corporate and property tax), the highest prices in the stores... stuff
like that. The reason (I speculate) has to do with the impact of the
corporations on daily life - more cars parking, more roads to be built,
slower speeds, everything takes longer, wealthier people move out...
things like this that don't show up on the balance sheet.

I have no children, but it benefits me to have a good school system.
I'll leave you to figure out why (and it has nothing to do with my
screen name). Therefore, there is a benefit to non-users of the school
system.

The benefits to reliable mail service, reliable transportation (air and
otherwise), reliable telecommunications, extend to people who walk to
the store, don't have a phone, and burn all their mail. It means that
when I walk to the store, they will have what I want. OK, that makes me
an indirect user, but there are lots of indirect users of infrastructure
that are not tracked, but benefit from it.

We all benefit from our water system (unusual in the world in that even
our wash water is potable) because it reduces disease, even if I don't
use water from the system. It is not just the people with the tap that
benefit.

Street lighting could be seen as benefitting the drivers, and so should
be paid by the drivers. However in reducing accidents it also reduces
my health insurance premiums, and it reduces robberies to boot. These
are "invisible" benefits which accrue to non-drivers.

It's little things like this that add up all over the place, just like
little costs also add up all over the place, that make a strict "user
pay" accounting problematic.

Jose

--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.