US Senator proposes to ban NOAA from providing free weather information

Sport Pilot wrote:

No. Actually Santorium is doing his job as a conservative. Less
government means that private business would do this.

Not so. Accuweather doesn't actually do any of the things the NWS does. All this
bill does is force the NWS to turn over data that we have already paid for to
Accuweather so that Accuweather can levy a surcharge.

If the bill forced Accuweather to hire a bunch of meteorologists and generate
the data themselves, I'd say "go to it", but the bill simply mandates taking
something I already own and forcing me to pay someone else to get it back.
That's theft, plain and simple.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[This followup was posted to rec.aviation.piloting and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article .com,
says...
Santorum is a liberal. Old country club Republican lefty. A leftover
from when the Democrats were conservative and the Repbulicans were
liberials.


Santorum is a pointy headed loony.

Repo Man wrote:

Santorum is a pointy headed loony.

No, he seems to be what has become a rarity these days -- an honest politician.
Once he's bought, he stays bought.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:49:07 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Under the guise of "modernization", Rick Santorum (R-Pa) is proposing that
any weather service already provided by a for-pay service must be prohibited
from being provided by NOAA.

http://tinyurl.com/cfxzj

(long link:
http://santorum.senate.gov/public/in...TOKEN=83234716 )

I wrote to Senator Santorum urging him to rescind his support of this
Act.

I also wrote to the US Senators (Obama/Durbin) and asked for their
support against the Act.

Everyone should do the same.

I let AOPA know about this issue as well.

-Nathan

Pa. is the home of AccuWeather.

Under the guise of "modernization", Rick Santorum (R-Pa) is proposing that
any weather service already provided by a for-pay service must be
prohibited
from being provided by NOAA.

Sounds suspiciously like how NIGA is trying to remove a public aeronautical
database (DAFIF) under the guise of 'security' so Jeppesen can charge us
more for our own information. Are we just going to sit here and take this
BS ?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tango Whiskey wrote:
Under the guise of "modernization", Rick Santorum (R-Pa) is proposing that
any weather service already provided by a for-pay service must be
prohibited
from being provided by NOAA.

Sounds suspiciously like how NIGA is trying to remove a public aeronautical
database (DAFIF) under the guise of 'security' so Jeppesen can charge us
more for our own information. Are we just going to sit here and take this
BS ?

Either way, this might not be an issue at all. Take a look at
this part of the proposed bill:

- --snip--
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall
not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or
service (other than a product or service described in subsection
(a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--

(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or
unable to provide such product or service; or

(2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such product
or service under international aviation agreements to provide
meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.
- --snip--

Part to there could be used as a loophole, exempting anything
aviation based for compliance, should this pass. Something to keep in
mind. Do all that you can to kill this bill, but if it passes, the
senator is too much of an airheaded PITA to use good, qualified english
on his proposals.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCaVYYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsW6AKDKJSGr0KkQGPXfDQqdES sxtwc+swCg0MQ3
Gt18bk5fJoHi/W6Le+sJNOY=
=YEe1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:52:57 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
wrote in
::

Take a look at this part of the proposed bill:

Are you able to provide a link to the proposed bill?

I am not really concerned that "I" or "We" (pilots) might have to pay. It
is wrong after funding all the weather research, observing stations,
satellites ect with taxpayer money to not make the results of that
investment availible to the people who paid for it...Everybody

Mike
MU-2


"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
m...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tango Whiskey wrote:
Under the guise of "modernization", Rick Santorum (R-Pa) is proposing
that
any weather service already provided by a for-pay service must be
prohibited
from being provided by NOAA.

Sounds suspiciously like how NIGA is trying to remove a public
aeronautical
database (DAFIF) under the guise of 'security' so Jeppesen can charge us
more for our own information. Are we just going to sit here and take
this
BS ?

Either way, this might not be an issue at all. Take a look at
this part of the proposed bill:

- --snip--
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall
not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or
service (other than a product or service described in subsection
(a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--

(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or
unable to provide such product or service; or

(2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such product
or service under international aviation agreements to provide
meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.
- --snip--

Part to there could be used as a loophole, exempting anything
aviation based for compliance, should this pass. Something to keep in
mind. Do all that you can to kill this bill, but if it passes, the
senator is too much of an airheaded PITA to use good, qualified english
on his proposals.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCaVYYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsW6AKDKJSGr0KkQGPXfDQqdES sxtwc+swCg0MQ3
Gt18bk5fJoHi/W6Le+sJNOY=
=YEe1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Rapoport wrote:
I am not really concerned that "I" or "We" (pilots) might have to pay. It
is wrong after funding all the weather research, observing stations,
satellites ect with taxpayer money to not make the results of that
investment availible to the people who paid for it...Everybody

Mike
MU-2

I agree totally, don't get me wrong. It is quite wrong to make
us have to pay for something we are already paying for. It's definitely
time to get SIGs and the like involved (AOPA, possibly NATCA, etc.),
even amateur meteorologists. This is going to affect everyone, and the
more people say no, the more it's going to be shot down. But if it's
left quietly, and the money that AccuWeather feeds this guy under the
table, it's going to become reality. So we all need to start shouting.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCafTJyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsdeAJ0ctvDP+q3yHSWqb9dHCl LprmW7wQCeO095
PKlaz7U7Ue5Nt8nELFQnsQo=
=Fq99
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----