Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

George Patterson wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:


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.


I disagree. I remember when the Weather Station first came out, they had
very frequent local reports and paging of text weather of various cities
every 20 minutes or so. Also had some aviation weather, as I recall.

Then they started attracting advertisers. The pilot weather was gone the
next time I saw a report. By 1995, the local cable companies had
replaced the local weather reports with their own ads. TWS corrected
that a few years later by announcing that the local weather would be
displayed every 10 minutes (on the 8s). That forced the cable companies
to play it.

Basically, if you need something special and are perceived to be a
minority, private enterprise will cut you right out of the picture. If
weather info is provided only by private enterprise, we won't have pilot
weather unless something like AOPA provides it for us.

Yes, that is why I said in aggregate. We overall have much better
weather services today than we had 30 years ago when it was nearly all
government provided. I didn't say that aviation would be better off.
Actually, my point is that aviation is very heavily subsidized and would
likely take it on the chin without such subsidies.

Government is very wasteful, but it does provide for the special
interests in a manner that wouldn't exist were everything based on a
"pay as you use" basis. In the end it might work out OK, but it
certainly would look a lot different. I wouldn't pay school taxes if I
didn't have kids in school, but I'd probably pay $10/gallon for avgas,
if it was even available, and I'd pay for weather briefings, use of ATC,
use of GPS, etc.

Matt

I wouldn't pay school taxes if I didn't have kids in school

It is in your best interests that other people's children are well educated.

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

Government is very wasteful, but it does provide for the special interests
in a manner that wouldn't exist were everything based on a "pay as you
use" basis.

Ah, but if EVERYTHING were pay as you go, then they might exist because we
could afford to pay.

In the end it might work out OK, but it
certainly would look a lot different. I wouldn't pay school taxes if I
didn't have kids in school, but I'd probably pay $10/gallon for avgas, if
it was even available, and I'd pay for weather briefings, use of ATC, use
of GPS, etc.


Exactly! Because we are not "pay as you go", whenever you take out one
item and say it is "sunsidized" and we should be grateful for the
government, you are falling for a fallacy. The existing system has us all
standing with our hands out after they take so much taxes.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Blueskies wrote:




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.

Probably so for some services, I dunno about most. In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on. There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

A similar program during the Reagan era privatized much of the
Landsat data, after the Governement had paid for the programs
to obtain and archive it. The result was that it was priced
beyond reach of a lot of researchers. Oil companies could
afford it though.


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.


Not in the instant case. The government would still have all
the expense of operating a weather service--then a private concern
would get to sell the fruits of that tax money. E.g. Corporate
Welfare without even the meager benefits that something like a
subsidized sports stadium brings a community.

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites? And the broadcast
groups?

There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

So you rely on government bureaucrats to provide that?

These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and Amtrak.


The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

Yeah..corporations give us all our comforts and prosperity, but they could
do that.

Get a clue!!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites? And the broadcast
groups?

There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

So you rely on government bureaucrats to provide that?

These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and Amtrak.


The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

Yeah..corporations give us all our comforts and prosperity, but they could
do that.

Get a clue!!



C'mon Matt. You are overboard here. First of all, the USPS was, IMHO, much
better at providing services before it was made into its present "corporate
form". Even if it was expensive, you could stand on solid ground when you
said you mailed something to someone, and they should have gotten it. Not
so anymore, no matter what the IRS says.

Second, both examples are more like what would be created by this bill, not
what we have now. Semi-privatization just don't fly.

Lastly, the argument that is made here is both valid, reasonable, and should
be a litmus test for privatization or outsourcing. What this bill does is
not really either privatization or outsourcing anyway.

If the NWS is not up to the level of quality desired by the market, then why
do the private services need the NWS data? IOW, why are there not self
contained services ready to go? The problem this bill would address is one
where the fine cheese makers cannot sell cheese because the government is
giving it away. That would be a good argument except that in this case, the
government will still be making the cheese and the cheesemakers wil just
become profitable distributors.

No, there is a need for better packaging, delivery, and interpretation.
There are many services that perform these functions but they often use
government sources along with private ones to make their predictions and
build their products. They make money only where they can add value. Giving
up a lot of benefit for little reward is not something the taxpayers should
do just in the name of free markets. We first need to be convinced the free
market will be better and more efficient. IOW, we need to know that the
satellites and other infracstructure will be replaced by the private sector
instead of the private sector simply siphoning off some profit and leaving
when the free cheese runs out.

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the
weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather
satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites?
And the broadcast groups?

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?


There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

So you rely on government bureaucrats to provide that?

Yes and they do.


These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and
Amtrak.

Unhappy with the USPS are you? It has already been privatized.
IMHO, service was far more consistant and consistantly good
when there was a Postmaster General in the Cabinet.
Amtrak could not compete with the heavily subsidized airline
industry regardless of who managed it.



The proposal would not significantly reduce the government's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

Yeah..corporations give us all our comforts and prosperity, but they
could
do that.

Get a clue!!

I'm not able to parse that, But riddle me this, is the market
for weather reporting more lucrative in heavily populated areas
or in sparsley populated areas? Which of those two are the
preferred areas for GA?

--

FF

wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

Blueskies wrote:




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.


Probably so for some services, I dunno about most. In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on. There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

A similar program during the Reagan era privatized much of the
Landsat data, after the Governement had paid for the programs
to obtain and archive it. The result was that it was priced
beyond reach of a lot of researchers. Oil companies could
afford it though.


The point is that we would have to have most taxes go away in order for
this to happen. If we paid no income tax at all, then we could afford
to pay quite a bit for the services that we actually need. There is no
question that government redistributes wealth in many ways. What I
don't know is what things would look like if the wealth was distributed
by a free market rather than by government. I really don't know who
benefits the most from the redistribution, but given that much of
government is now involved not with providing services, but with the
redistribution process itself (IRS as one major example), which adds
zero economic value, it is an interesting thought experiment as to what
things would look like if this waste were put to use productively.



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.



Not in the instant case. The government would still have all
the expense of operating a weather service--then a private concern
would get to sell the fruits of that tax money. E.g. Corporate
Welfare without even the meager benefits that something like a
subsidized sports stadium brings a community.

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.

I agree that any transition would be painful. I was just trying to
imagine what things could look like if the services were provided more
efficiently. Our revenue collection process now is a huge resource hog
that provides no intrinsic value. I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering. Think how much more competitive our economy would be if
these people were actually growing, mining or making things or doing
something else with intrinsic value.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
The point is that we would have to have most taxes go away in order for
this to happen. If we paid no income tax at all, then we could afford
to pay quite a bit for the services that we actually need. There is no
question that government redistributes wealth in many ways. What I
don't know is what things would look like if the wealth was distributed
by a free market rather than by government.

Does it matter how it would be distributed? In any case, it would be
distributed to those who provided goods and services to people in freely
accepted transactions. The key word is "freely"...ya know, _freedom_!!

I really don't know who
benefits the most from the redistribution,

Pols, bureaucrats and those with political pull.

but given that much of
government is now involved not with providing services, but with the
redistribution process itself (IRS as one major example), which adds
zero economic value, it is an interesting thought experiment as to what
things would look like if this waste were put to use productively.

It would like like a truly "Free Country".



I agree that any transition would be painful. I was just trying to
imagine what things could look like if the services were provided more
efficiently.

Prosperity would skyrocket.

(Imagine the fellow whose parents spoiled him all his life, then tossed him
out of the house.)


Our revenue collection process now is a huge resource hog
that provides no intrinsic value.

Think of the mafia!

I can't find the source now, but I
recently saw a summary of how much money is spent simply related to
collection income taxes. This included the cost of the IRS, and all tax
preparation services such as H&R Block, tax software, tax attorneys,
CPAs, etc. The number of people and amount of money spent simply
counting and collecting taxes (and trying to avoid the same) was simply
staggering.

Not only the cost of collecting, but the bureaucratic overhead, not to
mention the Gestapo-like tactics of the collection agencies. Not to mention
the inversion of "servants" and "masters".

Think how much more competitive our economy would be if
these people were actually growing, mining or making things or doing
something else with intrinsic value.

There is no such thing as "intrinsic" value. Only value to people apply to
things.

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.


Not in the instant case. The government would still have all
the expense of operating a weather service--then a private concern
would get to sell the fruits of that tax money. E.g. Corporate
Welfare without even the meager benefits that something like a
subsidized sports stadium brings a community.

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.



You notice they don't want to maintain the 350 or so ASOS's around the
country many of which are in remote locations. I maintain about 9 of them
along with a radar computer systems river gages precip gages alert
transmitters (NWR) etc etc. They could not do this and make a profit!