Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

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 Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry "could do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively. I would certainly hope it wouldn't simply "do what
the NWS does" as that would be a real waste.


Matt

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

"Flyboy" wrote in message ...
"Blueskies" wrote:

Why don't your links work for me?


I don't know. They work for me in Mozilla, Firefox, and Internet
Explorer. I did notice that ipetitions.com was down for a few hours
yesterday. For the record, here are all the links I referenced:

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/



All is well now, thanks fro reposting

Matt Whiting wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry
"could do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively.

Unlikely. That's a situation in which competition wouldn't really be feasible.
You have only to look at the way AT&T was handling their monopoly and charging
structure in the '70s to see that the charges would almost certainly be
considerably higher than what we pay in taxes to support NWS today.

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

wrote:

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?

A great many of them. Although NASA used their political muscle to stifle
private launch ventures in the States, there are companies elsewhere who will
put up a satellite cheaper than using the shuttle.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry "could
do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

Whoops...that should be "couldn't do".

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively. I would certainly hope it wouldn't simply "do what
the NWS does" as that would be a real waste.

The NWS doesn't do anything by itself; it has no manufacturing capacity. It
merely derives income from the thugs at the IRS.

In the same vein, it has no stimulus to provide a better product. That's
what the profit motive creates, "MOTIVE".

The NWS/NOAA will get it pound of flesh regardless of the quality of its
product. AAMOF, if they fall behind, they can just demand/plead the need for
MORE money and resources...sorta like the school systems. (**** up and move
up).

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:B4ege.440$Ld4.227@trndny04...
Matt Whiting wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry
"could do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively.

Unlikely. That's a situation in which competition wouldn't really be
feasible.
You have only to look at the way AT&T was handling their monopoly and
charging
structure in the '70s to see that the charges would almost certainly be
considerably higher than what we pay in taxes to support NWS today.


Key word: monopoly. Context: government mandated and enforced monopoly.

wrote in message
ups.com...

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?

Every one of them.

NASA has no manufacturing capacity of it own.



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.

LOL!! Boy are you easily satisfied. Good little menchen, you!



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

Unhappy with the USPS are you? It has already been privatized.

Man, you're nievity is incredible.

Here the story a while back about the USPS fining people for carrying first
class mail?

How much do UPS and FedEx pay in income taxes? In property taxes?

Privitized? Like AMTRAK?

Like I said: get a clue!

IMHO, service was far more consistant and consistantly good
when there was a Postmaster General in the Cabinet.

Yup. They took decades to convert to faster means of transport that UPS and
FexEx had from day ONE.

In essence, the old Post Office didn't evolve during it's first 170 years of
existence.

The comparison is not the Post Office and the modern day USPS, it's FedEx,
UPS, and a slew of local delivery services/


Amtrak could not compete with the heavily subsidized airline
industry regardless of who managed it.

Want to compare subsidies for the airlines versus Amtrak?
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?

Non-sequitur -- the market is nation wide.

Again, get a clue rather than the bilge the media and your handlers shoved
down your throat and which you uncritically swallowed.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Ofege.1466$rw4.774@trndny03...
wrote:

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?

A great many of them. Although NASA used their political muscle to stifle
private launch ventures in the States, there are companies elsewhere who
will
put up a satellite cheaper than using the shuttle.

Good story is the project that former astronaut Deke Slayton worked on in
the years before his death...the one that NASA stove mightily to stifle.
They spent their entire chest of working capital in chasing
paperwork/bureaucratic BS.