Accuweather

[flair]

http://wxrisk.com/meteopage.html

DT (Dave Tolleris) at wxrisk.com takes a few shots at AccuWeather on his site, and he is exactly right. A certain somebody from AccuWeather, who will remain nameless here (his initials are J.B.), had been hyping a Mid-Atlantic and Northeast hit from Ophelia for days. (I live in N.E. NC and did not get even a token drop of rain from Ophelia.) D.T. argued against it and gave a compelling argument about why they were wrong. Turned out D.T. was right on. Of course Sen. Santorum will not mention stuff like this.

[brunota2003]

http://wxrisk.com/meteopage.html

DT (Dave Tolleris) at wxrisk.com takes a few shots at AccuWeather on his site, and he is exactly right. A certain somebody from AccuWeather, who will remain nameless here (his initials are J.B.), had been hyping a Mid-Atlantic and Northeast hit from Ophelia for days. (I live in N.E. NC and did not get even a token drop of rain from Ophelia.) D.T. argued against it and gave a compelling argument about why they were wrong. Turned out D.T. was right on. Of course Sen. Santorum will not mention stuff like this.

Are you kidding, why would he mention something like that when it could hurt his company and bill? Also, the NHC and NWS, according to the bill, would not be able to provide any forcasts, that includes any watches, hurricane watches, t-storm watches, etc... So the private companies will have to issue those and the first time they blow it, they are going to get majorily sued and ill probably be at the front lines of that one

[brunota2003]

Also, I turn 15 today!!! Party at my house!!! lol I probably know more about weather than most of them combined

[brunota2003]

"If enacted, S. 786 would prohibit the National Weather Service from providing any service, including marine, public and aviation forecasts (other than severe weather warnings) to either the public, the media, academia, or state and local emergency management officials if private sector weather companies are or could provide a similar service for a fee. "

That is from the NWSEO.

[SkeetoBite]

"If enacted, S. 786 would prohibit the National Weather Service from providing any service, including marine, public and aviation forecasts (other than severe weather warnings) to either the public, the media, academia, or state and local emergency management officials if private sector weather companies are or could provide a similar service for a fee. "

That is from the NWSEO.

So if this passes, I can go start a sex offender registry and stop all the law enforcement offices from publishing this data and make people pay me to get it... OMG, what a nightmare.

[nequad]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding of this bill is that the NWS will no longer provide daily forecasts to the public...but all other duties will be performed.

Now that's just my basic understanding of the bill...perhaps someone can enlighten me further.

If this is the case I really don't see the big deal. A large percentage of the population never see their local NWS forecast as it is today anyway. Most radio...TV and other media outlets already use private firms or their own in-house METS to issue day to day forecasts. Heck...you don't even get NWS forecasts on TWC local forecast anymore. As it stands right now the only time I see anything from my local NWS office is during the time of severe weather.

As I understand this bill...nothing will really change. Now I'm not here to defend ACCUWX. I just feel like someone needs to point out the fact that the NWS day to day local forecasts go largely unseen and unheard across a large portion of the country already.

[brunota2003]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding of this bill is that the NWS will no longer provide daily forecasts to the public...but all other duties will be performed.

Now that's just my basic understanding of the bill...perhaps someone can enlighten me further.

If this is the case I really don't see the big deal. A large percentage of the population never see their local NWS forecast as it is today anyway. Most radio...TV and other media outlets already use private firms or their own in-house METS to issue day to day forecasts. Heck...you don't even get NWS forecasts on TWC local forecast anymore. As it stands right now the only time I see anything from my local NWS office is during the time of severe weather.

As I understand this bill...nothing will really change. Now I'm not here to defend ACCUWX. I just feel like someone needs to point out the fact that the NWS day to day local forecasts go largely unseen and unheard across a large portion of the country already.

TWC still uses the NWS's warnings, watches and forcasts for everything here in the Carolinas... Including the marine forcasts to

[x-y-no]

Well, I'll stay away from politics too, but when Senator Vitter wrote:

Moreover, S.786 prohibits private entities from using the NWS's taxpayer-funded research for profit.

that was a bald faced lie. I suggest you write him back complaining that he would lie to you in this way, that's unacceptable.

[nequad]

A politician telling a lie? Never!

[x-y-no]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding of this bill is that the NWS will no longer provide daily forecasts to the public...but all other duties will be performed.

No. It says the NWS will provide bulk (raw) data to anyone who can use it, but will not provide any data or service (other than aviation and emergency information required by treaty) to the public if any private provider is willing to supply that data. It does not say those private providers may not charge for that service.

I don't know about you, but I'm not set up to use a bulk raw data feed of all the sattelite imagery, model output, radiosonde and dropsonde data etc. etc. that I look at on a regular basis today. So I would have to subscribe to Accuweather Pro or the like to get that info if I want it.

And many small weather sites, like s2K, would be out of business for the same reason.

As I understand this bill...nothing will really change. Now I'm not here to defend ACCUWX. I just feel like someone needs to point out the fact that the NWS day to day local forecasts go largely unseen and unheard across a large portion of the country already.

Then you need to look more carefully at the bill. This is a power-grab by a couple of large weather information providers. It's damaging to small businesses and weather related sites, and it's damaging to the public.

Just ponder this: If the bill truly has no effect, why propose it? Are we in the business of instituting null laws just for the fun of it?

[loon]

I recieved a letter from my Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. This might be of interest because the other poster that put their Senators response made it sound like he was on Rick Santorum's side. Well, so does Kay. Can they really be considering this bill?

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 786, the NAtional Weather Service Duties Act of 2005. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On April 14, 2005, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 786, which would clarify the duties and resposibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS).

In Decemeber 2004, NOAA, the parent agency of NWS, repealed its 1991 non-competition and non-duplication policy, which delineated the respective roles or services that were or could be provided by the commercial weather industry. The new NOAA policy promises only to "give due consideration" to the abilities of private sector entities. S. 786 seeks to restor the NWS non-competition policy, while providing NWS with unfettered freedom to carry out its critical role of preparing and issuing severe weather warnings and forecasts.

While I agree NWS plays a vital rle in monitoring weather to protect citizens and provide information helpful to individuals and businesses, I also believe increased market competition leads to greater industry performance. As I continue to monitor this issue, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

what a load of crap. same story. pay twice for the info your taxes pay for already.

cheers,
loon

[brunota2003]

I recieved a letter from my Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. This might be of interest because the other poster that put their Senators response made it sound like he was on Rick Santorum's side. Well, so does Kay. Can they really be considering this bill?

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 786, the NAtional Weather Service Duties Act of 2005. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On April 14, 2005, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 786, which would clarify the duties and resposibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS).

In Decemeber 2004, NOAA, the parent agency of NWS, repealed its 1991 non-competition and non-duplication policy, which delineated the respective roles or services that were or could be provided by the commercial weather industry. The new NOAA policy promises only to "give due consideration" to the abilities of private sector entities. S. 786 seeks to restor the NWS non-competition policy, while providing NWS with unfettered freedom to carry out its critical role of preparing and issuing severe weather warnings and forecasts.

While I agree NWS plays a vital rle in monitoring weather to protect citizens and provide information helpful to individuals and businesses, I also believe increased market competition leads to greater industry performance. As I continue to monitor this issue, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

what a load of crap. same story. pay twice for the info your taxes pay for already.

cheers,
loon

Thats pretty much what both my senators here in NC said... No need for me to post it...

[brunota2003]

Major Bump...

[brunota2003]

Bump

[Wpwxguy]

Not being political, this is something that we all need to fight. Sounds like this thing may have a little more backing than we all thought. I think its time for a revolution! Fact is, these people know that most everyday Americans don't access NWS sites and use them in the way that most of us do. So, here is there opportunity for a giant power grab as someone else posted. I am so ashamed of my Senator. Just goes to show that money sticks with money. The little man will always be overlooked. What a shame. Perhaps the dems will knock down this bill, sounds like Reps are pushing it. By the way, I am a registered Republican. Go Democrats!

[brunota2003]

From Page three, Bump!!!

[flair]

Not being political, this is something that we all need to fight. Sounds like this thing may have a little more backing than we all thought. I think its time for a revolution! Fact is, these people know that most everyday Americans don't access NWS sites and use them in the way that most of us do. So, here is there opportunity for a giant power grab as someone else posted. I am so ashamed of my Senator. Just goes to show that money sticks with money. The little man will always be overlooked. What a shame. Perhaps the dems will knock down this bill, sounds like Reps are pushing it. By the way, I am a registered Republican. Go Democrats!

Careful, I saw a thread get locked for less than that!

Seriously though, I pretty much agree with you. People want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore all that is going on. There is going to be quite an outcry around here when people have to start paying private firms to view and post links to weather info.

And I will gladly remind than about the "no political post" rule. (/sarcasm)

[terstorm1012]

I like Joe B at accuweather and his forecasts (very nice of him lately to offer the column for free because I won't pay for it...), but I won't pay for weather data that the NWS, NHC and TPC give out for 'free' (Well not free, my tax dollars pay for it).

NHC was pretty damn accurate, within 30 miles (correct me if im wrong) with Katrina, and since Hurricane Isabel in 2002 they've been very good.

it is true though, my state's senator has been trying to privitize the NWS for some time now, and Accuweather is a strong supporter of him.

[amawea]

Well, I like accuweather, and I like J.B. And I liked them long years before this stupid bill ever came about. Did J.B. start this bill? I don't think so! Does his employer back it. I'm sure they do. Does J.B. back his employer? He does unless he's a fool. Which he isn't. The last thing I read was concern from J.B. about having to pay for weather data that tax dollars have already payed for. Think about it. If accuweather can't get, model, sattelite, data, etc. , niether can you or I. YOU BETTER BE CAREFUL about the truth of this bill.
Amawea

[amawea]

Bump!