NWS Duties Act of 2005: comments in defense of it

[LarryWx]

Today, JB and his partner KR defended Senate Bill 786 with comments such as the following:

1) KR, regarding the bill: "The misinformation that is being spread about that is just unbelievable."

2) KR, regarding NWS data: "Let everyone access it equally."

3) JB: "This company is taxed out the wazoo just like anybody else."

4) JB: He says people complain in regard to Accuwx, "You've got free this and free that. I don't understand where people think that to run a business is free."

5) KR: "The concept though is the Weather Service should provide their data equal access and free to everyone.
And now if you want bulk delivery like we do we have to pay extra to get it."

Are they bringing up some valid points that should be considered or not?

[dhweather]

They don't have an argument to stand on.

Their business is, and has been, to add "value" to NWS products.

Once WSR88D's were deployed, for example, the broadcast media, in particular, needed help.

Accuweather and others added value to NWS products, making
simple to use workstations to show weather graphics.

Now these people want much more control over the dissemination
of the data and forecasting, plus access to the experts? That's right,
if Joe B has his way, there will be no more Stacy Stewart on
NHCWX - it will be illegal.

I love this:

3) JB: "This company is taxed out the wazoo just like anybody else."

Good Joe, and since EVERYONE pays tax dollars (and your company
has not paid them very many years), why do you want to control
what EVERYONE has access to now?

[x-y-no]

Today, JB and his partner KR defended Senate Bill 786 with comments such as the following:

1) KR, regarding the bill: "The misinformation that is being spread about that is just unbelievable."

Yep. Senator Santorum and his corporate masters at Accuweather are dishing out quite a lot of misinformation, I agree.

2) KR, regarding NWS data: "Let everyone access it equally."

Note, he doesn't say to leave in place the easy and comprehensive access provided now. No, what this bill does is restrict the provision of data to "a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services". In addition, it specifically prohibits the provision of anything which the private sector is willing and able to provide, excepting only emergency and aviation information. Note that this doesn't really save any government expenditure, they still have to do most everything they already do - the difference is they can't give it to us if Accuweather or some other private weather service is willing and able to resell it to us.

3) JB: "This company is taxed out the wazoo just like anybody else."

So? That should entitle them to exclusive access to the data all of us have paid for? I think not.

4) JB: He says people complain in regard to Accuwx, "You've got free this and free that. I don't understand where people think that to run a business is free."

I have no problem with Accuweather charging whatever they want for whatever they care to sell. What I object to is their trying to take possession of OUR data so they can force us to pay for it a second time if we are to have it at all.

5) KR: "The concept though is the Weather Service should provide their data equal access and free to everyone.
And now if you want bulk delivery like we do we have to pay extra to get it."

I don't want bulk delivery. I want the kind of web-based access I have today. Note how this was put - and remember again that the bill specifically says that the weather service is restricted to providing data in bulk form. If this passes, say good-bye to all your favorite government weather websites like TAFB, NCEP, NOAA/GSS, CPC, CDC ,on and on. They won't be allowed, because they compete with Accuweather Pro.

Are they bringing up some valid points that should be considered or not?

I have no polite words for this load of ----.


Jan

[weatherwindow]

AMEN, jan......that duet must have a great deal of difficulty keeping a straight face while reciting the company line. i havent heard that transparent and self-serving an argument in quite some time....well at least the gentleman from pennsylvania still does not have a co-sponsor and the delegations from every state prone to hurricanes have denounced it. let us hope that that will suffice to kill it...........rich

[donsutherland1]

Larry,

I'm not surprised that JB and KR are defending S.786, especially as their employer has played a major role in promoting such legislation.

Nevertheless, concerns being expressed about access to data are not entirely "misinformation." If there is misinformation, and I'm sure there is some, a large part of the responsibility rests with Senator Santorum and the bill's advocates.

Let's take a closer look.

Mike Smith, CEO of WeatherData and one of the bill's leading advocates has provided what is likely a "smoking gun" in the debate concerning access to information. The May 11, 2005 edition of The Wichita Eagle reported, "Smith argues that the weather service could save money by not duplicating services provided by the private sector, such as customized digital cell phone forecasts, plotted maps and digests of severe storm reports and enhanced radar displays."

KR and JB never addressed this in their cursory comments.

At a March 2004 AMS forum, Dr. Barry Myers' made the following complaint about the NWS guidelines, "The recognition that the private weather industry is ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users is deleted."

The statement that private industry is "ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users" suggests that Dr. Myers possibly had in mind the distribution of raw data only by the NWS.

KR and JB never addressed this in their comments. Equal access to data? Perhaps. But what kind of data?

The legislation requires, "Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings shall be issued under paragraph (1) through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph." In other words, the legislation expressly requires that the data be provided "through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services" while stating nothing about the format for the general public. As written, the legislation is aimed at serving the commercial sector and not the general public.

At S2K, I wrote on May 11, "The silence of Senator Santorum's office on this--now more than 3 weeks have passed since I made my request for clarification on the issue of data--appeared to confirm this hypothesis" regarding access to data. Guess what? Almost two additional weeks have passed. Still, there is only silence from Senator Santorum. At that rate, a future expedition to Mars will likely find conclusive evidence concerning whether there was or was not life there at some time in the past well before Senator Santorum ever replies.

Aside from this silence speaking volumes about the quality and level of service Senator Santorum offers to Pennsylvanians, this silence can only suggest that the Senator deliberately wishes to remain ambiguous on this matter? Why?

For a Senator who tries to maintain a high public profile, this silence is quite out of character. Why is he refusing to respond to legitimate questions? Almost certainly because he doesn't want to be pinned down on the details--he's caught between the proverbial "rock" (AccuWeather/PA private companies) and a "hard place" (the general public) and wants to maintain the safety of sitting on the fence with regard to specificity. That's not exactly leadership. Moreover, it's an approach that can only lead to misunderstanding. So, if there truly is misunderstanding about the legislation, Senator Santorum has much responsibility to bear.

Now, if the legislation barred the NWS from offering industry-specific forecasts, that would be fair. But, that's not what the legislation seeks to accomplish.

JB and KR have--and should have--the freedom to express their views and promote legislation with which they agree. That right belongs to every American citizen. However, on the matter of S.786 I strongly disagree with JB's and KR's thinking and their arguments as quoted. The legislation, as it is drafted, is badly flawed and should be rejected.

[Agua]

I'm reading the Bill. Could you guys point to what it is in particular that has you concerned?

S. 786
To clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 14, 2005
Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL
To clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

(a) IN GENERAL- (1) To protect life and property, the Secretary of Commerce shall, through the National Weather Service, be responsible for the following:
(A) The preparation and issuance of severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public.
(B) The preparation and issuance of hydrometeorological guidance and core forecast information.
(C) The collection and exchange of meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data and information.
(D) The provision of reports, forecasts, warnings, and other advice to the Secretary of Transportation and other persons pursuant to section 44720 of title 49, United States Code.
(E) Such other duties and responsibilities as the Secretary shall specify.

(2) The National Weather Service shall serve as the sole official source of flood warnings and severe weather warnings.

(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The National Weather Service shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a service or product (other than a service or product described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) that is or could be providedby the private sector unless--
(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such service or product; or
(2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such service or product under international aviation agreements to provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.

(c) ISSUANCE OF DATA, FORECASTS, AND WARNINGS- All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.

(d) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN DISCLOSURES- An officer, employee, or agent of the National Weather Service, or of any other department or agency of the United States, who comes by reason of that status into possession of any weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning that might influence or affect the market value of any product, service, commodity, tradable, or business may not--
(1) willfully impart, whether directly or indirectly, such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning, or any part thereof, before the issuance of such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning to the public under subsection (c); or
(2) after the issuance of such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning to the public under subsection (c), willfully impart comments or qualifications on such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning, or any part thereof, to the public, except pursuant to an issuance that complies with that subsection.

(e) REGULATIONS- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations to implement the provisions of this section.

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE- The provisions of this section (other than subsection (e)) shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(g) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- The Act of October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 653) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 3 (15 U.S.C. 313) is repealed.
(2) Section 9 (15 U.S.C. 317) is amended by striking ', and it shall be' and all that follows and inserting a period.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON MODIFICATION OF NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ACTIVITIES.

(a) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that sets forth--
(1) a detailed statement of the activities of the National Weather Service that are inconsistent with the provisions of section 2;
(2) a schedule for the modification of the activities referred to in paragraph (1) in order to conform such activities to the provisions of section 2; and
(3) the regulations prescribed under section 2(e).

(b) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED- In this section, the term ' appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives.

END<

2005 CONG US S 786

[Skywatch_NC]

Wonder who voted...Maybe, I'd like to hear more to help me to decide.

[Agua]

Wonder who voted...Maybe, I'd like to hear more to help me to decide.

I did because I didn't know what the Bill contains. I posted it in my immediately preceding post and I'm just now reading it thoroughly.

[Agua]

I'm reading it and I'm not seeing what the fuss is about. It's not precluding forecasts, analyses, or reports - it's mandating that they be released to the public as close as practicable to real time.

Maybe I'm missing something (not being a smart alec either).

[donsutherland1]

Agua,

From where did you obtain that text?

The text you offered states:

(c) ISSUANCE OF DATA, FORECASTS, AND WARNINGS- All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings...

That is not the complete text. In fact, it is missing the key section from which the concern arises. Here's what the legislation states for Section c, with the missing text in bold-face type:

(c) ISSUANCE OF DATA, FORECASTS, AND WARNINGS-

[i](1) IN GENERAL- All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay for internal use, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.

(2) MODE OF ISSUANCE- Data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings shall be issued under paragraph (1) through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph.

To search legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/

[Skywatch_NC]

I'm reading it and I'm not seeing what the fuss is about. It's not precluding forecasts, analyses, or reports - it's mandating that they be released to the public as close as practicable to real time.

And that's what the NWS has been doing all along.

[Agua]

A proprietary legal research service marketed under the name "Westlaw".

[Edited to respond in a coherent manner .. LOL]

[donsutherland1]

Agua,

In addition to the missing text, which I posted in this thread, one needs to read the comments of those who advocate the legislation for a better understanding as to their intent.

Among the following:

• No Enhanced Radars: Mike Smith, CEO of WeatherData and one of the bill's leading advocates has provided what is likely a "smoking gun" in the debate concerning access to information. The May 11, 2005 edition of The Wichita Eagle reported, "Smith argues that the weather service could save money by not duplicating services provided by the private sector, such as customized digital cell phone forecasts, plotted maps and digests of severe storm reports and enhanced radar displays."

• Raw data only? At a March 2004 AMS forum, Dr. Barry Myers' made the following complaint about the NWS guidelines, "The recognition that the private weather industry is ideally suited to put the NWS information database into a form and detail that can be utilized by specific users is deleted."

[x-y-no]

I'm reading the Bill. Could you guys point to what it is in particular that has you concerned?

Sure.

First issue is part (b), which restricts the weather service from providing any product or service which a private entity is "willing and able" to provide. Now go visit Accuweather pro and see just how much territory that covers. Sattelite imagery, radar imagery, model output, any kind of forecast information, on and on. NWS *may not* provide any of it in a form which might compete with a site like accuweather.

Second issue is part (c)(2) which says that they shall provide data "through a set of data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers of products or services and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate for purposes of that paragraph." Such a bulk mechanism is not what is useful to little guys like us. And since we've already seen above that they are enjoined from providing data in a form which competes with the Accuweathers of the world, that leaves us SOL.

Third issue is part (d), which would essentially make it impossible for weather service employees to do things like give an interview on NHCWX, lest they say something which had not already been simultaeously released to the entire world.

Fourth issue is the conforming amendments. C.A. (1) repeals 15 USC 313, which reads:

The Secretary of Commerce shall have charge of the forecasting of weather, the issue of storm warnings, the display of weather and flood signals for the benefit of agriculture, commerce, and navigation, the gauging and reporting of rivers, the maintenance and operation of seacoast telegraph lines and the collection and transmission of marine intelligence for the benefit of commerce and navigation, the reporting of temperature and rain-fall conditions for the cotton interests, the display of frost and cold-wave signals, the distribution of meteorological information in the interests of agriculture and commerce, and the taking of such meteorological observations as may be necessary to establish and record the climatic conditions of the United States, or as are essential for the proper execution of the foregoing duties.

CA (2) repeals the part of 15 USC 317 which reads:

and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to prepare future estimates for the National Weather Service which shall be specially developed and extended in the interests of agriculture.

[donsutherland1]

Agua,

The Westlaw version seems to be incomplete. I can't speculate as to the reasons but the official version posted on the Congressional website has the objectionable text.

[Agua]

Very very odd. Let me search Westlaw one more time and see if there's something that's been changed. Westlaw is really THE legal research tool since the advent of the computer age.

[x-y-no]

Very very odd. Let me search Westlaw one more time and see if there's something that's been changed. Westlaw is really THE legal research tool since the advent of the computer age.

Here is the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786:

Here is 15 USC 313, which it repeals in full:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000313----000-.html

here is 15 USC 317 which it repeals in part:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000317----000-.html

[dhweather]

I smell a rat with Westlaw - perhaps the misinformation spoken of?

[Agua]

Yeah, I see your link and it definitely provides what has been quoted several times here. I have no explanation as to why Westlaw has a different version. It shows action on the Bill has been referral to the Transportation and Commerce Committee, but nothing indicating any changes to it have been presented.

As to the repealed portions - The first repealed section removes the duty from the Secretary of Commerice to be responsible for a ton of meteorological measuring and reporting requirements. I suppose that would open those items up for private entities unless the secretary of commerece determined such entities could not, or would not be able to do so. The latter section which is partially repealed is only an appropriation reporting requirement.

That is REALLY puzzling though about the difference in language.

[x-y-no]

Yeah, I see your link and it definitely provides what has been quoted several times here. I have no explanation as to why Westlaw has a different version. It shows action on the Bill has been referral to the Transportation and Commerce Committee, but nothing indicating any changes to it have been presented.

AFAIK, the Commerce Committee hasn't put it on the calendar yet.

As to the repealed portions - The first repealed section removes the duty from the Secretary of Commerice to be responsible for a ton of meteorological measuring and reporting requirements. I suppose that would open those items up for private entities unless the secretary of commerece determined such entities could not, or would not be able to do so.

It definitely does so. And again, look at Accuweather's pro site. The bill would enjoin NWS from providing any of that, with the limited exception of "severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property" and data they are obligated to provide "under international aviation agreements."

The latter section which is partially repealed is only an appropriation reporting requirement.

Actually, a requirement to prepare appropriations estimates. But the point is that they are removing the requirement to prepare estimates "which shall be specially developed and extended in the interests of agriculture" specifically because they are taking NWS out of the business of directly bringing data to the public in the interest of agriculture and commerce.

Look at the whole picture, and this is clearly intended to completely privatize the delivery of weather information, and to do so in a way which cuts out the little guy by only providing data in volume feeds which cost megabucks to subscribe to (see the reference in the original post to "if you want bulk delivery like we do we have to pay extra to get it."