"Dude" wrote:


This seems to be the crux of the issue to me. If the NWS budget a few years
from now could be slashed and/or replaced with less expensive and better
private sources, then I would think this bill is a good idea. No one seems
to be promoting it this way though.

No one is promoting it that way because that is not what the bill is
about. Indeed, even the duplicitous arguments in favor of this bill
from those representing the commercial weather services industry
haven't dared to suggest that the NWS budget would be "slashed" if the
bill were passed. It should be noted, however, that such arguments do
frequently resort to the deceptive "I don't want my tax dollars being
used..." line.

No, the commercial weather industry wants the NWS to continue their
data collection and forecasting duties (as clearly stated in the
bill). They just don't want the NWS to present that data in a
user-friendly form to the public if there is a commercial alternative
(as also clearly stated in the bill). This bill is about cutting the
NWS out of the weather presentation business, and in particular the
Internet weather presentation business, so that the commercial weather
industry can charge, or charge more, for such presentations.

Because it takes only a tiny fraction of the NWS operating budget to
make Internet weather presentations available, this bill would have a
negligible effect on the NWS operating budget.

Flyboy