JohnH wrote:

Notice the company this "donor" represents:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/ind_detail/MYERS|JOEL+N+DR|STATE+COLLEGE|PA|16801|ACCU+WEATHE R/

Talk about a blatant bribe. Weather info you've paid for sold off for a
measly $4050.

While I disagree with the bill under discussion, I don't think it is a "bribe" either. The NWS had
been restricted from offering many weather products that were more refined than the basically raw
data & forecasts they have always produced. This restriction ended December 2004.

Now imagine if you were a business that had invested in broadcasting music over satellites for
example and the government now decided that it was going to use its satellites to broadcast music to
anyone for free. (For the sake of the argument ignore the copyright aspects of the music itself,
just focusing here on the act of broadcasting). You'd probably be unhappy with having to compete
with the government producing a final product (sat. transmission) as well.

So is there a coincidence that Santorum and Accuweather are in the same state? Not all. Probably
filed a bill at the request of his constituents, and Accuweather does hire a lot of people in
central Pennsylvania. Even if Santorum himself disagrees with the bill, it would be nice of him to
file a bill on behalf of constituents. Many politicians wouldn't bother.

Finally it is important to note that under no circumstances would Aviation or Marine forecasts be
affected under the bill.