Blueskies wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
:
: "Blueskies" wrote in message
: . net...
:
: So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
: and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
: problem...
:
:
: Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
: consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
: it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
: and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
: compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
: of Flight Watch.
:
:

Sure, I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.



And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
reads web pages to you.

The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.

By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
(without commercial help)

Scott