Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

Blueskies wrote:

"FlyBoy" wrote in message ...

As a private pilot, I make frequent use of the NWS's Aviation Digital
snip...


I urge those who care about this
issue to sign the online petition, join the online forum, and write
their own senators with their opinions of this bill.

1: NWS ADDS: http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/
2: S. 786: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786:
3: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS/

FlyBoy




This could end up like things in Russia. Public money funded resources are deemed too inefficient to be run by the
government, so the assets are put up for bid to private companies. The private company acquires the asset, and then
sells the service to the public.Very bad idea for the NWS, very bad idea for our freeways, very bad idea for our
airways...

I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money. The problem that many of us, me included,
don't like to accept is that aviation is not self-supporting and is
subsidized heavily from other revenue sources. A private enterprise
wouldn't likely have this subsidy so the user costs would reflect the
true cost of the sytem and this likely would be ugly ... even if GA only
had to pay for the meager subset of services that it really needs. Most
GA airports simply couldn't survive without subsidies.

I don't know if this is true for freeways or not, but I'm not sure they
are self supporting either if you consider the total costs, both capital
and expense to maintain them.

It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


Matt

I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.

This can only be true where there is free competition and where the value is
measurable (if you die without healthcare, then its hard to measure its
value). Also, if the government must have the weather already (which it
must) then it is likely efficient for us all to have them dissemanate it.
How many of the private weather firms have there own satellites anyway?

The problem that many of us, me included,
don't like to accept is that aviation is not self-supporting and is
subsidized heavily from other revenue sources.

I have argued this myth a thousand times, and no one listens. It simply is
not provable given our system of other heavily subsidized activities being
involved. Pointing to the subsidies is not enough. You need to show that
it is MORE subsidized than other activities, as well as trace all the taxes
(monetary and regulatory) on it. I will be happy to cut my subsidy if we
can the rest as well. Let the poor beg the rich, and the food supply shrink
if that is what you want.

A private enterprise
wouldn't likely have this subsidy so the user costs would reflect the true
cost of the sytem and this likely would be ugly ... even if GA only had to
pay for the meager subset of services that it really needs.

I suppose if weather were off the budget, the TV stations would end up
paying for a lot of it. And the airlines would HAVE to have it. I suspect I
could get almost all I need for free anyway.

Most
GA airports simply couldn't survive without subsidies.


I am not too sure of that. The only thing GA airports HAVE to have is
protection from permanent closure. After all, if we want to be able to fly
someplace, there has to be a place to land SOMEWHERE near there. NIMBY's be
damned. Besides, the GA airports by definition have their ability to compete
taken away by the heavily subsidized airports the carriers use.

This argument won't be over until Delta and AMR start building their own
airports.

Since there are still successful privately owned airports I will chalk up
the need for subsidies to government inability to manage them without graft
and inefficiency.


I don't know if this is true for freeways or not, but I'm not sure they
are self supporting either if you consider the total costs, both capital
and expense to maintain them.


My point exactly! The only sure thing is that our taxes are being spent on
lots of things we don't individually care for.

It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


This is true but the problem is measuring the costs and benefits. It's not
easy. Weather has national security value and therefore must be predicted
at least somewhat well. To my knowledge, all weather services are using
some of the NWS resources at this time. I could be wrong, but this tells me
we don't know well if a free market in weather prediction is profitably
sustainable. It could be that we are unwilling to pay for the amount of
accuracy which the government requires.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

I think if most "public" services were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.

I disagree. I remember when the Weather Station first came out, they had very
frequent local reports and paging of text weather of various cities every 20
minutes or so. Also had some aviation weather, as I recall.

Then they started attracting advertisers. The pilot weather was gone the next
time I saw a report. By 1995, the local cable companies had replaced the local
weather reports with their own ads. TWS corrected that a few years later by
announcing that the local weather would be displayed every 10 minutes (on the
8s). That forced the cable companies to play it.

Basically, if you need something special and are perceived to be a minority,
private enterprise will cut you right out of the picture. If weather info is
provided only by private enterprise, we won't have pilot weather unless
something like AOPA provides it for us.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:


I think if most "public" services were provided by a free enterprise
system, then we'd get a lot more in aggregate for our money.


I disagree. I remember when the Weather Station first came out, they had
very frequent local reports and paging of text weather of various cities
every 20 minutes or so. Also had some aviation weather, as I recall.

Then they started attracting advertisers. The pilot weather was gone the
next time I saw a report. By 1995, the local cable companies had
replaced the local weather reports with their own ads. TWS corrected
that a few years later by announcing that the local weather would be
displayed every 10 minutes (on the 8s). That forced the cable companies
to play it.

Basically, if you need something special and are perceived to be a
minority, private enterprise will cut you right out of the picture. If
weather info is provided only by private enterprise, we won't have pilot
weather unless something like AOPA provides it for us.

Yes, that is why I said in aggregate. We overall have much better
weather services today than we had 30 years ago when it was nearly all
government provided. I didn't say that aviation would be better off.
Actually, my point is that aviation is very heavily subsidized and would
likely take it on the chin without such subsidies.

Government is very wasteful, but it does provide for the special
interests in a manner that wouldn't exist were everything based on a
"pay as you use" basis. In the end it might work out OK, but it
certainly would look a lot different. I wouldn't pay school taxes if I
didn't have kids in school, but I'd probably pay $10/gallon for avgas,
if it was even available, and I'd pay for weather briefings, use of ATC,
use of GPS, etc.

Matt

I wouldn't pay school taxes if I didn't have kids in school

It is in your best interests that other people's children are well educated.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Government is very wasteful, but it does provide for the special interests
in a manner that wouldn't exist were everything based on a "pay as you
use" basis.

Ah, but if EVERYTHING were pay as you go, then they might exist because we
could afford to pay.

In the end it might work out OK, but it
certainly would look a lot different. I wouldn't pay school taxes if I
didn't have kids in school, but I'd probably pay $10/gallon for avgas, if
it was even available, and I'd pay for weather briefings, use of ATC, use
of GPS, etc.


Exactly! Because we are not "pay as you go", whenever you take out one
item and say it is "sunsidized" and we should be grateful for the
government, you are falling for a fallacy. The existing system has us all
standing with our hands out after they take so much taxes.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Blueskies wrote:




This could end up like things in Russia. Public money funded
resources are deemed too inefficient to be run by the
government, so the assets are put up for bid to private companies.
The private company acquires the asset, and then
sells the service to the public.Very bad idea for the NWS, very
bad idea for our freeways, very bad idea for our
airways...

I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services
were
provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in
aggregate for our money.

Probably so for some services, I dunno about most. In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on. There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

A similar program during the Reagan era privatized much of the
Landsat data, after the Governement had paid for the programs
to obtain and archive it. The result was that it was priced
beyond reach of a lot of researchers. Oil companies could
afford it though.


It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or
the
profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the
private
enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still
cost
less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall.


Not in the instant case. The government would still have all
the expense of operating a weather service--then a private concern
would get to sell the fruits of that tax money. E.g. Corporate
Welfare without even the meager benefits that something like a
subsidized sports stadium brings a community.

The proper and effective way to privatize services of this sort
is to put the operational support for the service up for competative
bidding by prospective contractors and NOT by privatizing the data
themselves.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites? And the broadcast
groups?

There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

So you rely on government bureaucrats to provide that?

These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and Amtrak.


The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

Yeah..corporations give us all our comforts and prosperity, but they could
do that.

Get a clue!!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites? And the broadcast
groups?

There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

So you rely on government bureaucrats to provide that?

These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and Amtrak.


The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

Yeah..corporations give us all our comforts and prosperity, but they could
do that.

Get a clue!!



C'mon Matt. You are overboard here. First of all, the USPS was, IMHO, much
better at providing services before it was made into its present "corporate
form". Even if it was expensive, you could stand on solid ground when you
said you mailed something to someone, and they should have gotten it. Not
so anymore, no matter what the IRS says.

Second, both examples are more like what would be created by this bill, not
what we have now. Semi-privatization just don't fly.

Lastly, the argument that is made here is both valid, reasonable, and should
be a litmus test for privatization or outsourcing. What this bill does is
not really either privatization or outsourcing anyway.

If the NWS is not up to the level of quality desired by the market, then why
do the private services need the NWS data? IOW, why are there not self
contained services ready to go? The problem this bill would address is one
where the fine cheese makers cannot sell cheese because the government is
giving it away. That would be a good argument except that in this case, the
government will still be making the cheese and the cheesemakers wil just
become profitable distributors.

No, there is a need for better packaging, delivery, and interpretation.
There are many services that perform these functions but they often use
government sources along with private ones to make their predictions and
build their products. They make money only where they can add value. Giving
up a lot of benefit for little reward is not something the taxpayers should
do just in the name of free markets. We first need to be convinced the free
market will be better and more efficient. IOW, we need to know that the
satellites and other infracstructure will be replaced by the private sector
instead of the private sector simply siphoning off some profit and leaving
when the free cheese runs out.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

In the instant
case, it is not feasible for private concerns to operate the weather
bureau infrastructure, inclusing constellations of weather satellites
and so on.

Oh, like the constellation of communications satellites? And the
broadcast
groups?

There is also a need for consistant (preferably high)
quality and availabllity from the standpoint of public saftey.

So you rely on government bureaucrats to provide that?

These are much the same people as run the Postal Disservice and Amtrak.


The proposal would not significantly reduce the goernment's costs,
but would significantly reduce the public benefit. Not good.

Yeah..corporations give us all our comforts and prosperity, but they
could
do that.

Get a clue!!



C'mon Matt. You are overboard here. First of all, the USPS was, IMHO,
much
better at providing services before it was made into its present
"corporate
form". Even if it was expensive, you could stand on solid ground when you
said you mailed something to someone, and they should have gotten it. Not
so anymore, no matter what the IRS says.

Second, both examples are more like what would be created by this bill,
not
what we have now. Semi-privatization just don't fly.

No, it doesn't. The point made, though, is that private industry "could do
what the NWS does", and that's plain BS.