Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

Matt Barrow wrote:

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

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively. I would certainly hope it wouldn't simply "do what
the NWS does" as that would be a real waste.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:

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

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively.

Unlikely. That's a situation in which competition wouldn't really be feasible.
You have only to look at the way AT&T was handling their monopoly and charging
structure in the '70s to see that the charges would almost certainly be
considerably higher than what we pay in taxes to support NWS today.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

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

Whoops...that should be "couldn't do".

True. A private industry would do what the NWS does only better and
less expensively. I would certainly hope it wouldn't simply "do what
the NWS does" as that would be a real waste.

The NWS doesn't do anything by itself; it has no manufacturing capacity. It
merely derives income from the thugs at the IRS.

In the same vein, it has no stimulus to provide a better product. That's
what the profit motive creates, "MOTIVE".

The NWS/NOAA will get it pound of flesh regardless of the quality of its
product. AAMOF, if they fall behind, they can just demand/plead the need for
MORE money and resources...sorta like the school systems. (**** up and move
up).

Matt Barrow wrote:
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?

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?


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?

Yes and they do.


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

Unhappy with the USPS are you? It has already been privatized.
IMHO, service was far more consistant and consistantly good
when there was a Postmaster General in the Cabinet.
Amtrak could not compete with the heavily subsidized airline
industry regardless of who managed it.



The proposal would not significantly reduce the government'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!!

I'm not able to parse that, But riddle me this, is the market
for weather reporting more lucrative in heavily populated areas
or in sparsley populated areas? Which of those two are the
preferred areas for GA?

--

FF

wrote:

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

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?

A great many of them. Although NASA used their political muscle to stifle
private launch ventures in the States, there are companies elsewhere who will
put up a satellite cheaper than using the shuttle.

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

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Ofege.1466$rw4.774@trndny03...
wrote:

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

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?

A great many of them. Although NASA used their political muscle to stifle
private launch ventures in the States, there are companies elsewhere who
will
put up a satellite cheaper than using the shuttle.

Good story is the project that former astronaut Deke Slayton worked on in
the years before his death...the one that NASA stove mightily to stifle.
They spent their entire chest of working capital in chasing
paperwork/bureaucratic BS.

George Patterson wrote:
wrote:

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

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?

A great many of them. Although NASA used their political muscle to
stifle
private launch ventures in the States, there are companies elsewhere
who will
put up a satellite cheaper than using the shuttle.


Please tell us about some of them.

--

FF

wrote:

Please tell us about some of them.

The big hitter is Ariane in France. They've been launching since 1980 and
currently put up more than half the satellites launched every year. They just
signed a deal with the Russian space agency, which will allow them to use the
Soyuz infrastructure.

Messerschmitt made a stab at it at about the same time, but I'm not sure they
every got operational. They were planning to build launch facilities in Africa.

Then there's International Launch Services, which is a joint venture of Lockheed
Martin and Russian rocket builder Khrunichev State Research and Production Space
Center. They were formed in 1995.

Sea Launch was also formed in 1995 and made their first commercial lift in 1999.
They launch from platforms in the ocean to get around having to deal with NASA
to use land bases in the U.S..

Boeing is also getting into the act with their Delta system.

And if you need to put up something really massive, there are several companies
in Russia who have access to updated military launch facilities, and, of course,
the Russian government will be happy to help you as well.

Launches planned for the next few months may be viewed at
http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking . As you can see, there are 40 scheduled. One
is NASA. A few others are U.S. military.

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

wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
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?

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?

Every one of them.

NASA has no manufacturing capacity of it own.



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?

Yes and they do.

LOL!! Boy are you easily satisfied. Good little menchen, you!



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

Unhappy with the USPS are you? It has already been privatized.

Man, you're nievity is incredible.

Here the story a while back about the USPS fining people for carrying first
class mail?

How much do UPS and FedEx pay in income taxes? In property taxes?

Privitized? Like AMTRAK?

Like I said: get a clue!

IMHO, service was far more consistant and consistantly good
when there was a Postmaster General in the Cabinet.

Yup. They took decades to convert to faster means of transport that UPS and
FexEx had from day ONE.

In essence, the old Post Office didn't evolve during it's first 170 years of
existence.

The comparison is not the Post Office and the modern day USPS, it's FedEx,
UPS, and a slew of local delivery services/


Amtrak could not compete with the heavily subsidized airline
industry regardless of who managed it.

Want to compare subsidies for the airlines versus Amtrak?
The proposal would not significantly reduce the government'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!!

I'm not able to parse that, But riddle me this, is the market
for weather reporting more lucrative in heavily populated areas
or in sparsley populated areas? Which of those two are the
preferred areas for GA?

Non-sequitur -- the market is nation wide.

Again, get a clue rather than the bilge the media and your handlers shoved
down your throat and which you uncritically swallowed.

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
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?

How many of those were put into orbit by privately developed and
operated launch vehicles?

Every one of them.

NASA has no manufacturing capacity of it own.


As you will recall,
in . com I wrote:

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.

Which is precisely how NASA builds, launches and operates satellites.

That is not the sort of privatization being proposed for the NWS.

What is proposed is that the information to be distributed be
made into a privately owned intelectual property--like was done
with the Landsat data that effectively destroyed it's value to
anyone but the company to which it was given.




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

Unhappy with the USPS are you? It has already been privatized.

Man, you're nievity is incredible.

Here the story a while back about the USPS fining people for carrying
first
class mail?

I was not aware that the USPS had authority to fine anyone. Federal
Law sets aside the carriage of first class mail for the USPS so
that all citizens can have their first class mail deliverd for
the same price. Those who violate that law may be enjoined or
finedby the courts I would presume, though maybe the USPS police
(e.g. the stamp cops) ocnduct the investigations. Otherwise,
persons in some parts of the country would be effectively without
mail service. Some people think that's OK, you know, the sort of
people who only think the benefits they get from government are
appropriate.

....

Yup. They took decades to convert to faster means of transport that
UPS and
FexEx had from day ONE.

UPS and Fedex perform different services. However, I have never had
the deliver problems with the USPS that I have had with UPS. Not
much experience with Fedex, nor will I since they are so friggin'
expensive.


The comparison is not the Post Office and the modern day USPS, it's
FedEx,
UPS, and a slew of local delivery services/


No it is not. None of those are privitized delivery networks for
product obtained at taxpayer expense. The current proposal has
us paying the government to obtain the data and make the forcasts,
and they pay somebody else to be able to access them.


Amtrak could not compete with the heavily subsidized airline
industry regardless of who managed it.

Want to compare subsidies for the airlines versus Amtrak?

Go ahead. Take an especially close look at fuel costs. Be sure
to include the United Airlines (spit) pension plan.

... But riddle me this, is the market
for weather reporting more lucrative in heavily populated areas
or in sparsley populated areas? Which of those two are the
preferred areas for GA?

Non-sequitur -- the market is nation wide.

'The' market for first class mail is nation wide too. Where do those
small time outfits illegally delivering first class mail spring up,
in the business districts of major cities or in the backcountry of
Montana?


Again, get a clue rather than the bilge the media and your handlers
shoved
down your throat and which you uncritically swallowed.

Oh, you're one of those paranoid nut-jobs, eh?

--

FF