Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

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.

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 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 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.