Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

"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 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.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:B4ege.440$Ld4.227@trndny04...
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.


Key word: monopoly. Context: government mandated and enforced monopoly.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:27:45 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

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.


Let's see:

Low bidder get the contract. So they start out cheap, and then have
to figure in a profit margin. Something is going to either get cut or
added, most likely both. Less service at a higher cost.

This would be like an airline letting out their maintenance to a low
bidder.

There are few things where a government/tax supported service works
better, but weather and traffic control are two.

If ATC were supported only by user fees the cost of flying would be
far higher than today.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:27:45 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

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.


Let's see:

Low bidder get the contract. So they start out cheap, and then have
to figure in a profit margin. Something is going to either get cut or
added, most likely both. Less service at a higher cost.

You assume it would be another monopoly. Flat out wrong in the same way
other media is a monopoly.


This would be like an airline letting out their maintenance to a low
bidder.

There are few things where a government/tax supported service works
better, but weather and traffic control are two.

Assumptive at best, and wrong by history.

If ATC were supported only by user fees the cost of flying would be
far higher than today.

Directly, yes. Overall, no.

There are few things where a government/tax supported service works
better, but weather and traffic control are two.


Military Defense is a good example of something best done by government.
Even if you do pay more.

Weather is a defense issue for one thing. Military types need good weather
forecasts even more than pilots. They need them for places outside the
country, too.

Could someone who thinks that a free market would work better here, please
DESCRIBE how that market would work? Please include infrastructure costs and
who is paying for them since the government will not be paying for them
anymore, otherwise its not a free market!!! What this bill describes is a
free ride, not a free market. If we have a free ride, let's all share it.

Governments (and philanthopists) are necessary for big expensive long term
projects with questionable profitability. It is very possible that the
market demand for good weather data would not support a profitable weather
service. If you cannot determine that the demand is there, then simply
saying free markets are better will not work.

If all this was so simple, healthcare would not be a big issue. The bottom
line is that on average, people won't invest in this sort of thing until
it's too late. How many people would actually budget for the real pice of
the healthcare they desire? About 10% would be my guess.

You know, a guy in trainer can fly with or without the weather forecast and
not care. He may not leave far from the field though. However, the FAA says
he HAS to have weather before going up. Are you going to change these rules
when everyone has to pay?


If ATC were supported only by user fees the cost of flying would be
far higher than today.


Only if the system was as it is now. User fees, depending upon the
structure, WILL change who flies what and where and how often.

"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).

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

What's the motive to provide good public libraries?

Jose

--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.