Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

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.