Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products

As a private pilot, I make frequent use of the NWS's Aviation Digital
Data Service (see 1). I especially like their "Java Tools" graphic
presentations of METAR, TAF, and AIR/SIGMET data. Senate Bill S. 786
(see 2) could well kill such NWS weather presentations in favor of
private sector subscription or advertisement supported Internet
weather services. AccuWeather.com has been a vocal proponent of this
bill. The Senator sponsoring this bill is from AccuWeather's home
state.

I have been arguing the case against this bill with AccuWeather's
Michael Steinberg in an online forum on ipetitions.com (see 3). If
any of my fellow pilots wish to add their voice to the discussion, I
would appreciate it. I must admit that I have reached the limit of my
patience with Michael Steinberg, who characterizes my views as "a
bunch of distortions at best". I believe that I have presented an
accurate interpretation of the likely effects of this bill and I also
believe that any "distortions" in the forum largely originate with
AccuWeather's Michael Steinberg. 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

Thank you for this information. I have written my Senator, and I will
follow this. Send an email to me If I may be of further service.

FlyBoy wrote:

IÂ*mustÂ*admitÂ*thatÂ*IÂ*haveÂ*reachedÂ*theÂ*limit Â*ofÂ*my
patience with Michael Steinberg, who characterizes my views as "a
bunch of distortions at best".

Why are you trying to convince someone with so obvious a financial interest
in eliminating this service for which we'd continue to pay so as to
subsidize his firm?

You might as well come into groups and try to convince us that Man Was Not
Meant To Fly.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Why are you trying to convince someone with so obvious a financial interest
in eliminating this service for which we'd continue to pay so as to
subsidize his firm?

Now that's just plain silly, Andrew. I'm not trying to convince him
of anything, I am trying to expose his specious arguments for what
they are. Indeed, rarely in public debate are the opposing debaters
trying to convince each other. Rather, they are trying to convince
the audience. The audience in this case are the readers of the forum.
Got it?

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:11:59 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

FlyBoy wrote:

I*must*admit*that*I*have*reached*the*limit*of*my
patience with Michael Steinberg, who characterizes my views as "a
bunch of distortions at best".

Why are you trying to convince someone with so obvious a financial interest
in eliminating this service for which we'd continue to pay so as to
subsidize his firm?

I really don't follow why you are saying what you are saying, but the
bill needs to be defeated. Check with the AOPA and EAA.

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

You might as well come into groups and try to convince us that Man Was Not
Meant To Fly.

- Andrew

"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...

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

On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:31:16 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote in
: :

very bad idea for our airways...

Unfortunately, it's not such a bad idea for big business.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::

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.

It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of
collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel.

Flyboy wrote:

The audience in this case are the readers of the forum.
Got it?

Then that he characterizes your views as "a bunch of distortions at best"
should be of limited concern if the audience is clear that he's being
duplicitous.

- Andrew