[ARRL-OK] Another Legislative Issue

Wed Apr 27 10:20:54 EDT 2005

While this isn't radio, it is relevant to our ability to respond in times 
of severe weather, so I'll pursue this briefly.

At 10:44 PM 4/25/2005, you wrote:
>Kim
>
>1.  The data is  not "free".  We the taxpayer payed for the development of 
>the radars, and the effort expended to make the data useful.

Quite literally, true. I suppose what I mean, and said poorly, is that 
because these data are already paid for collectively by all of us, it 
should, in turn, be available to all of us, as it is now. In this regard, 
what the NWS and NOAA provide is not a threat to the private sector.

>
>2.  The NWS and NCAR have developed most if not all of the software that 
>makes

Actually, NCAR played only a minor role in the software development: NSSL 
(part of NOAA, which may be what you meant) was, and remains, the major 
player in software and application development for the WSR-88D radar (NEXRAD).

>the raw radar data useful to the end users, also at taxpayer expense, so 
>they do have the capability to make the data useful to about any end user.

This last part, while literally true, is not within the scope of the NOAA 
or NWS mission. Here's a reasonable example: suppose that the GM plant in 
Midwest City, wants a tailored weather product that warns them (and only 
them) of possible lightning activity on a 24/7 basis within 30 min of the 
likely onset, and then provides them with an "all clear" after the 
probability of lightning activity falls below some threshold (say, 1%). It 
is not within the mission scope of the NWS or NOAA to provide that level of 
service. While technically feasible, you can see that such custom services 
would rapidly degrade the overall public service performed by the NWS, 
especially in times of severe weather. This kind and level of service is 
exactly where the private sector shines, and rightly so.

Another example might be custom forecasts for construction sites (such as 
the National Weather Center, currently under construction in Norman): 
Certain activities have different weather tolerances, and a private firm 
can provide custom forecasts to the general contractor days in advance, 
tailored to the particular activities the contractor needs to plan. 
Concrete pours are somewhat temperature sensitive, cranes can handle 
certain items only if the winds are below some threshold speed, and so on. 
This level of service is well outside what the NWS can possibly provide, 
though the data to do so certainly exists.

How about notification of cell phone users of possible hazardous weather 
based upon the cell they are currently in? The NWS is currently not funded 
to deliver such a service, but a private company could certainly make such 
a product available for a fee.

As you can see, the list becomes almost endless quite rapidly.

At more depth than perhaps all but a few care about, that's where I was 
coming from.

73,

Kim Elmore, N5OP

>
>
>
>
>Kim Elmore <Kim.Elmore at noaa.gov> wrote:
>While I don't wish to take anything from the private vendors, in many cases
>the essentially repackage exactly what the NWS provides for free. It's
>inappropriate to make us pay for a simple repackaging.
>
>However, where the private vendors have it all over the NWS is in tailored
>products: they can provide products that are very specifically tailored to
>a user's needs, which is something the NWS cannot do. Also, the private
>vendors can provide all manner of additional products derived from the data
>streams that the NWS does not, or can not, provide. Things like that *are*
>worth paying for.
>
>However, as written the bill is simply too broad.
>
>Kim Elmore
>
>At 04:22 PM 4/23/2005, you wrote:
> > >From Eddie - K5EMS
> >
> >Thanks to Dave - KD5FX, for letting me know about this. Seems there is
> >always something brewing in the wings .... check out the latest
> >legislation that has been introducted in the US Senate. The jest of it
> >reads as follows:
> >=============================================
> >NEW BILL WOULD BAN PUBLIC NOAA WEATHER DATA [partial copy from article]
> >
> >Feds' weather information could go dark
> >By Robert P. King
> >Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
> >Thursday, April 21, 2005
> >Do you want a seven-day weather forecast for your ZIP code? Or
> >hour-by-hour predictions of the temperature, wind speed, humidity and
> >chance of rain? Or weather data beamed to your cellphone? That
> >information is available for free from the National Weather Service.
> >But under a bill pending in the U.S. Senate, it might all disappear.
> >The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would
> >prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as
> >AccuWeather and The Weather Channel, which offer their own forecasts
> >through paid services and free ad-supported Web sites. Supporters say the
> >bill wouldn't hamper the weather service or the National Hurricane Center
> >from alerting the public to hazards - in fact, it exempts forecasts meant
> >to protect "life and property." [MUCH MORE IN THE ARTICLE]
> >================================================
> >To see the full article go to WWW.QRZ.COM and read the title as given
> >above. The name & bill number is <>"National Weather Services Duties Act
> >of 2005 -- S 786", so you can cite this issue and voice your opinion!!
> >Thanks
> >Eddie - K5EMS
> >
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >___________________ Information __________________________
> >ARRL Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT wb5syt at arrl.org
> >Oklahoma Section Web page http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >
> >ARRL-OK mailing list
> >Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
> >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> >Post: mailto:ARRL-OK at mailman.qth.net
>
>Kim Elmore, Ph.D.
>University of Oklahoma
>Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
>"All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The
>greatest of these is Maybe" The original Latin appears to be garbled.
>
>______________________________________________________
>___________________ Information __________________________
>ARRL Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT wb5syt at arrl.org
>Oklahoma Section Web page http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>
>ARRL-OK mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>Post: mailto:ARRL-OK at mailman.qth.net
>______________________________________________________
>___________________ Information __________________________
>ARRL Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT wb5syt at arrl.org
>Oklahoma Section Web page http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>
>ARRL-OK mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>Post: mailto:ARRL-OK at mailman.qth.net

                           Kim Elmore, Ph.D.
                        University of Oklahoma
         Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
"All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The
greatest of these is Maybe" The original Latin appears to be garbled.