Bill Proposes Ending Free Weather Data

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

April 22, 2005, 9:59 AM

The Internet has made weather data more freely accessible to those who want it. Thanks to new policies instituted by the National Weather Service, users can obtain free access to such things as live radar, weather forecasts, and even receive weather on their cell phones. However, a bill introduced last week by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) may end all that.

"NOAA's actions threaten the continued success of the commercial weather industry," Santorum said in a Senate session last week. "It's not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers, or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free."

Initial reactions to the legislation have been mixed. Supporters say that the bill will let the National Weather Service focus on its core mission - forecasts and warnings. However, some have criticized the bill as a pander to the commercial weather industry.

Others warn that the bill is unclear as to exactly what would be allowed and what would not, possibly opening the door to abuses of the law.

Larry Cosgrove, former television meteorologist and publisher of the WEATHERAmerica Newsletter, says that the law aims to restrict what the weather service can do. "In essence, [the law is] setting a line in the sand as to what NOAA (the weather services’ parent agency) can and cannot do, so as to not to interfere with private forecast services."

Counted among the bill's supporters are private weather firms such as AccuWeather, which claim the NWS does not ensure the integrity of its data and plays favorites.

However, AccuWeather has a financial interest in seeing the weather service's Internet reach shrink. Up until the end of the 1990s it was the only way to receive real-time weather online data such as radars, for which it charged a fee for access. Some independent meteorologists like Cosgrove are against a return to this policy.

Online data access is seen by the weather service as an extension of its duty to serve the public. Last year, it eliminated a 13-year-old policy that prevented it from offering services that the private sector provided. Thus, new products including mobile weather services and raw weather data appeared, allowing anyone with the right software to decode and use it for free, making a pay service unnecessary to most.

Dr. Joel Myers, AccuWeather's president, and Barry Myers, the company's vice president, have argued in public that the actions of the National Weather Service are hurting their business.

Critics of the plan, however, point to the fact that AccuWeather, the nation's largest private weather firm, is located in Senator Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania.

Also, BetaNews has learned that throughout 2003 and 2004, both Joel and Barry Myers have donated nearly $2,750 to Santorum's 2006 re-election efforts. Public records also showed that since 1999, the Senator received nearly $5,000 in contributions from AccuWeather executives, raising questions of whether the company attempted to court favor with the Senator through campaign contributions.

AccuWeather did not respond to requests for comment on the situation.

Regardless of the origins of the legislation, at least one official with the National Weather Service called the bill dangerous. If the weather service was required to ensure everyone has "simultaneous and equal access" to its information, it could bar the weather service from talking to the press, something it has done at no cost.

"We are not interested in turning off our telephones," Ed Johnson, the NWS policy director, told the Palm Beach Post. "I would be concerned that that would actually be dangerous."

Cosgrove adds that any kind of curtailment of what the National Weather Service does is wrong. "An apt analogy would be this: the National Weather Service should be much like the PBS in the broadcast industry, a reliable alternative that sometimes works with the commercial stations and networks, but does not attempt to profit from its activities."

Add a Comment (76 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Wayne001

edited Nov 15, 2006 - 11:31 AM

Here's the rub: If the Senator of PA is playing favorites with Accuweather because of their paltry donations; and the people of PA are too apethetic to care; then let Accuweather have PA! The rest of the country is doing just fine without Accuweather's financial greed being thrust upon it.

As an amateur radio storm chaser for the great state of Wisconsin, I have seen over the years more and more special intrests taking things over within this arena. It has finally come to the point that in order "volunteer" your services, you have to donate not only your time and equipment, but your money as well. Accuweather is not only part of this failing, but by pacing the senator in their pocket, are fueling it. I mean, only $5,000 dollars?Senator -- have some pride!

Despite this, I have a feeling that with the democratic runaway elections of 2006 (Diebold aside), things like this will be flushed out into the open and the people involved exposed for their actions. I know I intend to stay on my congressman's caboose over issues like this!

Score: 0

By r1539

edited Jun 22, 2005 - 12:11 AM

This shows how special interest come first, at the expense of the many! Thank you dear Senator!

If this doesn't say "This country needs campaign reform" & term limitations nothing does! Washington cares only about themselves which requires money & every few years to go home & lie to get votes!

We need to make votes count more than the money!

We have 2 parties that care more for themselves than what is good for this country & quite frankly I'm sick of it!!

Score: 0

By weather1371

edited Jun 4, 2005 - 10:26 AM

"Joel and Barry Myers have donated nearly $2,750 to Santorum's 2006 re-election efforts. Public records also showed that since 1999, the Senator received nearly $5,000 in contributions from AccuWeather executives, raising questions of whether the company attempted to court favor with the Senator through campaign contributions." WOW, that's really cheap!!! I'm going to buy me a few senators and maybe even a bunch of congresspersons. I could probably buy my entire state government. With a second mortgage on my house I could probably buy the President himself!!

But seriously, how much do you want the government involved in processing the data the NWS collects and disseminating weather information. Rember, they collect DATA such as temperature, wind velocity, barometric pressure, wind velocity, relative humidity, etc. It takes additional $$ to process that data and create INFORMATION (such as forecasts), and then more $$ to disseminate the information, whether it's via the radio, the web, or TV.

The commercial guys use NWS data and data from other sources, including sources throughout the world, to create and disseminate information for general public use as well as specialized forecasts for a variety of commercial users. Do you really want to pay more $$ for the government to duplicate all this. How far do you want this to go? Do you want the NWS to integrate international weather? Do you want a US government run "weather channel"? You will pay additional tax $$ for it and probably much more than you currently do indirectly through the advertisers who support the 'free' weather information that you get now from the commercial providers.

And cut Barry Myers and AccuWeather some slack. They are taking the heat for the entire commerial weather industry. Landmark Communications, the parent of Weather.com and the Weather Channel, are happy to sit back and let AccuWeather take the heat right now, but imagine how they will squeal when the NWS with your tax dollars decides they want to run their very own TV weather channel.

Score: 0

By atidwell

edited Jun 1, 2005 - 3:27 PM

This is so stupid. We already PAY for this service with our tax dollars that keep NWS operating. A Republican should not be so dumb as to advocate something like this. This needs to go down in defeat as soon as possible. The government is supposed to be our servant, not our master.

Score: 0

By The_Engineer

edited May 18, 2005 - 12:40 PM

As an over-the-road professional driver, I need access to a radar map when driving into a potentially bad situation so I can evaluate whether or not it's safe to proceed. I need clarity on the situation and the public service the NWS provides gives me that. The local NOAA weather radio stations talk in counties. Unless I'm in my home state of North Carolina, I don't have a clue as to what county is where in any given state I'm in at the time so I don't get the whole picture. I can pull over to a truck stop with WiFi or any of the rest areas in Texas and get internet to check the weather. The NWS is providing a public service to inform and warn the public of weather issues. It should reamain that way or thousands of people traveling the highways will not be able to get what they need to make a safe trip.
It appears Accuweather is whining because they can't make money. Here's a case where public safety is taking a back seat to profits. How high a price does public safety have to be?
I am against this bill from a safety standpoint. If I can't get weather info for free out here and get the load to the customer safely, then Accuweather can start paying the damage claims.

Score: 0

By Pegusis2

posted Apr 25, 2005 - 8:50 AM

As always with the government... a quick buck in their pocket is what is at stake. The fool probably went to bed and had this Great Dumb Idea!!! Give the guy a break when he wakes from this sleep he will have thought it was just a dream... maybe a nightmare even. Everyone is trying to make quick $$$ off of anything that moves. This is somewhat like CNN trying to make us pay for their videos when everyone else is letting us view them for free on other news sites... here's CNN wanting us to subcribe to their site, well I've sent them emails and said hey look ABC, ATV, CBS, CBC,... and countless other sites do not charge for this service and you think you are going to and make money at it. DREAM ON.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Apr 25, 2005 - 8:40 AM

...we're missing the whole story. Democrat, Republican, Independant, whatever--I haven't seen someone do something this stupid without any explaination. I could be wrong, and this guy might really be one of the dumbest polititians on earth. I believe we're missing something though. Regardless, as almost everyone else pointed out, this is not a good thing for the people of the United States.

Score: 0

By Elcaminojoe

posted May 1, 2005 - 9:02 PM

Joel Myers has been a thorn in the Weather Service's side (more like a gadfly) for some time now. Word is that Santorum introduced the bill to get Myers off his back and is starting to regret that he ever introduced this bill.

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Apr 24, 2005 - 1:01 AM

I urge you all to do what I did. I emailed Senator Santorum and told him I was aware of his efforts to remove this vital service from the very agencies of the government that should continue doing it and that I was aware of the money he has received from private industry to pass legislation that promotes those companies that paid him the money. Write him and your own congressmen about this situation. Mention that it is a conflict of interests and that he should be investigated by the Ethics Committee.

Score: 0

By tonywall

edited Jul 22, 2005 - 4:12 PM

I recently signed a petition opposing Santorum's bill.
My questions are;
Who are the sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill-and were they paid off also?
and
How do we instigate an Ethics Committee investigation?

Score: 0

By Nogard

posted Apr 24, 2005 - 12:58 AM

I think this is BS. Come on people lets fight back. Lets bring this bill down. We have the power.

Score: 0

By voicedude

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 11:58 PM

As a conservative, this is really embarrassing. Not only that, as a 28-year broadcaster I can say that Accu-Weather's so-called service is the least accurate of anything out there. They are a joke in most of the broadcast industry.

Score: 0

By

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 8:31 PM

I don't see how this could be lawfully plausable. I mean, they're putting a stop to companies trying to offer a free service at their own cost because the big companies who charge money are "losing out." What's next? Shutting down every web site that posts news articles because services that require payment are "losing out" as well? I don't think so.

Score: 0

By Drama

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 4:42 PM

As a Republican, I'm embarrassed. This country has a lot more problems than free weather info. I'm pretty sure this guy wasn't elected to worry about things like this. Weather can be everyone's concern. Let it continue to be a FREE public service. Everyone needs the service, let legit advertisers pay for wanting to be seen. Let it go Sen. Santorum.

Score: 0

By xer0

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 2:45 PM

I wonder if cable companies are gonna charge to view the weather channel now

Score: 0

By rdburke

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 7:03 PM

They already are................cable ain't free.

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 2:51 PM

Technically they do ... it's what you pay for in TV service.

Score: 0

By bolaris

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 12:56 PM

Senator Rick Santorum is just a money sniffing, computer illiterate, dumb a** who has
the private corporations pulling on a rope, that is fed through the fat ring pierced through his nostrils.

[cartoon sketch here]

Score: 0

By esh3

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 3:57 AM

We're paying over a dollar more a gallon for gas, then they want to mess with Social Security, and now want us to pay see the weather. I can't afford to drive to work now, or retire, or feed my children now I have to pay to see the weather? What's next? Will everybody be required to subscribe to satelitte radio to get news, weather and sports? We are slowing losing freedoms.

Score: 0

By Mountain_Man

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 5:29 PM

I agree. The Bush administration is an insult to humanity. Let's kill more inocent civilians with "Shock and Awe". Let's imprison the middle class in debt as we watch the economy get worse and the deficeit increase beyond repair. Let's make our children pay for this administration's greed. I say justice must be done. Bush must hang! F*ch him and his brainless, distubing face. How the hell did such a moron become a President? He is a mass murderer. "NO WMD"

Score: 0

By riekl

posted Apr 24, 2005 - 8:54 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about. This bill and this article have nothing to do with the Republican party just one a****** of a Senator concentrate your wrath on him.

Bush must not be doing to badly to have won re-election very handidly as well as increased control of Congress. As far as the economy goes I don't know what your talking about, the stock market is at a stand still but by and large our economy is humming right along in great shape.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Apr 24, 2005 - 12:52 PM

I don't know why I'm surprised someone brought it up, but Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this article. You should try to keep your opinions on topic, or at the very least semi-indicative of intelligent life.

Any valid points you may have had are undermined by your glaringly biased insults.

Score: 0

By pipdipchip

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 12:25 AM

What the heck are taxes for then? I doubt this will pass, but if it does, I will be furious. So many great free programs will go down if this passes.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 8:08 AM

Indeed... a lot of free, spyware-ridden bandwidth-hogging apps like Weatherbug... what a pity.

Score: 0

By pipdipchip

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 9:42 AM

Oh yeah.. out of all the great programs... talk about WeatherBug. Which actually uses a different network for its weather data. I don't know what you were talking to say. As*hole.

Score: 0

By ChadL

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 10:25 PM

This is not the first time that state has taken the turn towards companies instead of the choice that is best for the people:
"including a draconian law now on the books in Pennsylvania, which strips local governments of the right to choose their own homegrown broadband solutions without the prior approval of a monopoly phone company. In late 2004, Verizon dictated the law word-for-word to local legislators..."
http://progressivetrail....ticles/050413Karr.shtml

Score: 0

By absoluteevel

edited Apr 23, 2005 - 12:11 PM

Here are a few related links:
His statement: http://santorum.senate.g...22&CFTOKEN=38509331
His Email: http://santorum.senate.g...Information.ContactForm
Email your senator, as they would vote on his bill: http://www.senate.gov/

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 12:15 AM

Thanks for the link. I submitted my feedback under the 'economy' topic.

Score: 0

By Aragor

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 8:45 PM

What is all this info on it being free. According to my info the US government is run off of our tax dollars. Why is it that the government wants us to pay over and over in taxes. Oh that's right, so they can spend it. I wish I could go into work tomorrow and tell the boss that in order for me to work I will have to charge him an hourly few, because my salary just pays me to come to work.

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 6:28 PM

I'm really getting sick of these computer illiterate people in public office trying to pass their stupid laws. Its just insane.

Honestly, the very first thing I thought of when I started reading this was, an April fools joke. Its that stupid.

This is probably the type of pure idiot who would want to tax email messages because its taking money away from the Post Office.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 11:57 PM

exactly.

Score: 0

By jofin

edited Apr 24, 2005 - 10:47 PM

When I first read this, it was with stunned disbelief. It was incredible to think that this was being raised at all - until you read all the other details.
Some may suggest that it is questionable as to why Senator Rick Santorum is introducing this bill. "Joel and Barry Myers have donated nearly $2,750 to Santorum's 2006 re-election efforts. Public records also showed that since 1999, the Senator received nearly $5,000 in contributions from AccuWeather executives, raising questions of whether the company attempted to court favor with the Senator through campaign contributions."
If this is correct, I am sure that the vast majority will draw the same conclusions about Senator Santorum's motivation, as I did.
I'd be willing to bet that if several hundred of the Senator's voters were to suggest changing their votes to the opposition to maintain free weather services, then the senator would soon change his stance and drop this bloody stupid bill!

Score: 0

By RobertM

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 5:28 PM

The whole idea is just crazy--especially since the NOAA is still going to have monitor the weather all the time, and making the information publicly available is not that much overhead. It's not like they can just issue warnings without constantly monitoring the conditions as always.

Plus, part of the reason we pay taxes is so the government can provide us services. This is one of them. And from what I understand, it's more like NOAA is providing raw data, not processed information like these private firms are.

Something fishy seems to be going on here, especially given all the hints to AccuWeather.

Luckily, it's just a bill, and the majority never become law. Let your representatives know what you think--especially if this representative is yours. :)

Score: 0

By accuwxSUX

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 4:45 PM

Senator Santorum is merely spewing talking points that were spoon fed to him by his friends at Accu Weather. It is well known that the private weather industry has been trying to gain a monopoly on weather information in this country, without having to fund the infrastructure that provides it by the way.
This is pandering of the highest sort, and any thinking person knows that if a bill such as this becomes law, it would be disasterous for the tax paying public.

Score: 0

By cltx99

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 3:59 PM

Of course, another corporate kiss-ass Republican, who will do what dollar signs tell them to do.

I hope he gets sucked up in a tornado.

Score: 0

By r1539

posted Jun 22, 2005 - 12:22 AM

Both Parties do this!

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 11:58 PM

rofl @ the tornado.

Maybe if he paid for his weather information...

Score: 0

By GeorgeSantayana

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 2:57 PM

but we have the best government money can buy.

Score: 0

By wicketr

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 4:20 PM

The NWS/NOAA should not be providing a pretty GUI to their information (They can if they want, but it shouldn't be their main focus). They should however provide ways of accessing their data via XML, RSS, etc, etc.

This is where their main focus should be: providing data to the public. Let commercial vendors, the public, etc parse the data and display it how they want.

What I don't want if for NOAA to be backed into a corner where they are only allowed to give the data to the few companies that pay off politicians. That is flat out criminal. We'd basically be forced to pay for data twice (taxes to NOAA to give the data to [weather company] and then pay fee/advertisements to view it).

If we can't get the data directly from NOAA, then we shouldn't pay taxes for it. Let weather.com, accuweather.com, etc pay to maintain NOAA.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 3:23 PM

"Capps said groundwater contamination from the gasoline additive has affected more than 1,800 community water systems in 29 states with a potential cleanup cost of $29 billion. MTBE makers, including large oil companies and refiners, dispute that estimate but have argued they need liability protection because of an expected surge in lawsuits."

Happy Earth Day!

Score: 0

By iamtux

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 2:16 PM

How on God's green earth could such a thing happen?! This is absolutely ridiculous! There are no grounds for something like this! I can see it now, a family living out in the country can't tell if there's bad weather coming because they haven't paid their "Weather Bill" yet this month. Weather effects everyone and everything on the earth! How can you put a tax on information like that? Sounds to me like AccuWeather is making contributions to the Senator to further their own agenda. How can you say its wrong for the government to have its weather agency report, for free, weather information to people around the country? I would think having something like that is a good thing! But in this age, where the Almighty Dollar rules, I guess its conceivable and accepted behavior.

The sad thing about it all... is this bill could actually pass. Its unfair, and there are no grounds for it and maybe I'm being a little pessimistic, but I think it could actually pass. Especially if something is not done about it.

When I was a kid, I used to want to be a meteorologist, but I certainly wouldn't want to be one if only a select few got to receive the information I was reporting.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 1:50 PM

IMO... it is what is going to happen if the bill passes. What will happen to the Senator's bank account then.
we will be paying for the service, but be getting less of it. The actual data that is collected using our tax dollars will be sent to these smaller local companies that will be able to profit from it(i.e. weather bug, local news channels etc.) We are going to be shafted. Farmers would be the one's that really are going to be hurt by such a decision.
wait until they use the excuse that this is a matter of "national security".( ooooohhhh )

Score: 0

By ArabianNight

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 1:46 PM

Wow, what next, do we have to pay to breath air?

Score: 0

By pjlasl

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 1:25 PM

nothing more to say...now piracy of weather information will start up!!!!!!

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 6:31 PM

"nothing more to say...now piracy of weather information will start up!!!!!!"

I would believe it. Thats what America is coming to. We are no longer the land of the free.

I can just see them raiding houses for illegal links to radar images.

Score: 0

By sniggle

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 5:16 PM

Rochester.NY.14609.042205.Forecast.READ.NFO-RZR

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 3:01 PM

HAHAHA

The zip would contain a .nfo AND a nice .xml file to make it really look purty!

"The scandilous individuals that are robbing the government of THEIR money *will* be caught! We will punish those for their insolence!"

I know I spell like s***, but I don't have spellcheck on this computer.

Score: 0

By psychoactive1

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 12:44 PM

Gee, seeing that the National Weather Service is a function of the Federal Government, aren't we already paying for the service?

Come to think about it, don't we pay Senator Rick Santorum's salary too? Maybe you people in PA should give that some serious thought as well.

I am a Floridian, and I rely on NWS radar in the coming months, to help manage power supplies amongst other reasons. Since I help pay for it, I expect to receive the service.

Score: 0

By r1539

posted Jun 22, 2005 - 12:28 AM

We do pay their salary & benefits which I know
are better than mine & probably better than yours! Know why? Cause they make the laws to compensate themselves while we get shafted! ie: social security!

Score: 0

By Slug_Coordinator

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 12:22 PM

Anyone who opposes the idea of having free access to Weather that may save lives or help with evacuation or not to make unnecessary trips blocking emergency vehicles should be fired!

Heaven forbid you loose your batteries for your portable Radio and TV or a approching storm takes out the local Stations before it hits houses and you have no other way to track an storm!

What happened to the jobs of Senators to protect People and their Lives in case of emergencies?

I really do not understand people like Senator Rick Santorum. It's people like this that need to be expunged from office.

They have no right nor should they even be allowed to think about such actions like this.

I think this is something that needs to be petitioned.

Score: 0

By r1539

posted Jun 22, 2005 - 12:32 AM

Expunged from office? Then we would have to elect another rich greedy politician to take his place!

Score: 0

By spiked

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 11:41 AM

Can you imagine if a Tsunami were headed for the United States, and warnings were only broadcast on Pay-Per-View?

Forget about NOAA and NWS. The answer already exists: wunderground.com - Weather Underground, a worldwide network of amateurs running Internet-connected weather stations. For about $250 (or less if you shop around and/or assemble your own components) you can add your own monitoring station.

No matter what the slick-haired meteorologists on TV say, 95% of weather forecasting technology is just a matter of applying simple formula to accurate measurements taken continuously throughout a region. You can put a tiny dent in the Wunderground network by knocking out a station in a sparsely-covered area, but it won't affect the big picture.

Score: 0

By torsitano

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 5:38 PM

"Forget about NOAA and NWS. The answer already exists: wunderground.com - Weather Underground, a worldwide network of amateurs running Internet-connected weather stations."

weatherforyou.com has operated a similar program, actually longer than Weather Underground.

Score: 0

By r1539

posted Jun 22, 2005 - 12:34 AM

& lots of pop ups!

Score: 0

By YukonJack

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 11:13 AM

How are people expected to protect themself from weather threats if they don't have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information on the weather? More lives will be lost if such a bill get's passed!!! Senator Rick Santorum should be removed from his seat for recommending such a bill! If this bill passes then you can say good bye to the best weather data on the net (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/).

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 11:23 AM

I don't want to start a political debate here, only pointing out that this is pure politics. I recall several articles on Betanews that have mentioned senaters, congressmen, etc. without showing the political party they are associated with. Why this one? Politics. Something is crooked in this story and while possible I doubt this is as blatently obvious as it seems...$5,000 in 6 years for a senator is NOTHING. We're talking very little here folks, I can't even buy the new Dimension XPS from dell with that money (not that I want to either). I doubt the Senator is that incredibly stupid to risk his reputation over $2,750, but that's just my opinion.

Score: 0

By tntoak

edited Apr 24, 2005 - 5:32 PM

(accidental double post)

Score: 0

By tntoak

posted Apr 24, 2005 - 5:31 PM

bourgeoisdude is way off the mark here. As has already been stated, AP guidelines state that politicians other than the PResident and VP should have their party affiliation, state and district (if applicable) by their names. So the argument that this is all about politics is a false assumption. Furthermore, the original article talks about the $2,750 donated in 2003 & 2004, then states that since 1999, there has "also" been $5000 in donations from Accu-Weather executives. That means that the $5k is NOT inclusive of the $2750, which does make the total contribution $7750.

Santorum has a track record of trying to pass moronic legislation and speaking out of both sides of his mouth at once. This is just the latest example of why he needs to be voted out of office and never allowed to serve in a public role again. I'd also point out that Santorum is from the same vein as Ted Stevens of Alaska, who is notorious for slipping in riders to provide funding for Alaska projects. They both have a "me-first" mentality when it comes to their states.

Score: 0

By eoswald

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 2:24 PM

Another thing that should be added:

Common journalistic practice as stated in the Associated Press Handbook states that politicians other than the President and Vice President should have their political affilation and district/state following their name.

To suggest the story is politically motivated is missing it entirely. The fact is, we as taxpayers have already paid for the services which the National Weather Service, up until about five years ago, was selling to companies like AccuWeather and Intellicast among others to resell to us. Now that the middleman has been cut out, these companies have a problem.

And yes, that is a signficant chunk of money. The amount of people who can afford those types of contributions are in the single digits percentage wise. So contributing that kind of money is going to get your politician's attention.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 12:01 PM

Well, that money is what was publicly recorded as being donated. It also infers that perhaps there was a friendship between Santorum and Meyers. Nobody is saying AccuWeather bought the bill for $5,000, but it does raise questions.

If they were buddy-buddy, Santorum introducing a bill for his good friend that he plays golf with on the weekends isn't really that surprising - money or not.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 10:50 AM

I'm so freaking tired of people being greedy.

The Internet has changed how we do things. It cannot be changed back. The weather forecasters don't do a good job anyway. It's like rolling the dice. Half the time they're wrong.

Letting people get weather information via the internet helps them with their daily lives. No need to get all greedy just because some people are mad that it's hard to get advertisers due to the fact that people can get weather info on the web.

Come on people.....grow up. Quit trying to live in the past and move forward.

Duh......the Internet is not going away.

Score: 0

By rburly

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 4:36 PM

I've seen the governor of my state going on the privatization attack since he was elected to his second term. He's managed to take care of his friends, wife, and himself while others he's appointed have quit, resigned, or charged with crimes because of their questionable (at best) contracts.

Santorum, as well as other politicians care more about who puts money into their campaign coiffeurs than the people who elect them. They give the businesess contracts that any one of us would love to have.

If someone (I don't have the time or financial resources) would have a website that had all the State Senators & Congessmen with a breakdown of their contributors as well as their voting records, there would be many ex-politicans the next time they come up for election.

Hit 'em where it hurts, folks.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 10:43 AM

$7,750 is alot of money just to give to someone like "Hey! Hope you get re-elected! You are the s***!"

Classic case, the Senator is listening to one more than the other. That and the money too, they want to pay for those radar maps and 10-day forecasts.

God forbid I have to watch the morning news again rather than goto my favorite website for weather.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Apr 22, 2005 - 11:15 AM

"$7,750 is alot of money just to give to someone... "

Actually it is very little, especially if you quote the correct amount of $5,000. Hello? Media! Misleading statements come with the territory, the $5,000 INCLUDES the $2,750 that was "donatED".

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 11:19 AM

The $2,750 was for re-election efforts as they put it. Then another $5,000 in just flat out contributions. Otherwise there would not be that many questions...would there?

Score: 0

By tommyboy2

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 10:59 AM

This weather information from NOAA is not "free". We pay for it with our taxes. I'm really not interested in paying twice to find out if I need to bring an umbrella with me tomorrow. Ill-informed Senator + Corporate Greed + Technology = Joe Public getting screwed. Enough already!

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 12:07 PM

This is part of the free market. If weather forecasters want to make money, then they will need to add value. Plain and simple.

I'm tired of the public being ripped off so that companies who can't compete with advances can stay in business.

I helped pay for this service, so I should be able to use it. Period.

Same goes for everyone else in this country who pays taxes.

Gee, if all it takes is $5000, maybe I can get Santorum to sponser a law so I can make money sitting on the couch watching TV and eating Doritos. Hey, I can't compete with those people who actually want to work, so I should get special privileges.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 3:52 AM

Oy.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 23, 2005 - 8:11 AM

Hmm, and yet you overlook the fact that it's always the republicans sponsoring tax cuts.

Score: 0

By sfeen

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 12:36 PM

There's many other news services that are run from different countries that it won't matter anyway.

theweathernetwork.ca for instance americans can use..

Score: 0

By krgood

posted Apr 22, 2005 - 1:26 PM

I think someone should look into just what prompted the Senator's interest in proposing such. I would ask a lot more pointed questions. NOAA is a government service and last time I look, I paid the bills and would be STRONGLY opposed to paying for it again...ReElection....really!

Score: 0

By Jerzee

posted Apr 24, 2005 - 8:50 AM

Santorum is an "in the closet" wuss, the republicans should be embarrased that he is one of them. And talk about a corporate wh***, if he would open his mouth for a measely $4000 about banning public weather info, he is extremely easy, that as well should be an embarrassment to the repub party.

It would take more than $4000 to get me to make a public announcement, about something so petty, insignificant and not even a national issue, when the economy, gas prices and so many other more important issues are at the forefront of the nations problems.

His credibility as a effective lawmaker should really be held in question over this. If these are the type lawmaker the republicans have to give us, it is no wonder why they need to steal elections.

Score: 0

By catastrophe

posted Apr 25, 2005 - 1:07 AM

We absolutely can do something about this.. and I think rather than just roll over and take it. perhaps we ought to argue a bit..

http://www.thepetitionsi...om/takeaction/594569271

Regards, Catastrophe.

Score: 0

By SteinbergMichael

posted May 9, 2005 - 11:01 AM

Hi. I work at AccuWeather, and happened to see this forum while Googling for something else. There is an incorrect impression about what this bil is or does and I would urge anyone interested to read the bill itself rather than people's opinions or carefuly seected excerpts. You can find it at http://www.govtrack.us/c...ltext.xpd?bill=s109-786.

The bill is supported by the Commercial Weather Services Association, which issued the following press release:

Association Representing Weather Companies Endorses Bill to Strengthen Public Access to Weather Information

Commercial Weather Services Association Says S.B. 786 Assures Both Public and Industry Access

April 29, 2005 – The Commercial Weather Services Association (CWSA) announced today its support for Senate Bill 786, “The National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005.” S.B. 786, one of three related bills now before Congress, will benefit both the public and the private sector.

The new legislation would require the National Weather Service (NWS) to distribute government generated weather information "in real-time, and without delay . . . in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access." No such requirement currently exists.

This will mandate that the public, including users like pilots, boaters and farmers, and the private sector, will all have unrestricted real-time access to government information.

The bill will also update the 115-year-old mission of the NWS to fit within the American weather framework of today, in which both the agency and the Commercial Weather Industry now play important parts in providing weather products, services, systems, networks and communications to the nation.

“Through more than 55 years of innovation by the Commercial Weather Industry and a policy of free and open exchange of government information, the American public has become the beneficiary of the best weather information available anywhere in the world,” said Steven Root, President of the Commercial Weather Services Association (CWSA). “Unfortunately, the performance of the National Weather Service in fulfilling its key tasks of collecting and disseminating government information has not always kept pace with public and private needs and critical information the agency possesses is not always reaching the public in time.”

CWSA has noticed an increasing number of occurrences where the NWS has not provided timely, key information during hurricanes, floods, and severe snowstorms, exposing the public to heightened and serious danger. Just as alarming, this key information was not made available to the public or the Commercial Weather Industry including the media. Such delayed or missing information has included real-time cooperative observer and snow intensity reports delayed up to twelve hours during a blizzard, hurricane reconnaissance reports delayed during an intensifying storm, and missed flood warnings.

S.B. 786 will provide for better information and warnings to the public by requiring NWS to focus on a defined core mission and adhere to its own non-competition/non-duplication policy, which NWS has had in effect, in one form or another, for over 55 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent organization of the NWS, unilaterally repealed this policy in December 2004. This NOAA action is not in accord with long-standing government policies and programs designed to encourage
private-sector investment and development of products, services, systems, networks, and communications facilities beneficial to the nation. Root added, “Government duplication of existing products and services readily available from the private sector is unnecessary and detracts from the NWS mission of saving lives and property.”

The result of the December repeal has been a growing uncertainty and risk for private sector firms engaged in the weather enterprise and threats to jobs throughout the industry. Accordingly, this NOAA action also endangers the very existence of free weather information to the public, an estimated 95% of which comes from the Commercial Weather Industry including the media.

The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce, which directs and controls the operations of NOAA and NWS, to determine what those competitive and duplicative activities are and requires oversight reports to Congress. The bill does not target any particular government activity for elimination.

S.B. 786 endorses the concept of encouraging private-sector activities and investment, rather than government expenditures, in the American weather sector, a principle that was jointly adopted with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate in November 2004 as part of the appropriations legislation funding the National Weather Service (Conference Report to H.R. 481. The non-duplication provision of S.B. 786 is also in line with NWS’s prior policy and the philosophy of national policies on space transportation and other government activities.

“CWSA believes that the public safety and well-being of the nation would best be served by NWS concentrating on its long-standing and critical core missions including disseminating government-generated weather information and issuing severe weather warnings for the protection of life and property of the public.

The NWS is the only source of official government weather warnings, government data and computer models, all relied upon by numerous users in government, industry and the public,” said Root. “Activities that shift the NWS focus away from this mission by duplicating products, services, systems, networks and communications that are already widely available from the private sector, many free to the public, do not represent appropriate stewardship of public funds.”

S.B. 786 was introduced April 14, 2005 by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). It is one of three bills currently before Congress that would reexamine and redefine the structure and mission of the National Weather Service and its parent NOAA.

About the Commercial Weather Services Association

The Commercial Weather Services Association is the trade association for professionals who make weather their business. Its members collect, interpret and disseminate weather information to weather-sensitive
businesses as well as the general public. In addition, CWSA members engineer a variety of hardware and software systems, including weather sensors and meteorological workstations and operate weather information networks.

For more information about the Commercial Weather Services Association, please visit:
www.weatherindustry.org

For more information:
Steven A. Root, President
Commercial Weather Services Association
405-359-0773

Score: 0

By johnsonlaserjet

edited Sep 29, 2006 - 5:43 AM

Hello, Buyers.

We selkl all kind of unlock phones,laptops and plasma tvs at chep price. They are all brand new still in there factory pack with comlete accesories. We ship via DHL and FedEx world wide international and your order will be deleivered between 48hrs immediately your payment is confirmes. Email uis via our company email account. (allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk) or (allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)

Nokia N93 $300
Nokia N92 250$
Nokia N91 220$
Nokia N90 200$
Nokia N70 180$
Nokia N80 190$
Nokia 8800 210$
Nokia N73 185$ (allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
Nokia 9500 180$
Nokia 6111 132$ (allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
Nokia 6270 125$
Nokia 6270 115$
Nokia 6280 125$
Nokia Vertu 150$
Nokia 5140i 125$
Nokia 6230i 115$
Nokia 6021 105$
Nokia 6030 115$
Nokia 6680 125$
Nokia 6681 120$
Nokia 6101 110$
Nokia 6822 110$ (allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
Nokia 7710 110$ (allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)

sidekick 1 $110
sidekick 2 $100
Sony Ericsson K500i.....130 USD
Sony Ericsson P800......200 USD
Sony Ericsson P900......230 USD
Sony Ericsson P910i.....270 USD
Sony Ericsson T230......80 USD
Sony Ericsson T310......80 USD
Sony Ericsson T610......100 USD
Sony Ericsson Z1010.....180 USD
Sony Ericsson Z200......90 USD
Sony Ericsson Z600......130 USD
Sony Ericssson T630.....130 USD
Sony Ericsson S700i.....170 USD
Sony Ericsson S750i.....170 USD
9806LL/A) MP3 Player = USD$110
Motorola A388C......110 USD
Motorola A760.......150 USD
Motorola A768.......160 USD
Motorola A768i......100 USD
Motorola A780.......190 USD
Motorola C550.......90 USD
Motorola C650.......100 USD
Motorola E365.......100 USD
Motorola E398.......120 USD
Motorola E680.......140 USD (allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
Motorola RAZR V3....170 USD (allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
Motorola V220.......170 USD
Motorola V303.......100 USD
Motorola V400.......150 USD
Motorola V500.......150 USD
Motorola V501.......200 USD
Motorola V525.......150 USD
Motorola V600 (OEM) w/ Bluetooth Headset..260 USD
Motorola V600 OEM...180 USD
Motorola V690.....170 USD
Motorola V750.....180 USD
Motorola V80......100 USD
Motorola V80 with Bluetooth...260 USD
Motorola V872.....100 USD
Motorola V878....180 USD
Motorola V300....150 USD
Samsung D500...140 USD
Samsung E600...140 USD
Samsung E800...180 USD
Samsung P510...120 USD
Samsung SGH-D410.100 USD
Samsung SGH-D500..270 USD
Samsung SGH-E700..150 USD
Samsung SGH-E715..170 USD
Samsung SGH-P100..130 USD
Samsung SGH-P400..95 USD
Samsung SGH-P408..140 USD
Samsung SGH-P730..150 USD
Samsung SGH-S200..90 USD
Samsung SGH-S300..70 USD
Samsung SGH-S300M..100 USD
Samsung SGH-S500...100 USD
Samsung SGH-V200...110 USD
Samsung SGH-X400...100 USD
Samsung SGH-X430...100 USD
Samsung SGH-X600...100 USD
Samsung X450.......100 USD

Sony VAIO V505DC2 Series Notebook Intel Pentium4-M 2.2 $800
Sony VAIO PCG-V505AC Notebook Computer Intel Pentium 4 M $700
New Sony VAIO PCG-V505DC21 P4 2.2ghz Laptop Notebook PC $700
Sony VAIO VGN-U70 Notebook Computer - World'S Smallest $1,000
Dell Latitude Laptop $300
Dell Latitude D800 15" Notebook/Laptop Computer PC $1,200
Dell XPS M170 2GHZ 1GB 80GB 256M 7800GTX Laptop Computer $1,150
Dell Laptop M60-HQCP741 $750
Dell Laptop M60-JJ50G51 $650
DEC640 - Dell Latitude C640 Notebook/Laptop Computer $400
IBM ThinkPad T30 236697U $1,150
IBM Thinkpad T23 26475NU $1,050
IBM 2379DKU Notebook Computer $535
IBM / Lenovo - N100 Intel Centrino Duo Mobile 1.6G $500
Hewlett Packard PG402UA#ABA HP Compaq nw8000 Pentium-M $1,530
Hewlett Packard DV131U#ABA HP Compaq tr3000,Pentium-III $1,300
HP Compaq tc4200,Pentium-M 750 (1.86GHz),12.1 inch XGA $800
HP nc6400 Notebook PC $750
Hewlett Packard PR127UA#ABA HP Compaq nc6120,Pentium-m $820
HP nc6400 Notebook PC $700
HP Pavilion HP DV5250us 15.4" Widescreen Laptop w/1.83 $750
Sony VAIO Pentium M 1.6GHz Centrino Wireless B+G $650
Sony VAIO VAIO SZ140P10 Notebook $1,050
Sony VAIO VGN-A690 17 Notebook PC $530
Sony VAIO Pentium M 2.26GHz Notebook PC (Open Box) $900
Sony VAIO S170 Intel Pentium M 1.5GHz, 13.3in WXGA, 40GB $800

Zenith P42W22B 42 Inch Plasma TV Blowout $700
Gateway 42" Plasma TV 16 : 9 Aspect Ratio, Supports1280 $800
Samsung HP-R4252 Plasma TV & Monitors $900
Samsung HP-R5052 50" Plasma TV $1,500
Panasonic TH-37PWD8UK Plasma TV $650
Gateway 42" Plasma TV 16 : 9 Aspect Ratio, Supports 1280 $700
Sony Wega Ke-42M1 42-Inch EDTV Plasma TV $800
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma TV & Monitors $650
Gateway 50" HD Plasma TV 16 : 9 Aspect Ratio $1,500
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK 42" Plasma TV - Exceptional 4000:1 $700
Panasonic TH-42PD50U 42" Diagonal Plasma TV Special Order $750
Samsung HPR5052 50 High Definition Plasma TV with $1,100
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma TV $800
Philips 42 Inch Plasma TV and Monitor 42PF9630A $1,050

(allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
(allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)

Score: 0

By joe4567363

edited Jan 24, 2007 - 12:30 AM

I hardly see how this comment is related to the topic at hand. -Kevin Ricche

Score: 0