Should Taxpayers Pay Twice For Weather Data?

theodp writes "Thanks to O.M.B. Circular A-130, taxpayers now enjoy free access to SEC, Patent Office, and IRS data over the Internet. Now the Bush administration must decide whether to order the National Weather Service to make taxpayer-funded weather readings freely available on the Net, ignoring complaints from an industry trade group that doing so violates pre-Internet era agreements."

Ooh

This is gonna kick up a storm.

Actually

It's kicking up some cool innovation. If you use Firefox, you can use the WeatherFox extension that uses this service. Now, I have nifty icons in my status bar and other information telling me my weather forcast.

This is very helpful for me, as I'm on a farm where weather changes are very important to know. I'm quite happy I no longer have to look at weather.com and its horrid layout.

That long silence you hear...

... is people trying to figure out how they can bash Bush over this.

Judging by other Bush Admin decisions...

They'll skip options one and two and head straight to Option Three:

Declare the weather a matter of national security, and order that it be classified as sensitive material immediately.

Re:Judging by other Bush Admin decisions...

Well, now-adays it's rarely "classified" it's just "sensitive." You see, sensitive doesn't have any accountability. You can actually get in trouble for classifying something that shouldn't have been.

Want an example of "sensitive"? Look up the Barlow case regarding the TSA. All details concerning airport security are considered "sensitive." This includes things such as "as a TSA examiner, are you encouraged to look for drugs?" (which would be illegal).

There's far more than that. Also, the FOIA compliance rate has gone way, way down under this administration. I believe the ACLU has hard numbers on that (not surprising, given how many FOIA requests they make).

An argument could be made that "sensitive isn't classified" and it would be correct, but it belies the reality that "sensitive" is effectively "classified."

Re:That long silence you hear...

"Left Wing Pinko" - There's an insult straight out of the McCarthy era. Is that the best you can do?

I suppose you are just loving the return to that era, huh? So American, so Patriotic, so 1984...

Part of their mission statement

Their mission statement reads
The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community.

This implies, but doesn't state clearly, that its information should be made easily available to all (and thus probably free).

I doubt that existing agreements are exclusive.

Re:Part of their mission statement

This implies, but doesn't state clearly, that its information should be made easily available to all

What I don't get is what exactly the NWS provides to the commercial weather services, and what exactly the companies do that they believe is being "duplicated" by the government.

My understanding was that the NWS simply collects raw data and feeds it to the companies. The companies do not actually collect weather data independently. Prior to the new rules, the NWS data was only available to said companies, which packaged it up with fancy graphics or some such nonsense. Now, anyone can download the data and set up their own service. Is this all true?

So, if the NWS is making fancy weather websites (and hence, directly competing with the companies), I agree that this might not be entirely fair (although I've seen this argument extended too far on occasion). On the other hand, if some random private individual wants to set up their own website to interpret the public data, what possible argument is there against this? I'm not clear on what exactly the industry association is objecting too - it sounds like a combination of both cases.

I found a Wired article from last month that made it a little clearer:

"Weather-industry companies were promoting the idea that the government restrict special interests that have the ability to pay for the data -- like Major League Baseball teams or citrus growers -- from acquiring it for free, [some weather company honcho] said."

That sounds like bullshit to me. Why should private companies be discriminated against? They're taxpayers too, at least in theory. The government shouldn't force them to go through some hideously expensive service to get the same info that the public receives for free. (Actually, though, this practice is unfortunately very common in academic sciences, largely as a way for universities to supplement their grant income.)

You could argue that the government shouldn't be in the business of collecting weather data at all - although I think there's a very strong case for the NWS even for libertarian types, since the primary role of government should be to protect our lives and property. So, assuming the NWS is a justified agency, there's no possible case for restricting access to the data to a few private companies.

Re:Part of their mission statement

My understanding was that the NWS simply collects raw data and feeds it to the companies. The companies do not actually collect weather data independently. Prior to the new rules, the NWS data was only available to said companies, which packaged it up with fancy graphics or some such nonsense. Now, anyone can download the data and set up their own service. Is this all true?

That used to be correct. You, Private Citizen, have always been free to collect the raw data from the NOAA. The policy the commercial weather firms arranged with the NOAA fourteen years ago was a statement that the NOAA wouldn't compete with the commercial firms, in terms of providing "finished" content.

I think the "competition" you were asking about occurred in 2003 when the NOAA started experimenting with making "point forecasts" available to the public: the weather firms cried foul. The NOAA decided to revisit their policy last year, and they requested public comment. The public outcry was loud and clear: if the NOAA was processing data at public expense, the NOAA was expected to make the processed data available to the public. And, surprisingly enough, it became their new policy despite complaints from the commercial firms. It's called the "Fair Weather Policy". [noaa.gov]

So, the point forecasts are now available on-line. [weather.gov] How has that changed things? Not much. People still turn to the local TV station for weather in the morning, and they tune in to The Weather Channel if they're heading to the beach or the mountains.

I think where the main effect has been felt is in the industrial sector. For example, concrete companies typically rely on a very precise two hour forecast to ensure their new sidewalks won't get rained on. They used to pay lots of money to private meterologists who "insured" their forecasts (for $499.00 we'll guarantee you'll see no rain in the next two hours or we pay you $10,000.) But with NOAA point forecasts available, as a concrete company I'd be likely to take my own chances regarding rain.

Re:Part of their mission statement

The NWS was originally established 200 years ago to provide weather information for the coasts -- fishermen and sailors relied on them for forecasts. That core mission is still there: they are to provide forecasts for public safety and commerce. To that end, the NWS has always been processing available data and making forecasts.

What's new here is the technology allows the NWS to provide forecast data for an exact location. It was simply a byproduct of producing an accurate forecast. The NWS simply stuck on a web front end to allow everyone access to it.

I still think the industry is not going to serve themselves well by pushing this into Congress. Right now, the vast majority of the public is blissfully unaware that if they type weather.gov instead of weather.com into their browsers, they get good local information with no advertising. Once the Commercial Weather Services Association starts raising a stink in the Senate, I think the NWS is going to make a lot of front pages around the country. I believe the NWS will get a lot more customers at the expense of The Weather Channel.

Re:Part of their mission statement

You're absolutely correct. But this is about more than disseminating data.

Private industry wants to take over actually collecting the data. They can't tell the NWS what to do with data the NWS collects, but they want to take collection of data out of the NWS' control. That's what the article is saying.

What's so wrong about this is research is rarely profitable in a short period of time. Industry is about impressing shareholders as much as it is about producing a product. I'm of the opinion that taking data collection out of the hands of the government will stifle research to improve our ability to collect this data.

This is extremely important, especially in areas such as radar. The WSR-88D radars, many of which were deployed in the early 1990s, were developed through years of research. They have the important feature that their predecessors don't of being able to detect motion, not just reflectivity. This allows meteorologists to detect things such as rotation and better issue warnings (particularly tornado warnings)! It's important that this research continue.

That's really why private industry's stance on this is dangerous and flawed.

Re:Part of their mission statement

Nice reply.

The data is already processed. Those images you see are just representations over level III data plotted over base maps. They already produce all of that level 3 data.

So, the only thing they would be doing is plotting data they've already got.

By the way, you're also incorrect about the government's priorities. After posting, I examined the NWS site and apparently they're creating new images for some radars which plot the data over a view of the terrain. And they've also produced some radial velocity images along with it. This data isn't available for most of the radar sites, but it is being developed.

Furthermore, not too long ago, the NHC was requesting comments on modifying some of its images issued to the public.

If the NWS didn't feel these things were important, would they be doing these things?

Incumbent weather providers....

As the weather changes for the worse recently, freely available weather data could possibly save lives.
Highlighted by a recent incident where heavy rain fell, a river rose, and 700 people were evacuated at 1am in a camp ground. On the news a 10yo kid recounted how the water was ankle deep in his tent, when the family was woken for evac. Some hours later only the tent tops were visible.
The commercial weather incumbent couldnt warn these people. A camper in the internet cafe might of.

Public Property

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

Works produced by employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute. However, note that, despite popular misconception, the U.S. Federal Government can own copyrights that are assigned to it by others. As a general rule photographs on .mil and .gov sites are public domain. However there are some notable exceptions. Check the privacy and security notice of the website. It should also be noted that governments outside the U.S. often do claim copyright over works produced by their employees (for example, Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom). Also, most state governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work. Please be careful to check ownership information before copying.

Data our taxes pay for, is public domain.

I don't think the courts would allow it any other way (should it get that far). If it does... think about what this could lead to:

- private companies like lexis-nexus being the only access to things like the Library of congress?

- private news networks the only way to read bills proposed on the state or federal level?

- Law Student need to read cases? Be prepaired to pay CourtTV several hundred dollars a month for access.

The Supreme Court is pretty conservative by any account, and tend to favor business over citizens rights (in the past 10 years)... but there's no way even they would let this one slip by.

Even their statements: public domain.

Data government creates is for the people.

You mean...

http://www.weather.gov/ [weather.gov] isn't good enough? they list all a crap-ton of weather stations, all you need to know is what city you want.

did anyone even read the article?

The article was debating weather (pun intended) archive data should be made free. The data is already easily available but you usually have to buy a CD which ranges anywhere from 10 bucks (or so) for NEXRAD images to 5000 for the CD mentioned in the article.

This article had nothing to do with making current weather information free! It is allready free, the US has the best weather service in the world, is the top country in the world for weather research, and its all FREE!! Check out MeteoFrance's website, you have to pay for info. Before you have a knee-jerk reaction: RTFA.

Personally, I don't think its a big issue, the only people who need a CD of archived data for the whole US would be researchers. As far as if you were curious about old weather data for your hometown you could probably go to your local weather field office and ask them for it (or check their website).

slashdot.org.us?

Is this slashdot.org or slashdot.org.us?

Don't assume "taxpayer" is well defined, 'cos it aint. Only some of us live in the USA.

Re:slashdot.org.us?

It's slashdot.org.us. In American English, though, the ".us" is silent.

This data needs to be freely available...

I'm a student studying meteorology. I've got a lot of data and software available to me when I'm at school that simply isn't available when I'm not there. It's frustrating to search for certain data and find that it's unavailable.

The private weather industry reached an agreement with the NWS before the internet that defined the seperation between the two. There were certain things that private industry would not do that the government would. It set the responsibilities for both. However, with advances in technology and lower costs, private weather can perform many tasks that the government legitimately does. Thus, NOAA believes it's time to redefine the boundary between the two. Presumably this would allow for some overlap.

Government has always been responsible for things such as soundings, radars, and issuing watches and warnings. There's many other things the NWS does as well. NOAA has attempted to make data available to the public whenever possible. For example, you can get a lot of radar data shortly after it's received from a NOAA ftp site. This is a good thing.

The way I see it is private industry has spent lots of money investing in things the NWS already does. Instead of just accepting this, they want to make money by taking over things that are normally done by the government and reducing the government's role.

Research is rarely profitable in the short term. It's an investment. Research in the meteorological community is ongoing. Constantly, work is being done to improve the data collected, our understanding of the weather, and the methods used to analyze the data. By taking things such as radar out of the hands of the government, we sacrifice the research that is currently being done. Remember, private industry isn't going to make the investment in research that the government is. After all, research doesn't make a profit quickly and doesn't impress investors.

IMHO, private industry is overstepping their bounds here. They're infringing into things the government already does. And they're pretending to be the victims in this.

If private industry gets their way, everyone who doesn't have a financial stake in this loses.

No way

If Wx data were publically available, we run the risk of weathermen like this [thewvsr.com] instead of the highly trained media professionals we have now.

Article summary is hyper-incorrect, as usual

This decision has already been made, in the first week of December.

Not only that, the already-made decision has been covered by slashdot, not once, but twice! (If a duplicate story is "dupe", perhaps an incorrect triplicate story should be referred to, appropriately, as "tripe".)

And the answer is a resounding no, taxpayers will NOT have to "pay twice" for access to weather data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week began providing weather data in an open-access XML format, alleviating concerns that commercial providers would continue to play a dominant role in how weather data gets to the public.

"The public should not have to pay twice for access to basic government information that has been created at taxpayer expense," wrote Ari Schwartz, an associate director of the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, in a July 28, 2004, essay.

Earlier this year, NOAA made the data available in XML as a test, called the National Digital Forecast Database. After receiving comments from the public and commercial providers, the agency made the decision permanent this week. Now anyone can get information in an XML format directly from the National Digital Forecast Database website.

Full story [wired.com]
slashdot coverage #1 [slashdot.org]
slashdot coverage #2 [slashdot.org]

Of course, this information has always been publicly accessible: it's just a matter of ease. The National Weather Service now makes its weather feeds accessible to anyone in open formats [weather.gov], like XML and RSS. Of course the commercial weather reporting industry is against it: surprise, surprise.

Re:Article summary is hyper-incorrect, as usual

perhaps an incorrect triplicate story should be referred to, appropriately, as "tripe".

Actually I think tripe [reference.com] probably describes a wider selection of Slashdot content than that.

Re:Uh oh..?

Step 2 is dead people.

Australia does this. The result is lots of dead pilots and boaters every year because they didn't pay the money to get the services they need. The result is that other people end up paying far more for everything since the gov't is being too cheap.

Re:James Fallow's Article in today's NYT

Uhh...ebag? The article referenced in the submission is the Fallows article, republished through CNet.

I guess we can at least look forward to a Michael Sims finding a way to dupe this using the original NYTimes. I wonder -- do the editors get a cut of the ad revenue that is generated by each of the articles they sponsor n the front page?

robber barons, then and now

In a truly free market you get to hand your wallet to JP Morgan or any of the other robber barons that used to dominate America.

What do you mean, used to ...? Why the past tense?

* Prescott Bush and Union Bank [google.com]
* Savings and Loan Scandal [google.com]
* Ken Lay and Enron [google.com]
... and so on.

-kgj

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-- Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
[Source [ratical.org]]