• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bill Proposes Ending Free Weather Data

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: gate1975mlm
"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."

...

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.

They've got a point. And if they could shrink the budget by ripping out funding for public weather, then I'm all for it. On the other hand, we all know they'll end up blowing the money on something else.

On the other hand, if accuweather monopolizes the private weather industry without a public alternative, then we've got a problem. And there are very few things that should be available to the public - and I think it's fair that weather forecasts are one of them.
 
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
:thumbsdown: This guy obviously hasn't turned on his TV lately. There's free weather everywhere. Usually thrown in with the evening news.

"blah blah blah brings you your accuweather forecast .."

But the news pays for accuweather, and you pay for it by sitting through vagisil commercials and staring at disturbing looking plastic people with herringbone sportcoats.

Cool, then all is peachy, because they're going to pay money for it anyway, because NOWHERE in this country is there a TV station that's going to drop their weather segment, because it's the only reason they keep people watching the godawful, depressing local news, and it's the only reason they stay employed.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: gate1975mlm
"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."

...

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.

They've got a point. And if they could shrink the budget by ripping out funding for public weather, then I'm all for it. On the other hand, we all know they'll end up blowing the money on something else.

On the other hand, if accuweather monopolizes the private weather industry without a public alternative, then we've got a problem. And there are very few things that should be available to the public - and I think it's fair that weather forecasts are one of them.

They wouldn't rip the funding. My guess is the weather data is important to the public sector, including the military, USGS, NPS, you name it. The only thing that would change is whether we have free access to the product of work we pay for.
 
Why stop there? How about charging for the weather itself? "Need rain? It'll cost ya." or "I can reduce the overcast for a small charge, plus a huge delivery fee."
 
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Why stop there? How about charging for the weather itself? "Need rain? It'll cost ya." or "I can reduce the overcast for a small charge, plus a huge delivery fee."

IIRC, it was O-Zone by Paul Theroux that had a character who paved large mile-square asphalt sections of Africa, creating thermal risers that acted as "virtual" mountains and dropped rain on the far side. There was no sidestory, just a mention, but it was an intersting concept.
 
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Why stop there? How about charging for the weather itself? "Need rain? It'll cost ya." or "I can reduce the overcast for a small charge, plus a huge delivery fee."


If I were in charge I would tax the sunlight and the rain. Not just that, but anything grown from them as well. Since all food and water comes from the sun and rain, everyone would have to pay the tax. The tax for one day's use of my sunlight and rain is one day's hard labor in my mines or factories. It's only fair. If you don't pay the tax for a day, then you don't eat or drink that day. If that leaves you too weak to go to work the next day then I guess you should have thought about that before you decided to leech my weather.

I will wield my authority with the iron fist of cruelty.
 
Back
Top