Burr On The NWS Duties Act (a.k.a., the Accuweather giveaway)

I wrote our senators recently to ask that they not tie the hands of our wonderful, public weather source: the National Weather Service. I wrote an eloquent letter emphasizing the lifesaving importance of this information.

Today I got a letter from Richard Burr’s office (say what you want about the guy, but at least his staff responds to inquiries). Here’s his response:

Dear Mr. Turner:

RB: asn

So, let’s pick this apart, shall we?

“I believe that the NWS provides an essential service to protect life and property. In North Carolina we rely on weather information, particularly along our coast. I am concerned about any legislation that undercuts the ability of NWS to provide essential information, such as hurricane and tornado warnings.”

Okay, so I connected with this one. The value of the data is unquestioned. He’s with me here.

“S. 786 was introduced in April 2005 by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for consideration. S. 786 allows all data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Weather Service (NWS) to be issued in real time, without delay for internal use, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.”

This paragraph is generally in agreement, too. I’ve highlighted a few key points. One of them is “all members of the public.” This is code for “businesses, too,” though generally I don’t consider a business to be a member of the public. Perhaps Certain Commercial Forecasting Companies Based In Pennsylvania (CCFCBIP), in particular. I believe the crux of the bill is that a CCFBIP didn’t think NWS was being free enough with its information. Thus, the “equal access” part. None of the sites I’ve found seem to say exactly what that information is. Thus, the “equal access” part. I seems to be some private beef which has now been taken to Congress. Anyone with further information is welcome to share.

“Hearings and additional study will help show us if any changes are needed to ensure the essential mission of NWS is being carried out, while not creating a mission-creep into areas that the private sector can provide information.”

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Anytime someone says “it will take more study,” they mean “I’ve made up my mind and you lose.” I’m not buying for a minute that Burr’s on the fence here.

Now for the coup de grace:
“while not creating a mission-creep into areas that the private sector can provide information.”

Burr’s saying “I don’t want to tie the hands of the NWS, but … I’m going to tie the hands of the NWS!” There you go. Big business wins. We the people lose.

I’ve got nothing against commercial forecasting companies. Indeed, some of my best friends are commercial forecasting companies. If you want to compete with a free service, knock yourself out. But if your product sucks to the point that you resort to hobbling the public service, particularly one which has been around for almost one hundred and fifty years, good luck. Maybe you should fix your business plan instead, hmmm?

This should be a wake-up call to open-source advocates as well. The NWS uses a ton of open-source tools to create its forecasts. If this bill becomes law, would the NWS be prohibited from sharing these open-source tools with the public, especially if the “private sector” sells one? Or would they be prohibited from developing tools in-house to create the forecasts of commercial ones exist?

The whole thing smells fishy. Burr’s response only confirms it.