The Bill addresses two groups: (1) the general public, and (2) all people and entities other than the general public (i.e.,
commercial users of weather data)
Section 2(a)(1-4) requires the NWS to provide the general public free access to the following resources:
****************************************
SEC. 2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.
(a) NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE- To protect life and property, the Secretary of Commerce shall, through the National Weather Service, be responsible for the following:
(1) The preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property of the general public.
(2) The preparation and issuance of hydrometeorological guidance and
core forecast information.
(3) The collection and exchange of meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data and information.
(4) The provision of reports, forecasts, warnings, and other
advice to the Secretary of Transportation and other persons pursuant to section 44720 of title 49, United States Code.
************************************
That sounds to me like the general public is entitled to free access to virtually all the info that the NWS collects. I don't see any language that suggests that we members of the general public won't have free access to buoy readings or surf forecasts or any other weather data.
On his website, Sen. Santorum says this proposal is intended to restore a policy that has existed since 1991. In 1991, the National Weather Service (NWS) adopted a policy to not provide products or services that were or could be provided by the commercial weather industry to anyone other than the general public. That policy continued in effect until December, 2004, when NOAA (the parent agency of the NWS) repealed it.
My guess is that we recreational sailors were so completely unaffected by the change when it was adopted in 1991 that we didn't even notice it, and that we likewise didn't notice anything different when the policy was repealed in December, 2004. The reason why it doesn't affect us is because it is only intended to affect commercial users of weather information, not recreational sailors. We didn't notice it when the
rule was adopted in 1991, because we still had access to all the same data as we had before it was adopted.
Since 1991, while this
rule was in effect, we recreational sailors have enjoyed free weather services.
The part of the Bill that requires users to obtain their weather data from commercial providers reads as follows:
*******************************
(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than a product or service described in subsection (a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--
(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such product or service; or
(2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such product or service under international aviation agreements to provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.
*****************************
The words that are enclosed in parentheses in sub-paragraph (b), above, refer to the data that is required to be furnished to members of the general public. Thus, the general public is not required to get its weather data from commercial providers.
I think commercial users ought to pay for their weather services. They can afford to pay. It's part of their business. I don't think we little recreational guys should have to pay for it. We don't profit from it financially, and, for most of us, the expense of owning a
boat is already something of a burden.
Radio and television broadcasters and newspaper publishers are entities that are not included as members of the general public, and they will have to obtain their weather data and services from commercial weather providers and to pay for them. Because this bill will hit those entities in their pocketbooks, you can expect them to try to mislead people like us into thinking we're being deprived of something, because politicians will listen to angry boater-voters, but nobody feels sorry for the press or for other commercial users, such as BoatUS.
I suggest everyone write their senator and congressman and tell them that you would strenuously oppose the bill if it will affect or limit or change in any way the free access that recreational users have to the same breadth and quality of weather services as are presently provided, but that you would support the bill insofar as it requires commercial users to obtain their weather services from commercial providers, or pay for them.
That way, you can make it clear that you don't want recreational boaters to have to pay for weather data, but you agree that commercial users should pay for their weather services.