4 ms·

As a counter example, the government manages and collects all kinds of weather station data. But the trend is for private companies to get contracts to privatiz

by bumby 2mo ago

As a counter example, the government manages and collects all kinds of weather station data. But the trend is for private companies to get contracts to privatize the dissemination of that data through fee-based APIs etc. I would rather the government provide it instead of taxpayers having to pay twice to enrich some rent seeker.

groundzeros2015 2mo ago
Operating an API isn’t free either and the needs and scale change dramatically for customer. So you would rather the public pay for Google to use weather data on a massive scale?
- bumby 2mo ago
  I don’t follow. I would rather the government manage the API, like what NOAA does/did.
  - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
    So then we are subsidizing Google’s outsized usage of that API?
    - simonw 2mo ago
      Is this really an expensive problem to solve? Give Google a continuous feed of the weather data which they cache locally. I can't imagine that being a particularly expensive thing to operate - no need to reply to an API call from Google every time someone searches for "weather".
      - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
        That sounds like the arrangement you said we have. The government provides data to private companies who then mass distribute it in various forms because those costs and needs vary.
        crote 2mo ago
        The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". They get it for free from the government. They offer it as a paid service to the general public. Then they try to ban the government from giving it away for free to any potential competition.
        groundzeros2015 2mo ago
        I agree that anti-competitive coercion of access is bad.
        counters 2mo ago
        > The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". In general, they aren't. The sole example I can think of that even skirts with this was specifically an attempt by AccuWeather in the 2000's, coordinating with then-Senator Rick Santorum's office. And that was universally decried by the entire weather enterprise.
        vel0city 2mo ago
        Project 2025 called for downsizing the weather service and have them focus on just data gathering and it should "fully commercialize its forecasting operations". https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
        counters 2mo ago
        And that literally isn't happening.
        vel0city 2mo ago
        A lot of the recommendations for NOAA cuts in Project 2025 have been happening, so it's probably more of a "hasn't happened yet" kind of thing. There's little reason to believe that isn't still the goal.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2mo ago
      Sure, why not. No problem. That's a good example of how government open data can support both people and business.
    - bumby 2mo ago
      As long as it’s properly addressed to avoid abuse, I don’t have a problem with private companies and individual citizens both benefiting. You could easily put rate limits if you think it’s a major issue while still maintaining the free service for smaller users. I personally don’t like the privatization of profits while also maintaining the narrative that companies don’t benefit from public works.
- crote 2mo ago
  Google uses barely any weather data. Perhaps some tornado and wildfire tracking for its datacenters, but that's about it. The vast majority of its potential use comes from Android users, which is... the general public. And it's not like Google is a charity, you're paying for it either way. The question is: do you want to pay for that weather API via your taxes, or do you want to pay for it via the advertising budget of the products you buy - with Google taking a decent chunk and selling your location data while they are at it? And it's not like operating a weather API is that hard. You can easily find commercial parties who sell it for less than $1 per million API calls. Assuming you're polling for weather updates every 15 minutes 24/7, that's less than $0.03 of your yearly taxes going towards providing accurate weather information!
- monodeldiablo 2mo ago
  I work in this space. The load on private APIs -- and the management costs in general of reselling government data -- are utterly dwarfed by the upstream costs borne by the government. The public __already__ pays for Google, The Weather Company, Apple, and really __everybody__ -- down to your local weather person and surf report -- to use weather data on a massive scale. Government weather data underpins huge chunks of our modern, globalized economy. It should absolutely be better funded and even allowed to directly distribute data to the public and industry. NOAA and NASA et al could be given 10x their current allocation of tax money and you and I would still be getting a great deal.
strictnein 2mo ago
The government already does that. https://api.weather.gov/ https://www.noaa.gov/nodd/datasets https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/ etc etc etc
- ordersofmag 2mo ago
  I think the point is that there has been a push to move away from this data continuing to be available from these sources.
  - counters 2mo ago
    There has not.
    - ordersofmag 2mo ago
      Attempts have been made starting back in 2005 https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/786/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/786...
      - counters 2mo ago
        And I dare you to find another attempt in the intervening 20 years. Santorum's bill was laughed out of Washington. It stands alone.
        slater 2mo ago
        https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-project-2025-weather/678987/?gift=ADN5ex8W_PaQmR-s5dSx2Do21FXUbb4d2XVoxOY40Vw https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-pro...
        counters 2mo ago
        You do understand how this isn't an example of what I'm asking for, right? In 20 years worth of history - you can't identify a single piece of legislation or a single executive action to demonstrate an ongoing threat to NOAA? You have to immediately jump to the tautology of "Project 2025 is dismantling NOAA because an article two years ago said Project 2025 was going to dismantle NOAA"?
counters 2mo ago
I'm not aware of any private company that has a contract with NOAA or the NWS to privately disseminate the agency's weather data (either acquired itself or purchased commercially).

by bumby 2mo ago

groundzeros2015 2mo ago

Operating an API isn’t free either and the needs and scale change dramatically for customer. So you would rather the public pay for Google to use weather data on a massive scale?

bumby 2mo ago
I don’t follow. I would rather the government manage the API, like what NOAA does/did.
- groundzeros2015 2mo ago
  So then we are subsidizing Google’s outsized usage of that API?
  - simonw 2mo ago
    Is this really an expensive problem to solve? Give Google a continuous feed of the weather data which they cache locally. I can't imagine that being a particularly expensive thing to operate - no need to reply to an API call from Google every time someone searches for "weather".
    - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
      That sounds like the arrangement you said we have. The government provides data to private companies who then mass distribute it in various forms because those costs and needs vary.
      - crote 2mo ago
        The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". They get it for free from the government. They offer it as a paid service to the general public. Then they try to ban the government from giving it away for free to any potential competition.
        groundzeros2015 2mo ago
        I agree that anti-competitive coercion of access is bad.
        counters 2mo ago
        > The problem is that those very same private companies are trying really hard to ban the government from providing the same data for free to the general public, because it would be "unfair competition". In general, they aren't. The sole example I can think of that even skirts with this was specifically an attempt by AccuWeather in the 2000's, coordinating with then-Senator Rick Santorum's office. And that was universally decried by the entire weather enterprise.
        vel0city 2mo ago
        Project 2025 called for downsizing the weather service and have them focus on just data gathering and it should "fully commercialize its forecasting operations". https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
        counters 2mo ago
        And that literally isn't happening.
        vel0city 2mo ago
        A lot of the recommendations for NOAA cuts in Project 2025 have been happening, so it's probably more of a "hasn't happened yet" kind of thing. There's little reason to believe that isn't still the goal.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2mo ago
    Sure, why not. No problem. That's a good example of how government open data can support both people and business.
  - bumby 2mo ago
    As long as it’s properly addressed to avoid abuse, I don’t have a problem with private companies and individual citizens both benefiting. You could easily put rate limits if you think it’s a major issue while still maintaining the free service for smaller users. I personally don’t like the privatization of profits while also maintaining the narrative that companies don’t benefit from public works.
crote 2mo ago
Google uses barely any weather data. Perhaps some tornado and wildfire tracking for its datacenters, but that's about it. The vast majority of its potential use comes from Android users, which is... the general public. And it's not like Google is a charity, you're paying for it either way. The question is: do you want to pay for that weather API via your taxes, or do you want to pay for it via the advertising budget of the products you buy - with Google taking a decent chunk and selling your location data while they are at it? And it's not like operating a weather API is that hard. You can easily find commercial parties who sell it for less than $1 per million API calls. Assuming you're polling for weather updates every 15 minutes 24/7, that's less than $0.03 of your yearly taxes going towards providing accurate weather information!
monodeldiablo 2mo ago
I work in this space. The load on private APIs -- and the management costs in general of reselling government data -- are utterly dwarfed by the upstream costs borne by the government. The public __already__ pays for Google, The Weather Company, Apple, and really __everybody__ -- down to your local weather person and surf report -- to use weather data on a massive scale. Government weather data underpins huge chunks of our modern, globalized economy. It should absolutely be better funded and even allowed to directly distribute data to the public and industry. NOAA and NASA et al could be given 10x their current allocation of tax money and you and I would still be getting a great deal.

strictnein 2mo ago

The government already does that. https://api.weather.gov/ https://www.noaa.gov/nodd/datasets https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/ etc etc etc

ordersofmag 2mo ago
I think the point is that there has been a push to move away from this data continuing to be available from these sources.
- counters 2mo ago
  There has not.
  - ordersofmag 2mo ago
    Attempts have been made starting back in 2005 https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/786/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/786...
    - counters 2mo ago
      And I dare you to find another attempt in the intervening 20 years. Santorum's bill was laughed out of Washington. It stands alone.
      - slater 2mo ago
        https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-project-2025-weather/678987/?gift=ADN5ex8W_PaQmR-s5dSx2Do21FXUbb4d2XVoxOY40Vw https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-pro...
        counters 2mo ago
        You do understand how this isn't an example of what I'm asking for, right? In 20 years worth of history - you can't identify a single piece of legislation or a single executive action to demonstrate an ongoing threat to NOAA? You have to immediately jump to the tautology of "Project 2025 is dismantling NOAA because an article two years ago said Project 2025 was going to dismantle NOAA"?

counters 2mo ago

I'm not aware of any private company that has a contract with NOAA or the NWS to privately disseminate the agency's weather data (either acquired itself or purchased commercially).