I sent my comments on S786 (Natl Wx Svc) directly to Dave yesterday but decided it'd be useful to post them here also. See below. Since I haven't seen any other comments in response to Dave's message last week, I'm assuming that either he had it correct or no one cares. But if I was in Dave's shoes, I'd sure be uneasy that there have been no comments at all (positive or negative). -- Tom

Generally I like your approach. I'd go a little further and suggest that it is directly appropriate for the NWS to disseminate information they have gathered (thru volunteers, satellites, etc), and that the private sector ought to be building improvements on what the NWS has to provide.

S786 would like eliminate or severely curtail the efforts of thousands of volunteers, some who also are ham radio operators, to provide timely, on-the-spot severe weather information - a process that has grown extensively over the last ten years as the NWS has closed it's own reporting stations.

More than that, many hams use (free) access to NWS information as a way to gauge their involvement in local emergency situations.

-- Tom

At 04:44 PM 7/29/2005, you wrote:

...

We're entirely free to take positions on pending legislation. What we can't do is to support candidates in any way.

With regard to S. 786, what is it we're trying to accomplish? We wouldn't take a stand on every piece of bad legislation that's filed -- we'd have no time to do anything else. I can only think of two ways in which our specific interests overlap those of NWS:

1) We have volunteers who gather severe weather information (principally hurricanes and tornadoes) and feed it to the authorities; and

2) We are consumers, probably to a greater extent than the general public, of NWS weather broadcasts on 162.4 MHz etc.

I note that the Weather Coalition http://www.weathercoalition.org/Santorum%20Bill%20Letter%206-05.pdf has written a letter to Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens commenting on the bill. Would it be appropriate for us to send a letter along similar lines, expressing concerns rather than flat-out opposition?

What I have in mind is something like this. Suggestions for embellishments welcome -- this is pretty bare-bones.

Dave

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of its 150,000 members, the ARRL welcomes the opportunity to offer brief comments on the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 (S. 786). Many ARRL members are active Amateur Radio volunteers who provide real-time severe weather observations to NWS through the SKYWARN program as well as to the National Hurricane Center in Miami through the Hurricane Watch Net. These activities are conducted in a spirit of public service without compensation of any kind. Radio amateurs also make extensive use of NOAA Weather Radio, US Coast Guard radio broadcasts, and weather satellite imagery.

After reviewing the legislation, the ARRL is concerned that it could impede the dissemination of weather information that should be freely available to citizens. Volunteer observers might be placed in the peculiar position of being denied access to forecasts based in part on data that they themselves have provided.

It is our view that restricting the NWS to the preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings would poorly serve the public interest.

As your committee considers S. 786 we ask that our concerns be kept in mind.

Sincerely,

DS/CEO

===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444