Privatizing Weather Forecasting in the U.S.: What a Wild, Wrong, and Reckless Idea

          Continuing my analysis of telecommunications-oriented play book ideas in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, I now consider the plan to “commercialize” the National Weather Service.  See https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf#page=707

          Reading between the lines, I see a future when taxpayers continue to underwrite billions of dollars in weather satellites ($19.6 billion estimated cost of launching, and maintaining six next generation satellites; https://spacenews.com/noaa-seeks-funding-increases-for-next-generation-satellite-programs/),  but the NWS cannot in-house convert basic weather data into forecasts, warnings, projections, trend detection, and public outreach.

          Simply put, commercial ventures like The Weather Channel and AccuWeather, would share a monopoly in the commercialization of weather forecasting, leaving the NWS and taxpayers with the burden of supplying and paying for creation of the data.

          Is this a Great Country or What? Commercial ventures can “have their cake and eat it too,” no longer content to provide for profit “products,” augmenting what the NWS offers.

          Who needs the NWS when commercial ventures can offer better products, albeit ones that consumers pay twice: 1) taxes to support the NWS acquisition of weather data; and 2) commercial subscriptions and higher prices for advertiser supported commercial weather services.

          For good measure, maybe Congress should outlaw municipalities from operating available to anyone within earshot, storm siren warnings, a widespread precursor and still much appreciated adjunct to cellphone, radio, and social network alerts. See https://www.weather.gov/dvn/sirenFAQ.

          In my hometown of State College PA, AccuWeather operates over a dozen satellite earth stations to receive and “add value to” weather data.  Most of the NWS satellites operate in high geosynchronous orbit so the “birds” have a large geographical “footprint.”  It costs several hundred million dollars to construct, launch, and manage each of these type satellites, a large premium over smaller, limited purpose low earth orbiting satellites that have become increasingly popular for broadband.

          As one of those far from elite academics providing unsponsored research to find the truth, I resent how sponsored research predominates. Project 2025 cites an AccuWeather sponsored advocacy document, masquerading as “research” to tout the superiority of its commercial products:

Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by the private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.” Project 2025 at p. 675, citing https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/latest-study-of-120-million-forecasts-proves-accuweather-forecasts-are-most-accurate-300986848.html

          I doubt whether AccuWeather would care to showcase its superior weather satellite procurement and management prowess if it had to pony up billions for the privilege.  Better to leave that burden to the taxpayer, something the Project 2025, does not acknowledge.

          Bottom line: commercial ventures want to prevent the NWS from even participating in public outreach, apparently even for mission critical warnings that could prevent or reduce calamity. Their simple logic: everyone has a cellphone, so we will not have a digital divide separating the weather informed and uninformed. Who needs NWS competition with far superior commercial products?

          What a wild and shameless idea on the fast track.

 

         

Nine Information Economy Policy Reversals Coming to a Marketplace Near You!

          Presidential elections have real impacts arriving quickly.  I think the following changed policies and strategies will happen fast, because the glidepath is both well-lit and pre-planned.

1)       Low Earth Orbiting carriers, like Starlink, will qualify for universal service funding.  The FCC, under new management, will ignore any previous qualms about Starlink’s cost, bit rate, reliability, and other shortcomings compared to terrestrial options.  This means Starlink will qualify for over $800 million in universal service funding subsidies.  Elon Musk is getting quite a return on his presidential election investment.

2)       The FCC has a playbook it will follow to the letter. See https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-28.pdf. The Heritage Foundation has commissioned the generation of a comprehensive list of deliverables that will be implemented quickly, regardless whether President Trump has read any of Project 2025.  This executive delegates large portions of governance.

3)       The author of the FCC chapter, Commissioner Brendan Carr, will become Chairman. Just before the election, he claimed NBC had violated the statutory obligation to provide “equal time” to candidate Trump when Saturday Night Live had a skit that included a cameo appearance by Kamala Harris. 

Depending on your political preferences, Commissioner Carr effectively channels Trumpian initiatives, or seems intent on triggering headlines rather than recommending measured compliance with the law. At least for the equal time complaint, even Fox News reported that NBC quickly and fully performed its notification and time offer requirements. See https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-files-equal-time-notice-harris-snl-cameo-following-backlash.

4)       Public interest regulatory requirements will fade into the sunset.  Expect the FCC to remove “regulatory underbrush” that heretofore have established now minor limits on national and local market dominance. Broadcasting becomes a toaster with sound and pictures as suggested in 1981 by a former FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mark-Fowler.

5)       Relaxed antitrust scrutiny, possibly eliminating the FCC’s review of mergers and acquisition parallel to what the Justice Department does.

6)       I expect Executive Branch agencies, including Defense, Homeland Security, NASA, Commerce, and the FAA, to lose the upper hand in spectrum sharing and relinquishment negotiations. A visible, vocal, and provocative Chairman Carr, will be able to push back on Executive Branch agency spectrum possessiveness, perhaps with some sort of Presidential blessing.

7)       Channeling former President Richard Nixon, see https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2017/trumps-threat-to-yank-tv-licenses-looks-a-lot-like-a-nixon-move-heres-why/, President Trump already has articulated the desire to sanction broadcast networks for assorted sins.  See https://www.brookings.edu/articles/donald-trump-has-threatened-to-shut-down-broadcasters-but-can-he/.

          President Trump probably will not be able to generate a passive and pliable news media by supporting a substantial deregulatory agenda at the FCC, while preserving the chilling effect of potential regulatory sanctions.  However, this tension will generate chaos that could extend to the issue of social network regulation and government-imposed sanctions for conservative bias, notwithstanding the First Amendment.

6)       More Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when Congress does not provide legislative specificity as required by the Supreme Court.  The abandonment of judicial deference to regulatory agency expertise, and the heightened expectation that Congress provide explicit statutory mandates, will create a backlog even a Republican managed legislature cannot avoid.

7)       The Executive Branch will embrace artificial intelligence in possibly creepy ways.  It is possible that generative AI will be used to evaluate the past performance of individual government employees in terms of “team player” affinity to the Project 2025 playbook.

8)       While previously leery of cryptocurrency, President Trump will reward his Silicon Valley benefactors with Executive Branch endorsements.

9)       Lastly, I expect Chicago School, libertarian doctrine to become gospel truth.  Even though we know free does not mean without costs, the Chicago School mandarins equate enhanced consumer welfare with reduced out of pocket costs.  The Trump administration and like-minded judges will ignore quite harmful impacts to individual and society that are not readily quantified.