groundzeros2015 3 hours 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t follow. I would rather the government manage the API, like what NOAA does/did.

▲

groundzeros2015 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So then we are subsidizing Google’s outsized usage of that API?

▲

bumby 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

simonw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

counters 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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_MandateForLeade...

▲

groundzeros2015 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree that anti-competitive coercion of access is bad.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, why not. No problem.

That's a good example of how government open data can support both people and business.

▲

crote 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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!