The arrogance that Jason speaks of actually started over five years ago when NOAA fired Joe Friday (NWS Director), but this bill is not the solution to the NOAA arrogance problem. I too am a private meteorologist, but I do not support this bill. I have been in conversation with various folks in the NWS about the expected ramifications if this bill should pass, and here are their collective beliefs:
1. Raw weather data would not be available to the public (for free) from the NWS. No observational data, no radar data and no satellite data.
2. Before, during and after a major weather event, NWS meteorologists would not be allowed to go 'on-camera' to prepare the public or discuss the damage - and that includes the folks at NHC.
3. Weather radio would only be permitted to transmit warnings - in other words, most of the time it would be silent.
4. Weather data would not be available from the government on the internet for use by the general public - it would only be available through a service provider who had paid to receive it.
5. Free weather data, paid for by the public through their taxes, would have to be paid for again by those same citizens.

On this issue, I must side with Richard. The bill is not the solution to the arrogance problem, the arrogance problem simply became a convenient means to develop a bill that would support one of the Senator's constituents - and clobber the public access to weather data paid for by their taxes. It's a bad bill trying to solve a bad problem - and its not really off-topic, since the existence of this site really depends on the availability of free weather data.
ED

(...and thats about as strong as you'll see me get on an issue - obviously this one got my attention - but for different reasons.)

Ed Dunham
Chief Meteorologist
The Boeing Company