The interesting things on this are:

1) The requirement for the NWS to keep providing all the services it does.

2) The requirement that everybody has access at the same time to the products

3) The requirement that the NWS cannot compete with companies that can provide any of the same services.

These are the basic things in the bill.

Analysis I've read of this points to #2 as a fairness to the various businesses involved in weather reporting - it means that the NWS cannot favor one company over another in distributing its products. For companies that might make a buck redistributing the data, if one were to get it before another it would have an unfair advantage in the market place, and the NWS could play favorites. #2 is an attempt to fix that.

It would seem that #2 is the part that guarantees continued access for the public to the data, given that #1 requires the NWS to keep providing data. Except that #3 would constrain the NWS from freely distributing the products to the public if there are companies that do that for profit. And that is the area that has people somewhat alarmed.

This last point has been one of the complaints of the for-profit weather companies, is that the forecasts and observations are getting easier to get for free from the gov't, amounting to unfair competition. And they have apparently lobbied and made contributions to change this - which is fair enough, that's one way business is done.

So, within the framework that could be set by this bill, it's easy to see the situation where our tax money continues to fund the gov't weather services, but due to the non-compete aspect the data and predictions and such are not available freely to the public, but are available freely to the for-profit weather companies. The companies then could distribute the products to the public in a for-profit way, either funded by commercials or by a subscription. In this scenario you pay for it twice - first with your taxes and then by subscriptions or dealing with ads.

Most analysis of this issue notes that it is planned that the NWS would still issue alerts and warnings to the general public - which only really means that no for-profit company wishes to take on that liability and compete in those service areas. And it would be a liability - get one hurricane landfall warning wrong and the lawsuits start pouring in.

I don't believe the above scenario is outlandish, and furthermore that scenario above amounts to free raw materials for the for-profit weather forecasters in addition to a guarantee of non-competition from the gov't. From my point of view, if they truly want no-compete from the gov't, maybe they should pony up the resources to do the whole thing - build the observation stations, radars, fund the planes and weather balloons. Then we can save a bunch on taxes and can buy their services if we want to. We'll see if that's a business model they can make work.

Whether or not you think Santorum is the second coming or the devil incarnate should be immaterial. Consider what's possible under the wording of the bill and act with your conscience.

No compete clauses for the gov't. are an interesting thing, and you could see a lot of cases where it would be good, and perhaps bad. The one thing to remember is that ultimately, a company's duty is to its shareholders - be they public or private. That's the harsh reality of business...