US Government Wants To Start Charging For Landsat, the Best Free Satellite Data On Earth (qz.com) 239
The U.S. government may begin charging users for access to five decades of satellite images of Earth. Quartz reports: Nature reports that the Department of Interior has asked an advisory board to consider the consequences of charging for the data generated by the Landsat program, which is the largest continuously collected set of Earth images taken in space and has been freely available to the public since 2008. Since 1972, Landsat has used eight different satellites to gather images of the Earth, with a ninth currently slated for a December 2020 launch. The data are widely used by government agencies, and since it became free, by an increasing number of academics, private companies and journalists. "As of March 31, 2018, more than 75 million Landsat scenes have been downloaded from the USGS-managed archive!" the agency noted on the 10th anniversary of the program.
Now, the government says the cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it. Advocates for open data say the public benefit produced through research and business activity far outweigh those costs. A 2013 survey cited by Nature found that the dataset generated $2 billion in economic activity, compared to an $80 million budget for the program.
Now, the government says the cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it. Advocates for open data say the public benefit produced through research and business activity far outweigh those costs. A 2013 survey cited by Nature found that the dataset generated $2 billion in economic activity, compared to an $80 million budget for the program.
Yet another profit center for the Trump admin (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is just looking for more ways to convert more government programs into being profit BUs instead of public services.
We already paid for the hardware and time with our taxes.. If they really need to, they can allow services to mirror the data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Now, the government says the cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it
I'll bet it is running on some pay-through-the-nose hosting and they can't be bothered to even do a cost analysis of hosting it somewhere cheaper.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump admin probably wants to use this excuse to put it on a trump hosted server so he can steal that money too, kind of like his now 7 figure secret service golf cart rental fees and his 500 million chinese provided gift in order to promote ZTE.
We're in the most corrupt time America has ever seen.
Re:Yet another profit center for the Trump admin (Score:5, Interesting)
The usgs national map viewer for some of the landsat data has recently moved to AWS and it is immensely faster and much more reliable. On AWS you tend to pay per bit though, so I suspect bandwidth charges are now a larger/variable portion of their costs vs before, which was probably a fixed line bandwidth cost which was constant.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is just looking for more ways to convert more government programs into being profit BUs instead of public services.
We already paid for the hardware and time with our taxes.. If they really need to, they can allow services to mirror the data.
Considering that we have a massive (and growing) national debt, perhaps, just perhaps, charging for this service isn't completely crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
The budget is $80 million, or about 50 cents per taxpaying American per year.
That's also a 0.04% tax on the $2 billion of economic activity centered around the thing.
Essentially, charging for the data is raising taxes (or not raising taxes and breaking even) and targeting those taxes to specific individuals, causing the cost to go up per individual accessing the data.
The proposal overall makes no sense, and is simply a desocialization effort (from tax funded to use funded) which they can then follow u
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is just looking for more ways to convert more government programs into being profit BUs
Not really... generating bulk Landsat products for download is EXPENSIVE. They are archiving thousands of scenes which amounts to DAILY Terabytes worth of stored data being processed to service requests.
Sure it's a public service to provide access to process a reasonable volume of data for Use by other governmental Entities and for use in the course of Non-Profit, Non-Politicized Scientific Research, AND
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already paid for the hardware and time with our taxes..
Right and I for one would like to see some actual ROI thank you very much. There no reason if the business etc that actually derive economic value from it should not shoulder the burden of supporting it.
Fee for service government is actually a GREAT model. Government has the capital resources to do things a lot of small business can't like put satellites with high resolution imaging equipment in orbit. On the other hand if you are making money with you mobile app or whatever using the resulting images th
Fee for service (Score:3)
Right and I for one would like to see some actual ROI thank you very much.
You do understand that some ROI isn't a direct cash transaction, right? Much NASA research and data has resulted in huge value to our economy but isn't a transactional ROI. It ends up being an indirect benefit to the economy through business growth and jobs. Harder to calculate but just as real.
There no reason if the business etc that actually derive economic value from it should not shoulder the burden of supporting it.
As a general principle I tend to agree. There are some exceptions that make sense but in general for profit companies should bear some of the cost and risk.
Fee for service government is actually a GREAT model.
Depends on how it is implemented. Some things absolutel
Re: (Score:2)
If they really need to, they can allow services to mirror the data.
The project's been going for 46 years. My understanding is the raw data is in the ballpark about 400 Terabytes per year.
So cool... you want to mirror it? "We'll shoot you the download link"
It's only gonna be about 18,400 TB.
Let's say you have a dedicated 100-Gigabit private Internet link to their datacenter that never goes down and always gives perfect performance, and their servers always give you total priority --- you can start t
Re: (Score:2)
17 years you say?
Most of the time there have been 2 Landsat satellites active, so you are claiming that those satellites have almost 20-gigabit downlinks to earth. Yeah, not a chance.
Maybe check for reasonableness before making your arguments? Since those numbers don't pass the smell test.
I think you mean 17 days since 18400 * 1000 * 8 / 100 / 60 / 60 / 24 happens to be about 17.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and I should mention those 20-gigabit satellite downlinks are running 24x7x365. Those satellites manage to always have a perfect connection to the ground stations - they're never on the wrong side of the planet or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is just looking for more ways to convert more government programs into being profit BUs instead of public services.
We already paid for the hardware and time with our taxes.. If they really need to, they can allow services to mirror the data.
Pretty much this, but it is hardly limited to his administration.
Congress borrows at rates proportional to GDP and finds that an A-Ok chronic condition. Any revenue increase thus doesn't reduce borrowing in the long run, as the goal is to spend 100% revenue + up to 25% more via borrowing, to secure votes.
Once more, you're not cynical enough (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
this is about keeping the data out of people's hands. They'll raise the price to prohibitive levels. The goal is to squash scientific research into climate change so their rich donors don't have to pay to address the problem.
I think you are incorrect on this. My guess is that they want to know who's looking at what and making folks pay for the data gives them insight into that.
It also makes it unprofitable to spin up any competition services by keeping prices low.. Keeping you squarely in control of this kind of data and when they get it. So, should an armed conflict threaten to break out, they can deny access to the "bad" people, regardless of what they can pay.
Then there is the whole, make some cash to support the systems
Re: (Score:2)
I know the whole point of most posts on the interwebs in 2018 is to signal how much we all hate Trump, but I'm not sure I'm entirely against the US gov't trying to at least recoup costs for services offered?
We do all recognize that things cost money, right? Even government things.
Yes, our tax $ paid for this, so for citizens and private use? Should be free. But corporate, commercial, or non-American use? Sure, there should be a cost-compensatory charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
No, you're using the economic logic of people who like tax giveaways and the RIAA/MPAA. $2bn in economic activity was generated? Is that the inverse of how copying a song denies them a sale?
Further, I'm not a Keynesian who believes broken windows improve the economy - money moving around doesn't improve anything by itself. Increasing government opportunities to tax people by money changing hands is only increasing the ability of government to act as a boat-anchor on commerce.
And, this sets aside
Re: (Score:2)
The American people already pay for this from our taxes. I can see charging outside entities for it, but not a single American should have to pay a second time to access the data they paid to have created.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you can go make a copy from the public viewing system in Washington DC. It's in the basement, in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, inside a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody has to pay... per the article summary, "cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it." That is, servers to handle the data, people to manage those servers, (maybe) people to load/configure the data for uploading, etc. That stuff isn't free.
The only real choices are 1) general taxpayers or 2) users. Or, I suppose, we could try to make Mexico pay for it...
Re: Yet another profit center for the Trump admin (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's how society works.
I don't use the roads in certain parts of town, but my taxes still pay for their maintenance, in the same way that others do not use for the roads I drive through regularly.
Additionally, as TFS says, the benefits far outweigh the costs. You sounds like one of those people who think only the services they personally use should be funded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a bicycle ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Life is unfair. Deal with it and stop moaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you use gps? You use that data
Do you use google maps? You use that data
Do you use any map at all? You use that data
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
so your argument is "other people use this service we all pay for more than me so let's take the service away"?
I have to say, that's pretty damned childish.
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe is not how society or civilization works.
What you describe is called a kelptocrocy and is only performed by corrupt and collapsing governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet another profit center for the Trump admin (Score:4, Informative)
GPS
Device manufacturers pay royalties when they sell a device that supports GPS. There might be an exception for cell phones that only use GPS for 911 calls - but GPS is not free.
military protection
The US protects US interests and nothing else. Just look at all the ethnic cleansing that has occurred in Africa - it did not involve US interests so they never got involved.
US Navy keeping the sea routes open
Once again, this is for the benefit of America. I should note that this is also why the super-rich should pay more taxes. They benefit the most from taxpayer dollars - including military spending.
American citizens dying from hyper expensive medical costs
You are really going to blame the rest of the world for this??? American drug costs are determined, not by the cost of production, but by how much people are willing to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Others have said this, but it apparently needs repeating: it is very expensive to do medical research, and patent enforcement is one way to ensure it is remunerated, but since the enforcement is strongest in USA, the prices are highest in USA. Where those patents aren't enforced, cheap copies can be made, but none of that money pays the (mostly American) companies who introduced the drugs.
That is part of the reason; the other part is the marginal costs of producing one more pill are small. As a result, it is still worthwhile to produce and sell them cheaper to countries that negotiate prices since the revenue is almost all profit; what is important is preventing reimportation of those drugs since that would drive down US prices. Another factor is the rise of benefit management companies such as ExpressScripts that manage formularies for heath insurance companies and take a cut as well; there
Re: (Score:3)
And the large pharmaceutical companies are delighted to hear that you've swallowed this massive lie -- hook, line, and sinker.
- Most drugs are developed in cooperation with universities, often with the assistance of taxpayer-funded research.
- Pharmaceuticals are making record net profits.
- The largest expenditure for pharmaceutical companies is advertising and bribing^W explaining to doctors why they should over-prescribe their drugs.
- The government is legally not allowed to negotiate prices for Medicare a
Re: (Score:2)
Because of all that, the research costs pharma pays are a tiny fraction of the PR costs they pay.
Re: (Score:2)
10 U.S.C. 2281(b) [cornell.edu] states that GPS shall be provided without direct user fees. A royalty would be a user fee. Can you point to any evidence of such royalties being charged to anyone for civil use of the GPS signal?
Obviously there could be royalties payable to mapmakers but that's for something far beyond identifying your coordinates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Device manufacturers pay royalties when they sell a device that supports GPS. There might be an exception for cell phones that only use GPS for 911 calls - but GPS is not free.
Going to need a citation for that.
Manufacturers may be paying for various intellectual properties for a specific implementations of the receiver but the original patents are long expired and the specifications are open. On an assembly basis you can buy the hardware, integrate it, and go.
There are ITAR restrictions on specific features but consumer hardware does not implement those.
Re: (Score:3)
The American people do not benefit from funding a free navy for the world.
Well that's good because America does not fund a free navy for the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it America's job to do everything for the world?
It isn't and never was and we don't. That's a nice rhetorical strawman you have there though combined with a nice little dash of jingoism.
It's just expected everything will be free of charge. GPS, military protection, US Navy keeping the sea routes open for wealthy nations like Germany to make a mint on exports,
Ok so let's cut the military spending. We spend WAY too much money on it anyway.
Oh, and GPS isn't provided for free nor is US military protection. There are royalties involved with GPS and if you think US military protection doesn't come with strings attached you are an idiot.
American citizens dying from hyper expensive medical costs while the world benefits from cures we develop, the list goes on.
Oh spare me. The only reason our medical costs are so high is because we have a weapons grade stupid system for financing our medical care. Literally every other advanced country realized a long time ago that the government HAS to be an active player to keep costs reasonable and to ensure that EVERYONE has access to health care. They treat it as a fundamental human right and we do not. Our expensive medical system is our own stupid fault and no one elses.
It's bankrupting us to carry all these free riders along.
No it really is not. Our oversized military budget, unwillingness have a rational healthcare system, unwillingness (by some) to assess enough taxes to pay for it all is what is bankrupting us.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and GPS isn't provided for free nor is US military protection. There are royalties involved with GPS and if you think US military protection doesn't come with strings attached you are an idiot.
Going to need a citation for royalties.
There are some ITAR restrictions on specific features but commercial GPS hardware does not use them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in BC (do you know that Canada is a federal system and the each Province is responsible for its peoples health care?) and have had to take a friend into emergency a few times for life saving surgery. Sometimes it took longer then my parking to be admitted. Now he did start out seeing nurses, getting blood and such and did have to wait to morning for surgery. Same with my sister who recently needed double by-pass surgery, it was an 8 hour wait for the actual surgery, so compared to the States where you c
Where in the US can you see a doctor instantly? (Score:5, Informative)
Hello,
Just curious, I live in the USA, and I can *never* see a doctor "instantly". In fact, the last time I needed to see a doctor, my primary care doctor told me "soonest is next week" and the urgent care clinic I went to, it took 2 hours for me to see a nurse practitioner, not a doctor, and I had set up an appointment 8 hours earlier.
The above experience has been absolutely typical of all my doctor visits.
So, WHERE, in the USA, can you go anyplace and instantly see a doctor? Yeah, you might get one "instantly" if you walk into an emergency room with an arm dangling by a thread, but otherwise, in my experience, you're going to wait longer than your claims of BC performance.
Best,
--PeterM
Re: (Score:3)
Try a restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a golf course?
Re: (Score:2)
I was being sarcastic with my references to American wait times. Every time a discussion like this comes up, it starts out with talk about how long wait times are in Canada and ends up with it actually being more comparable or even faster here in BC.
Wait times do vary here, weekends are worse, and same when there is a flu or such epidemic. Hospitals probably vary as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't catch the sarcasm, but I think I helped you make your point.
--PM
Re:Nice strawman (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the cost of an ER visit down there? I noticed that the advertised cost up here was something like $400 for a Canadian without coverage and $600 for a foreigner plus Doctors fees.
Another nice thing here, prices are up front and generally the same as the government would pay, for example last I knew, a basic Doctor visit was $35.
Re:Yet another profit center for the Trump admin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it America's job to do everything for the world? It's just expected everything will be free of charge. GPS, military protection, US Navy keeping the sea routes open for wealthy nations like Germany to make a mint on exports, American citizens dying from hyper expensive medical costs while the world benefits from cures we develop, the list goes on. It's bankrupting us to carry all these free riders along. It's literally killing our people. Why is it America's job to do everything for the world? It's just expected everything will be free of charge. GPS, military protection, US Navy keeping the sea routes open for wealthy nations like Germany to make a mint on exports, American citizens dying from hyper expensive medical costs while the world benefits from cures we develop, the list goes on. It's bankrupting us to carry all these free riders along. It's literally killing our people. The world's voice has been loud and strong telling the Americans to back off and stop bullying. It's about time everyone learned to ride the bike without training wheels and pay for themselves. The transition period will be painful but ultimately beneficial for everyone. Short term pain long term gain.
I'd say drink up some more of that kool aid but you seem to be so full of it that you've got yourself all full and stuck on a loop.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just expected everything will be free of charge. GPS, military protection, US Navy keeping the sea routes open for wealthy nations like Germany to make a mint on exports, American citizens dying from hyper expensive medical costs while the world benefits from cures we develop, the list goes on
- What's GPS. Personally I use GLONASS and looking forward to Galileo too.
- Military Protection? From whom? Most of the world needs protection only from the USA.
- Sea routes? German exports to where? About the only place of note that Germany exports to via sea is the USA. Take away the USA and Germany's other top 9 export destinations are land based neighbours.
- Medical costs? Look, grabbing your ankles for the pharmaceutical industry is your own fault. No one is forcing American companies to sell overseas,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government isn't supposed to make a profit.
Neither should government spend money it doesn't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Government isn't supposed to make a profit.
Tell that to the FCC... Frequency Spectrum Auctions anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government can't copyright works prepared by an officer or employee.
Dodgy survey (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But will they also return the tax money that was used to operate the satellites that took the pictures?
What tax money?
In the socialist liberal mind that money just what the government didn't let you keep. It all belongs to the government anyway.
public domain (Score:4, Insightful)
because this is work generated by the federal government. so it only takes ONE 'purchase' and then it's 'out there'... it will only encourage those that use the images to use advertisements or subscriptions to 'cover costs' (and then some) even more.. generating more money and more profits for them, not you. don't expect to make that 2 billion dollars, bub. it won't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Eight... (Score:5, Informative)
There have only been seven Landsats. Landsats six died on the pad. Landsat 9 is being prepared for launch.
seed it (Score:2, Interesting)
"cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it"
Cost of sharing proportional to user count? Bittorrent is just eliminating this exact problem. If only two users are interested, you can serve them at low cost. If there are a few hundred thousands, they will serve each others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would likely cost more to administrate the program that would charge for access. This is about 0.0000001% of Federal expenditures. Who really cares?
You might be right, and in that case, it would be impractical to charge for access. But that practical concern is not a disagreement in principle. It's conceivable that someone could make a business for cheaply charging for access to popular services, reducing taxes overall. Of course, there's always the possibility of cronyism even in that, which I would join you in despising. That suggests the need for transparency, not armchair recommendations of access policy.
Stupid is as stupid does (Score:3, Insightful)
Logic dictates that as one of the last remaining successful government run space programs, it must now be castrated, cannibalized and killed so that we can feed off of its rotting flesh. If all that money can be siphoned off instead of re-invested, just imagine what can be accomplished. More parking lots! More malls! More stadiums!
Politicians really are retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not charge (Score:5, Interesting)
for non-academic use?
Companies that make money from this service should probably be paying something.
And if enough people get peeved about having to pay, I'm sure some private companies would be happy to launch some private satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies that make money from this service should probably be paying something.
They are paying something. They are paying in the form of jobs and GDP. That's kind of how the relationship between enterprises and governments work. They provide jobs, jobs provide taxation revenue, revenue provides infrastructure, good infrastructure attacks more companies which provides jobs, etc etc.
C'mon people - it's hosting, bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
There are basically two costs: the cost to acquire the data and the cost to give the data to you and everyone else. Yes, tax dollars were used for the first one. That money is spent and gone, and the data has been acquired.
But hosting the files, maintaining backups, and paying for the bandwidth to deliver the data is an ongoing cost and, as the TFA pointed out, one that grows as more people access the data. How do you deal with that cost? Solutions could include: destroying the data, using even more of your tax dollars, or having the people who cause that ongoing cost to pay for it.
There's nothing nefarious about contemplating the latter option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said there were no other options? I sure didn't. Yes, I've heard of torrents. I also wouldn't be surprised if the government could find cheaper hosting options.
My post was in response to many who are saying they are having to pay for things twice, which is false. The present way the data is being circulated generates ongoing and growing costs. That's not to say some other methods could be used.
But the present course has real costs associated with it, and somebody has to pay those costs, and it doesn't s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, speaking for myself, given it's useful data that should be in the public domain, I'm in favor of continuing to pay for it.
Me too! I'm also in favor of exposing the data as torrents as a way to reduce their direct costs, as well as various other ideas.
But I loved the way you worded that option as "using even more of your tax dollars" as if my taxes will suddenly be hiked to pay for it.
Not at all, it's just that another option is that they are also asking for more budget - i.e. even more of your tax dollars. That doesn't necessarily translate into an immediate tax hike of course, but using even more of your tax dollars is in fact one of the solutions they're looking at.
That said, I'm also in favor of paying more taxes to get better services, like basic healthcare for everyone. So even if it did mean a tax hike, that wouldn't mean I'm opposed to it.
Agreed!
And while some taxes are broad hikes collected for myriad purposes, others are narrowly
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not at all arguing that the government has been completely efficient in its use of resources, but that's a separate issue because even if you were to do the impossible and optimize the staffing costs to 0, the bandwidth costs would still be there and so the question would remain: where does the money for that come from?
Short of wildly overfunding a program to the point that it lives off interest (which would really upset you), no amount of fixed or upfront budget will pay for an ongoing cost, especially
Re: (Score:2)
Please have another go at reading what I wrote. Your tax dollars paid for part of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
We're starting to conflate separate things here. There were costs associated with getting that data, and those costs were paid for with tax revenue. The fact that maintaining and distributing that data also involves costs does not equate to people having to "pay for it twice".
If we want to talk about the annual budget of the LANDSAT program, fine, but in doing so you have to realize that that program does far more than just distribute some image files (see e.g. https://landsat.usgs.gov/sites... [usgs.gov]).
So, again,
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, in the comment you replied to I posted a link that literally answers all of your questions (except for the one about me being a gov't shill).
You're completely misunderstanding the point of the $80 million figure in the TFA. It was cited in the context of $2 billion in economic activity - i.e. showing that the value derived from the data is far in excess of the project funding. Nowhere in the article, my comments, or the link I posted does it suggest that serving those files is all of - or even a signif
Re: (Score:2)
You're a tool. How can a rational person believe that hosting and bandwidth are at all relevant costs in a government operation?
By reading the article. You should try it.
The solution is simple: You keep paying the negligible hosting and bandwidth costs that won't even move the needle as far as government budgets go, because it's how you don't squander the billions of taxpayer money that went into acquiring the data
Millions - you're off by two orders of magnitude. Billions is what we use to measure the economic activity that resulted from the millions spent, which is a pretty good ratio, and the basis for why it's not unreasonable to at least consider having those benefiting so much help foot the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... instead of turning to a wild conspiracy theory about attacks on environmental science, the situation could actually be what it says it is on the surface: a budget shortfall.
To recap:
- From TFA: " the government says the cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it" - this discussion is about the cost of sharing the data, not their total budget, not the costs of launching the satellites, etc.
- From the link I posted: "Next 12 months planning for 21% growth in amount of total data managed
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely missing the point.
They are saying that the cost of one part of their budget is exceeding what they projected to spend on it and are looking at ways to cover that shortfall, especially since every indication is that that cost will continue to go up a alot. They are exploring ways to cover that shortfall.
That's it. It's really that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
So.. your argument is that the people in the LANDSAT program are lying about being concerned with the ever-rising costs of sharing the data? Or that when referring to the cost of sharing there is more to it than the things I pointed out?
Re: (Score:2)
Being "squeezed on purpose"? Of course! There are intentional efforts underway to get the entire federal budget under control - every single agency can produce a list like you posted of where they are looking to cut back, shift priorities, etc. because the current pace of spending is untenable. Every. Single. Agency. Just because something could be explained by an ulterior motive doesn't prove that it is, especially when a far simpler and more plausible explanation is right in front of us.
This particular pr
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm all in favor of stuff like using torrents and whatever other ideas people come up with to bridge the gap between the agency's budget and the agency's costs.
My contention is that recouping costs of sharing the data via a surcharge is not the same as having taxpayers pay for the data twice and that asking the people that cause the growing costs help pay for those costs doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea to at least consider.
If you're from outside the USA? Sure. (Score:4, Insightful)
...but as a US citizen my taxes paid for the agency, the hardware, and is paying for the maintenance. It should be free to me, for sure.*
*well, let's be honest, about 1/3 of it was paid by borrowing because as a country we have a ridiculous obsession with overspending, but that's another conversation.
Current Expense Recovery Happens Often (Score:3)
It is not unusual for the U.S. government to try to maintain cost control on its data that is popular and therefore relatively expensive to provide. Sometimes, it seeks to have private partners take on distributing the data. At some point the Patent Office (an entirely user-fee operated organization, not taxes) worked with private companies to provide copies of patents to interested people in addition to the for-free U.S. Patent Office patent copies service. When the USPTO went online, it had to limit expense by providing a painful portal (download 1 page at a time). For-fee companies that the Patent Office shared data with would provide better electronic service at a price.
Had the Patent Office fully charged each patent applicant for its patent in the past? Yes. But it needs money to keep handing out the patents. It has to come from somewhere. Other pieces of the government face the same problem.
Why shouldn't the researchers bear the cost of accessing the data? To some extent it is the U.S. government moving money from one pocket (research grants) to the other (Landsat image fees). I think the out of pocket costs for the public would be minimal for the benefits obtained, so why not defray some of the costs from the users?
Making taxpayers pay AGAIN for their data (Score:2)
comes up every Republican administration, because after running against deficits they cut taxes and raise defense spending. Trying to use NOAA or NASA's environmental monitoring data as a piggy bank is the budgetary equivalent of rooting through your sofa cushions for rent money.
Re: (Score:2)
Department of Interior is paid for with taxpayer dollars too.
Anyhow Landsat us currently a joint NASA/USGS(Department of Interior) program; it used to be NASA/NOAA(Dept. of Commerce)
That data ALREADY belongs to the people (Score:2)
Taxpayer money was used to build those satellites and gather that data. It ALREADY belongs to us.
Taxpayer money also pays for the servers required to host and distribute that data on the internet, too.
We citizens have already paid, but leave it to team trump to think they can charge twice.
I'm cool with them charging foreign entities and companies that don't pay their fair share of taxes, but I'm not cool with having to pay for that data as a private citizen. (Yes, I actually have used data from Landsat befo
Re:Just put ads (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not free though, the American people already pay for it with taxes.
What they're after is a second check so they can steal the tax money, just like they try with every "welfare reform", "social security reform" and "medicare reform"
When someone starts trying to shift costs of tax funded items, you should be deeply suspicious of the person trying to do so. It's never worked for the better of the users or the people funding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of does though, by generating 10x its cost in economic benefit
Re: (Score:2)
It's not free though, the American people already pay for it with taxes.
Not really. Just part is paid for with taxes. The rest is pushed downstream to my kids and grand kids.
When someone starts trying to shift costs of tax funded items, you should be deeply suspicious of the person trying to do so. It's never worked for the better of the users or the people funding it.
Too true. See my statement above.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ok with this. I'm also fine with charging other nations users, or charging other nations governments for access to it. I'm not OK with charging taxpayers who already paid for it twice.
Re: (Score:2)
BUT you need to take a step back.
WE PAY FOR THE PROGRAM THROUGH OUR TAXES!!
So we the citizens of the united states own the data. Thus it is up to US how we want to use it.
People need to start realizing that we are the government.
Re: (Score:2)
What "conservatives" won't tell you is that there are a lot of government programs like this, where the economic and social benefit grossly outpaces the cost. There's some monstrous sinkholes as well, but slash and burn to programs that are cost effective is just idiocy.
What will be interesting is to see who gets exempted from, or a tax break for, the fees. Farmers use Landsat data to manage crops, and no doubt will be crying "fees will put my family farm out of business" just like they are wringing their hands over the stalled farm bill. It is interesting, but not surprising, that some of the staunchly conservative, small government types really want teh government to do something when their wallets are impacted. Everyone likes free government money unless it is someone e