|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: USA Surface Geology |
| Date: |
08/03/2001 07:31:35 AM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
How can I argue with someone who can quote Federal code? I don't disagree
with your points Bill, they are loud and clear, but I also find nothing
wrong with the Survey or any other government organization pursuing ways to
outsource non-core functions. It is fiscally responsible to do so, as any
private business would know, if it's not core, outsource. Is maintenance of
DEMs/DLGs a core function of the USGS? "The USGS serves the Nation by
providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the
Earth:
minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters: manage water,
biological, energy, and mineral resources: and enhance and protect our
quality of life." As their mission states, it's not explicit, and maybe not
even implicit.
Hey, if GeoComm isn't making the grade, the USGS should re-evaluate its
decision on its choice of vendor or seeks vendor(s) to partner with, which
makes more sense to me for many reasons. However, the premise of whether
this function should be outsourced or not is still valid in my eyes, and
USGS shouldn't be blasted for doing something "corporate" when it makes
sense.
I would be interested to see USGS annual budgetary $ in maintaining the
DEMs/DLGs, and their estimates on true cost savings by outsourcing, and then
see GeoComm's estimates for maintenance per year (doubt that will happen).
If something has been done incorrectly, against rules, regulations or laws,
then it should be made right, and true, GeoComm probably should provide
download speeds for FREE at the same speed at least as it was at the USGS,
and if these issues were resolved, would you or others, be more comfortable
with the arrangement then ?
Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Thoen [mailto:bthoen@ctmap.com\
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 11:38 PM
To: 'GIS List'
Subject: Re: GISList: USA Surface Geology
Anthony Quartararo wrote:
> However, your comments cause me to ask, isn't the USGS policy more
fiscally responsible and more user-centric than it first appears to be? It
seems to boil down to a "use-tax", wherein those that consume the data in
question are the only ones to "pay" for it, whether "paying" is in slow
download speeds, or in cash for higher download speeds, those that do not
"consume" don't have to "pay".
This is a specious argument, and one several countries struggling
under the Crown Copyright laws have come to rue. To harness the
government into full cost recovery for data is about as
short-sighted as hitching Pegasus to a plow.
Leaving aside that the USGS has not followed its own guidelines in
"donating" all these DEM data sets to GeoComm (US Code Title 43
CHAPTER 2, Sec. 44 requires payment for data, and so does the USGS's
Business Partner agreement, Article VIII, Minimum Purchases, but
I've been told it was given to them free): that's not an issue with
me. I think the USGS *should* give out their data to anyone who can
reasonably demonstrate that they are willing and able to serve it to
the public under *at least* the same policies and standards as the
USGS provides it. The more people who can get free and easy access
to these data the stronger their spatial awareness becomes, and
that's good for the public as well as the GIS industry.
What I object to is that now only one private company is in charge
of all the most recent and best US DEMs, and they are not able to
carry the load. Why did the USGS simply drop online support for
these data? The EROS server is still there, and now that the old
data are purged, there ought to be some room. How hard is to load a
rack of tapes and continue the service as it has been? At least
continue it until there is more than only one choice!
To hand everything over to one commercial vendor for free is to
court disaster. Commercial vendors are driven by profit and will
only be able to serve what is profitable. The rest will be rendered
so inaccessible as to be nonexistent. We are already seeing that
with the so-called "free" data pipe at GeoComm that sports download
speeds rivaling the flow rate of cold molasses running uphill in
January.
Once the data moves from public to private hands, all the rules
change, too. Commercial vendors will eventually charge whatever the
market will bear, and you know it. The general public (taxpayer)
will no longer have equal access and will end up the loser in a deal
like that. Let us not forget how US government-subsidized data
contributed to the GIS industry here and abroad.
If the USGS wants to dump their load, surely the online GIS
community can provide a commonwealth of resources where the burden
and benefits can be shared? Aren't there enough universities and
local vendors who would be willing to share a part of the load?
Couldn't the USGS fund only an "updates" site? C'mon peop
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
