|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: USA Surface Geology |
| Date: |
08/03/2001 02:44:55 PM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
Amen. "Uncle"......
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Thoen [mailto:bthoen@ctmap.com\
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:32 PM
To: GISlist
Subject: Re: GISList: USA Surface Geology
Anthony Quartararo wrote:
>
> How can I argue with someone who can quote Federal code?
I just looked it up: that part is easy:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/43/. The text for the USGS
Business Partner agreements is also easy to find and it cites
related law. See http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/partners/bpmain.html
for the details.
>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.
I think there are a lot of economic pluses that don't show up on
the balance sheet that would suffer if the USGS goes too far with
outsourcing. I don't mind outsourcing as long as the public's
rights don't get lost in the bargain. Why not privatize all
government data management? I'm sure plenty of large companies
could handle SSI numbers and driver's license info. They could
fund it by selling mailing lists. The track record so far for
private enterprise to handle public data is not good. Already
private companies have made a dog's breakfast of personal
privacy. Don't like it? Well, then fill out a five-page form
printed in 8-pt font to opt-out. Otherwise they use your
information for their profit.
True, map data are not the same thing, but my point is that
private companies don't have the tradition or mandate to serve
the public. They need to charge for as much as possible to make
it profitable, and often the unprofitable concerns for free and
equal public access are ignored. Outsourcing would be fine if the
outsourcing companies provided the same level of service. It
would also be fine if there was some real competition. Until the
USGS can find more than one business partner, they should
continue to maintain their service.
> 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.
"...providing reliable scientific data..." is what results in all
the effort put into mapmaking by NMD (National Mapping Division)
Yes, I'd say data development and maintenance are core functions.
Making maps --paper or digital-- is one of any government's core
functions.
> 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.
The USGS is not doing it fairly, and they are not doing safely.
What happens if GeoComm can't handle the load and collapses?
GeoComm, to survive, has had to restrict access. The USGS should
have known that it would take more than one company to do the
job. And why set GeoComm up as a sole source? The USGS should put
their data back up at the EROS center until a better plan is
worked out.
> 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 ?
I would never be comfortable with public data served solely by
private corporations, even if there were several of them. But it
may be that this wonderful service is too good to be true and
that the economics just don't work for the government. The USGS
is not bound to give its data out free over the internet. In fact
the rules say that they must sell it for cost of reproduction to
anyone who wants it.
I don't mind that they give it out to vendors who can demonstrate
that they can serve it free to the public with reasonable speed,
and I don't mind if they sell it to vendors who want to charge as
much as the market will bear. But I do mind them giving it to
only one vendor, and allowing them to define what free means. I
know that GeoComm's has tightened their pipe for survival
reasons, and are probably not making much of a profit yet, but
this outsourcing model is not a good one at the moment.
USGS should restore the service until they come up with
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
