It's a publicly funded bureau that exists to provide a service to the public. It shouldn't *have* private customers.
If the energy company wants individually tailored weather reports for their operations, they can hire their own team of meteorologists instead of demanding what is effectively yet another subsidy.
Couldn't disagree more. Both government & industry benefit from being able to outsource functions to each other. In this instance, the energy company benefits from not going to the expense of building their own weather model from scratch, and BoM benefits from getting a bunch of data that they would normally not have bothered collecting.
> yet another subsidy
By law, government agencies are required to charge no less than cost price for this kind of work. So objectively speaking, there's no subsidy.
Currently, 10% of BoM's revenue comes from various paying customers. Do you believe it should just forfeit this cash?
>By law, government agencies are required to charge no less than cost price for this kind of work. So objectively speaking, there's no subsidy.
If it was more cost effective for the energy company to have their own team, they'd be doing it. The difference between the invoice from the BOM and what it would cost to have a team in-house or contract elsewhere is their subsidy.
>Currently, 10% of BoM's revenue comes from various paying customers. Do you believe it should just forfeit this cash?
I believe that energy should be nationalised, and that corporate profits should be properly taxed so that the BOM could be fully funded without having to solicit business from paying customers. Until then, I believe that publicly funded agencies should be able to prioritise work that is in the public interest over the interests of corporations.
>the difference between the outsourced cost and cost to DIY is the subsidy
This is a ridiculous argument. It's cheaper for me to buy bread & pasta than it is for me to make from scratch. Does this mean Colesworth is subsidising my carbohydrate intake? It's cheaper for my employer to pay for O365 licences than build their own OS, email client, spreadsheet software etc from scratch. Does this mean Microsoft is subsidising my employer?
>BoM should be funded properly
Even in this utopia, it's highly unlikely that BoM would produce detailed forecasts & weather warnings for every corner of our vast continent. The audience for a forecast for Betoota, for example, just isn't really there. If someone decides that they want detailed forecasting for Betoota, should they be allowed to pay BoM for it?
Alt headline; taxpayer funded positions ordered to work for private industries that damage the Australian economy. Workers not pleased.
Alt headline: BoM staff upset after being directed to assist paying customer who they consider icky.
It's a publicly funded bureau that exists to provide a service to the public. It shouldn't *have* private customers. If the energy company wants individually tailored weather reports for their operations, they can hire their own team of meteorologists instead of demanding what is effectively yet another subsidy.
Couldn't disagree more. Both government & industry benefit from being able to outsource functions to each other. In this instance, the energy company benefits from not going to the expense of building their own weather model from scratch, and BoM benefits from getting a bunch of data that they would normally not have bothered collecting. > yet another subsidy By law, government agencies are required to charge no less than cost price for this kind of work. So objectively speaking, there's no subsidy. Currently, 10% of BoM's revenue comes from various paying customers. Do you believe it should just forfeit this cash?
>By law, government agencies are required to charge no less than cost price for this kind of work. So objectively speaking, there's no subsidy. If it was more cost effective for the energy company to have their own team, they'd be doing it. The difference between the invoice from the BOM and what it would cost to have a team in-house or contract elsewhere is their subsidy. >Currently, 10% of BoM's revenue comes from various paying customers. Do you believe it should just forfeit this cash? I believe that energy should be nationalised, and that corporate profits should be properly taxed so that the BOM could be fully funded without having to solicit business from paying customers. Until then, I believe that publicly funded agencies should be able to prioritise work that is in the public interest over the interests of corporations.
>the difference between the outsourced cost and cost to DIY is the subsidy This is a ridiculous argument. It's cheaper for me to buy bread & pasta than it is for me to make from scratch. Does this mean Colesworth is subsidising my carbohydrate intake? It's cheaper for my employer to pay for O365 licences than build their own OS, email client, spreadsheet software etc from scratch. Does this mean Microsoft is subsidising my employer? >BoM should be funded properly Even in this utopia, it's highly unlikely that BoM would produce detailed forecasts & weather warnings for every corner of our vast continent. The audience for a forecast for Betoota, for example, just isn't really there. If someone decides that they want detailed forecasting for Betoota, should they be allowed to pay BoM for it?