From: James P Love <LOVE%PUCC.bitnet@UMCVMB.missouri.edu>
Subject:      LANDSAT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Missouri
Resent-From: "Rich Winkel" <MATHRICH@UMCVMB.missouri.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:52:40 GMT


                          LANDSAT bill

On Tuesday April 7 the House Subcommittee on the Environment will
hold a hearing on HR 3614, which addresses the operation of the
Landsat program.  On Wednesday the bill is scheduled for mark-up
by the full House Science, Space and Technology Committee.  One
important issue concerns the proposed two tiered pricing scheme.
HR 3614 would require EOSAT, the Hughes/GE firm that operates the
Landsat program, to provided non-profit organizations, including
local governments and universities, with limited rights to
Landsat's unenhanced data at marginal cost.  EOSAT, with the
support of Rep. Scheuer (D-NY), wants to eliminate this
provision.  The stakes are high.  If the two tiered pricing
provision survives, non-profits will be able to buy Landsat
scenes for a few hundred dollars, rather than the nearly $5,000
that EOSAT now charges.

For more information, contact Satellites for the Environment,
voice 202-244-6241, fax 202-966-3264.

The members of the Environment subcommittee are:

James H. Scheuer (D-NY)            Ron Ritter  (R-PA)
Henry Nowak  (D-NY)                Sid Morrison  (R-WA)
Dick Swett  (D-MI)                 Constance Morella  (R-MD)
Howard Wolpe  (D-OR)               Dick Zimmer  (R-NJ)
Joan Kelly Horn  (D-MO)
Ralph M. Hall  (D-TX)
Tom McMillen  (D-MD)
John W. Olver



Here's my letter to my congressman:
---------------------------------------

April 6, 1992

Representative Dick Zimmer
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

RE:       HR 3614 mark-up.
SUMMARY:  Do not eliminate the two tier pricing clause.


Dear Representative Zimmer,

This letter concerns the federal Landsat program.  As you know,
efforts to privatize the Landsat program have been a dismal
failure.  The taxpayers still shoulder the lion's share of
operating costs for Landsat, while EOSAT, the firm owned by
Hughes and General Electric, has a monopoly on the output.  This
arrangement has led to higher prices for the Landsat data, and
there are also grave problems with data continuity.  Satellite
images that once cost a few hundred dollars now cost nearly
$5,000.

Prior to 1984 Landsat images could be purchased for the costs of
copying and distribution only.  Today EOSAT prices the
information according to the market's willingness to pay.  This
change in policy has had disastrous consequences for science.
Only a handful of firms or organizations that have the highest
commercial payoff, or who are selected to receive federal
funding, are able to receive this information that is still
collected at taxpayer expense.

While it is great that EOSAT can receive millions of dollars from
oil companies and other firms that want Landsat output, it is
tragic that thousands of local governments, universities, and
non-profit organization can no longer afford to use this
technology.  As you know, Landsat images are particularly useful
for a wide variety of environmental and land use studies.

The United States spends more than $75 billion on research and
development, or more than half of all such national expenditures.
These investments should promote scientific progress, but in the
case of Landsat, federal policy is to subsidize a commercial
venture by Hughes and GE at the expense of the scientific
community.

The real insanity of the Landsat program is that the taxpayers
are often financing both ends of the transactions.  Not only are
we asked to pay for the costs of collecting the data, but we are
also asked to fund more than half of EOSAT's sales.  Indeed, if
you want to know more about this, ask the Department of Defense
how much money was spent buying Landsat images from EOSAT during
the Gulf War.  Isn't this really insane, from the point of view
of the taxpayers?

In the private sector firms fail when they can't perform.  In the
case of EOSAT, they just get larger and larger handouts from the
taxpayers.  To make matters worse, EOSAT now wants to extend its
monopoly downstream into the "value added" business, forcing the
public to but Landsat data in "enhanced" form.

HR 3614 would attempt to eliminate some of the worst effects of
the current EOSAT contract by giving non-profit organizations
limited rights to landsat data at the marginal costs of
dissemination.  Please do not reject this important provision.

Sincerely,


James Love
Director,
Taxpayer Assets Project
7-Z Magie
Princeton, NJ 08540

===================================================================
James Love, Director               VOICE:    609-683-0534
Taxpayer Assets Project            FAX:      202-234-5176
7-Z Magie, Faculty Road            bitnet:   Love@pucc.bitnet
Princeton, NJ 08540                internet: Love@pucc.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive