Coming Soon, Premium Feed Broadcaster Offering

[blantonl]

Its on hold for now due to some shifting priorities. However, it is still on our radar. We just want to make sure that we release a solid product for providers that wish to use it. Anything less is unacceptable.

[loco-lee]

Thanks for the update.

[APSN556]

Originally Posted by blantonl

Its on hold for now due to some shifting priorities. However, it is still on our radar. We just want to make sure that we release a solid product for providers that wish to use it. Anything less is unacceptable.

This is somewhat disappointing news. I for one have been looking forward to this since you announced it 9 months ago. When you say "its now on hold" and "still on the radar" I translate that as it may or may not ever materialize. Those are terms my boss uses when it comes to pay raises, and bonuses. lol. Thanks for considering it. I sincerely hope it comes to light someday sooner than later. Its a great idea!

[slatescan]

I hope this comes to light soon,

love listing to stuff i missed with the dead audio trimmed.


Lindsey has a great idea ... if it ever comes this will really take off

[Skud]

Originally Posted by slatescan

I hope this comes to light soon,

love listing to stuff i missed with the dead audio trimmed.


Lindsey has a great idea ... if it ever comes this will really take off

With the hard drive space RR pays for, this should already be implemented for us to choose and not be something we should have to pay for in my feelings.

[W5AWX]

I hope the Premium Feed Broadcaster program becomes available and I sure don't thing the $14 or $15 is unreasonable at all. Thanks, Lindsay, for wanting it to be a good product before it is released. Radioreference.com is certainly a well thought out and well planned product! Thanks and I hope to hear some news soon on the Premium Feed Broadcaster program.

Chris Daniel, KB5JBS
Daniel Broadcasting, LLC

[kz5x]

Three questions:

1. My intended primary feed audience is local public safety personnel: Fire, EMS, & LEOs. The PFB program password/private option is the feature I need. Question: Is it - or could be - acceptable in TOS that we may require feed listeners apply to 'join' a feed ?

2. Next logical leap would be an option to charge the many non-public-service listeners a small membership fee to help defray my costs. The $15/mo is no biggie, but is additional to currently tying up two upper-end scanners and a dedicated PC, power and cooling for those, plus no small amount of administrative time to provide my feeds as a free public service.

3. How will the PFB private/password feature work with the numerous listeners who use non-RR apps to listen to the live audio?

Thanks.
Dan

[scannerfreak]

Just checking status. Is this still being considered and worked on?

[blantonl]

It is on hold right now. We're still evaluating whether or not there is enough market to actually invest in putting this into production, and our focus has been on other areas.

I know my response is vague, but I don't have any other info to share...

[scannerfreak]

Okie Dokie, was just wondering. I can understand your position.

[dxh]

Why make a huge project out of it. Why not just add one or two features at a time that may give the best bang for the effort?

[blantonl]

Because when it comes to charging money for something, you need to have everything working just right and you need to have a feature set available that people will pay for.

[jasonpeoria911]

I know I heard multiple complaints about the high fee of $15 or whatever it was. I'm not sure the reason behind $15 but it sounds like you might get quite a few more buyers if the fee was lower.

Jason

[msingewald]

Originally Posted by Skud

With the hard drive space RR pays for, this should already be implemented for us to choose and not be something we should have to pay for in my feelings.

I don't have a problem with an additional fee for additional features, but trimming dead air should be a core feature, in my opinion. I can't imagine anyone using the archive feature extensively without it.

If anything, I would think it would be an additional paid feature for the listener, not the feed provider.

[OCO]

I suspect that one of the issues with stripping dead air is the loss of display of relative time that you get with the current player. While it's not totally accurate, you can search within the loaded archive for the time a call was made by adding the elapsed time on the player to the start time of the file. This would be lost in a simple time compressed file.

The alternative might be for the start of each area with audio to be a separate file, like the HomePatrol does when recording audio with the start time to be part of the file ID (messy) or maybe use time info embedded in metadata for the file. Either way, technical issues that would seem to require lots of development....

[Skud]

Originally Posted by jasonpeoria911

I know I heard multiple complaints about the high fee of $15 or whatever it was. I'm not sure the reason behind $15 but it sounds like you might get quite a few more buyers if the fee was lower.

Jason

Why not put a price tag on each feature and let the broadcaster choose what feature(s) they want which would lower the cost for the broadcaster and still generate money for RR.
I know I would only choose 2 or maybe 3 features and what say you have 10. I am paying for 7 that I don't want.

[kg4ciu]

[QUOTE=w2lie;1336059]Lindsay,
The only option I am interested is limiting the streams to the RR community, and not being used by 3rd party apps - as I already self support the other options you are marking as premium.

IMHO, it just doesn't seem fair to charge per stream when there are those like me that send multiple scanner feeds to RR and get the same benefits as those who only stream one feed..[/QUOl;k.k..;;;,.,,,,,,,,,,,;;klollTE]

this would be great if you offered a method for feed providers to pass the expense along to the listeners.
It may even encourage more precise feeds on