Why are so many feeds shutting down?

[snjct2000]

There are daily posts asking why such and such a feed is gone.
Is it a matter of hosts losing interest in their feeds?

[luv2cruiserccl]

I am not sure.....could be a number of things people moved, computer problems, isp issue's, there are a number of reasons. If anyone wants a feed they could provide one as well.

Sent from my BlackBerry using Tapatalk please excuse typographical errors

[W5JER]

Some people get bored if no one listens to their streams. I say if you cant dedicate a scanner to one feed then dont sign up! People will eventually find it and listen.

[Spitfire8520]

It's probably due to lack of listeners (as pointed above). Sure, live feeds allow for everyone to listen to action across the country, but if you're the host for that one feed of that one county that has a population of 5 thousand where people could care less about major world news, let alone local events, I'm sure feed providers get frustrated to the point they deem that the energy bill to run a computer and tying up a whole scanner is no longer worth it for that one listener to tunes in once in a blue moon.

The reason you probably have an impression of a bunch of feed shutting down is that you always see a single person pointing out that one feed out of thousands shut down and never read the posts about it being provided by volunteers. I'm guessing you don't get to hear about a new feeds starting up all the time because no one is going to go to Listener Support and say "Thanks to the volunteer in so and so county for providing the feed for my local area."

The way I see it, it's like the news. They'll ALWAYS point out all the bad stuff, but rarely the good stuff. They'll milk the story about the single bad person, but never report about the hundreds of good deeds done daily. It also goes for anything in politics, but I'll just stay away from that subject all together.

[nyemt774]

There are a few other reasons too other than what has been mentioned. Some feed providers are upset over the split of the feeds from Radioreference into its own identity Broadcastify. Another explanation is that many cities/counties have switched to digital signals which require a scanner capable of receiving those transmissions and those scanners aren't cheap. One other factor is that also many areas have started encrypting their transmissions. Encrypting prevents anyone from rebroadcasting the signal.

[zl2taw]

hmm the split to broadcastify might be a reason, though as a feed provider, I personally dont care if people listen to a feed or not. I am selfish & set it up for when I was away from the radio in case major was happening locally.

My feed has been up for 3 years come March, the most people I have ever had was 307 listeners, it now averages about 3-6 listeners and currently as I type this no one is logged on and its 08:45local time.

BTW my feed is Fire & Rescue for Brisbane, Australia not law enforcement.
thats just a view from a feed provider

[Boatanchor]

Most people want to listen to the Police in their local area because for the most part, listening to Fire or Medical is the audio equivalent of watching paint dry.. And with many of the Police departments encrypting their traffic, online stream listeners are dropping like flies...

In the end, as a stream operator, you have scanner equipment, computer resources, higher power bills and sometimes website forum subscriptions tied up in providing an audio feed to half a dozen listeners - Why bother?

[rdale]

Originally Posted by Boatanchor

with many of the Police departments encrypting their traffic, online stream listeners are dropping like flies...

The data does not support your claim.

higher power bills

Cost of running a scanner 24/7 can be measured in cents per year... It doesn't require any more energy out of your computer than letting the PC run 24/7 without a scanner attached.

sometimes website forum subscriptions

There is no forum subscription needed to stream.

[ibagli]

The nature of most of the feeds here is that they're heavily subject to personal whim and circumstance, so there are always going to be feeds going offline. If the ID number of the newest feed is the number of feeds that have been hosted on this site, ten thousand of them have come and gone. Something that relies on a single hobbyist committing to keeping it going is just fundamentally ephemeral.

[treydawgmt]

In this area, at least, we have lost more than a few feeds with areas going digital and people not being able to scan. Rock County, WI is the most recent example. The person/people that host that feed want to continue hosting, had plenty of people listen, but don't have the money for a scanner to enable them to provide a feed. They are working on it. A few of the feeds in the past have returned for that reason too, someone finally gets the $500.

[rdale]

For those worried, just check the list of new feeds. Plenty come daily.

[MTS2000des]

Originally Posted by rdale

.



Cost of running a scanner 24/7 can be measured in cents per year... It doesn't require any more energy out of your computer than letting the PC run 24/7 without a scanner attached.



.

Really? Last I checked, intenet bandwidth isn't free. With more ISP's capping use, it equates to real value. AT&T caps residential DSL at 150GB/month. Average single stream uses several GB upstream, and it's constantly on, not just when audio is coming out of the scanner.

Leaving a PC on, out of sleep mode, costs more than "cents per year". The average PC with a 200 watt PSU costs around $160-200 a year to run continuously, depending on your electric rates. You cannot put a PC into SLEEP mode and run shoutcast, it has to be on, powered up, to work.

So "Broadcastify" profits off volunteers who spend an average of $200 a year, not counting the several GB of metered upstream residential bandwidth per stream, and gives away a measly $30 useless subscription?

And last I checked, a modern scanner (especially a digital model) sure isn't free.

I can see why people say "no thanks". I did a long time ago.

[JoeyC]

Some have wised up and would rather not contribute to the eventual demise of the hobby.

[Ensnared]

On several occasions, I've talked to various law enforcement officers about police scanners. Some have talked about digital radio systems & the expense of buying a digital scanner capable of receiving them. It seems some officers are under the impression that digital scanners are too expensive for the general public.

However, when phone applications surfaced, it was relatively cheap & easy to monitor public safety communications. Now, it seems, many agencies are using encryption. Since there are many variables involved, I cannot say how Smart Phone applicadtions influenced the transition to pervasive encryption for some agencies.

However, I will share my personal opinion regarding the topic of Smart Phone Applications for public safety communications. I hope all feeds are taken down. I can live without them. If this trend continues, then, hopefully, some law enforcement agencies will come to their senses & open up dispatch channels.

As an example, the city of Ft. Worth, Texas has encrypted everything for police communications: Fort Worth Regional Radio System Trunking System, Tarrant, Johnson Counties, Texas - Scanner Frequencies

On the other hand, Harris county has used a more sensible approach. The more sensitive talk groups such as narcotics surveillance, SWAT, and tactical tend to be encrypted in this system. Although I don't like it, I can understand why encryption is used. Texas Wide Area Radio Network (TxWARN) Project 25 Trunking System, Various, Texas - Scanner Frequencies

Again, I hope the Smart Phone and/or online scanning dies.

[rdale]

Originally Posted by MTS2000des

Average single stream uses several GB upstream, and it's constantly on, not just when audio is coming out of the scanner.

A 16K feed running 24/7 uses ~4GB per month. If that puts you over your limit, you have other things filling it up.

Leaving a PC on, out of sleep mode, costs more than "cents per year".

An informal survey last year showed a large majority of streamers put this up on a second box, most of them already running.

who spend an average of $200 a year

Seems as though that number doesn't match reality. Unless you have data that shows the survey to be wrong? I'd love to see it...

And last I checked, a modern scanner (especially a digital model) sure isn't free.

Very few people went out and bought a scanner just to stream. Most have one sitting by already being used.

I can see why people say "no thanks". I did a long time ago.

Thanks for your service. But your story doesn't mesh with the number of new feeds signing up daily.

Originally Posted by JoeyC

Some have wised up and would rather not contribute to the eventual demise of the hobby.

Hey - we agree on a streaming issue! I am right with you in thinking that streaming is saving our hobby by getting more people interested in it, and then going on to buy a scanner. For that we should thank those who stream and those who set it up for us!

[mk262]

Originally Posted by JoeyC

Some have wised up and would rather not contribute to the eventual demise of the hobby.

bingo

[Ronaldski]

Originally Posted by JoeyC

Some have wised up and would rather not contribute to the eventual demise of the hobby

+1

Again, I hope the Smart Phone and/or online scanning dies.

+1

[JoeyC]

Originally Posted by rdale

Hey - we agree on a streaming issue! I am right with you in thinking that streaming is saving our hobby by getting more people interested in it, and then going on to buy a scanner. For that we should thank those who stream and those who set it up for us!

I didn't need an online stream to spark my interest and neither did 99.9% of the other hobbyists. You are either interested or you are not. You really should come out of the cumulonimbus and come down to the surface where the rest of us are, then maybe you'd understand better.

[scannerfreak]

OK, I'm closing this one. I don't think we really need another thread on this debate.