• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Clarification on Charlotte Feed

Status
Not open for further replies.

KC7NEC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
73
Location
West Valley City, Utah
#1
I have a question:

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police

Status: 9/21 11:45p Police department requested I take feed offline
I am just curious about this in a more general sense, not specifically the details in this current event.

What is the procedure if an agency wants a feed down?

If an agency requests the provider themselves and not Broadcastify would they allow a new feed provider?

Has this happened before?

I understand that in critical situations that police tactical communications should not be broadcast but I am just curious who makes that decision and when?

There have been dozens of major events that were not taken down but in this case it has been. Is this an unfortunate precedent? What's is the official stance from Broadcastify?
 

CLTGreg

Newbie
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1
#2
I have a question:



I am just curious about this in a more general sense, not specifically the details in this current event.

What is the procedure if an agency wants a feed down?

If an agency requests the provider themselves and not Broadcastify would they allow a new feed provider?

Has this happened before?

I understand that in critical situations that police tactical communications should not be broadcast but I am just curious who makes that decision and when?

There have been dozens of major events that were not taken down but in this case it has been. Is this an unfortunate precedent? What's is the official stance from Broadcastify?
The Broadcastify TOS for broadcasters says only regular dispatch traffic should be streamed. Most of Wednesday night the channel was either closed or barely open. This should mean that the channel was more than regular traffic at least until they switched channels.

I'm guessing it was a friendly request but it's clear it wasn't regular ops.

Feed Provider Terms of Service - The RadioReference Wiki
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,766
Location
Colorado
#3
What's is the official stance from Broadcastify?
Reading up on the Constable Garrett Styles York Regional Police Service Incident will provide most of the answers to your questions.

In essence, it is largely up to the decision of the feed provider unless it is in violation of the Feed Provider Terms of Service.

As for the new feed question, I believe that falls under the Avoid Duplicate Feeds policy.

Of course "RadioReference reserves the right to limit access to or disable broadcasts that the management feels not appropriate for the community."
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
4
Location
Charlotte, NC
#4
The Broadcastify TOS for broadcasters says only regular dispatch traffic should be streamed. Most of Wednesday night the channel was either closed or barely open. This should mean that the channel was more than regular traffic at least until they switched channels.

I'm guessing it was a friendly request but it's clear it wasn't regular ops.

Feed Provider Terms of Service - The RadioReference Wiki
This is incorrect. Only the standard dispatch and conference channels were being scanned, as per the TOS. I was, at times, locking the scanner on only Central dispatch, limiting the traffic. As it turns out, by the time I did this, most of the traffic had (rightfully) already moved over to tactical channels. I don't have spare scanners laying around, so the only way for me to determine this is to try it on the live scanner.

This was a friendly request by the department, albeit unnecessary in my opinion. Nonetheless, I do not wish to get on the departments bad side, as it is well within their authority to kill the ability to listen to even routine traffic. My goal is to be able to listen long term, and if that means killing the feed for a few nights, so be it.
 

ChrisABQ

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
444
Location
Albuquerque, NM
#5
Throwing my 2 cents in, I'm a heavy supporter of law enforcement and under the current environment in this country, it is of utmost importance to help protect the police individuals in this country. Taking the feed down was the correct thing to do. Now, if we could only stop telling the terrorists in the Middle East what our plans are before we act.
 

KC7NEC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
73
Location
West Valley City, Utah
#6
This is incorrect. Only the standard dispatch and conference channels were being scanned, as per the TOS. I was, at times, locking the scanner on only Central dispatch, limiting the traffic. As it turns out, by the time I did this, most of the traffic had (rightfully) already moved over to tactical channels. I don't have spare scanners laying around, so the only way for me to determine this is to try it on the live scanner.

This was a friendly request by the department, albeit unnecessary in my opinion. Nonetheless, I do not wish to get on the departments bad side, as it is well within their authority to kill the ability to listen to even routine traffic. My goal is to be able to listen long term, and if that means killing the feed for a few nights, so be it.
I have no issue with a provider pulling the feed, changing what is being streamed, locking out things as needed. I know several providers who get requests from their streamed agencies at times.

It just brought to mind to me the curiosity of what RR/Broadcastify's Official stance is. This thread has somewhat answered that but from information in the 2011 incident.

We have to remember that in todays world a larger incident easily attracts 10s to 100s of thousands of listeners.

I personally thinks its a great idea for providers to reach out to the agencies they stream and work out things internally with them, even before a major incident may happen.
 

fredva

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
1,352
Location
Virginia/West Virginia
#7
We have to remember that in todays world a larger incident easily attracts 10s to 100s of thousands of listeners.
I think it still boils down to the local feed provider following the TOS and using good judgment. I can understand if a feed provider doesn't want to risk losing the ability to monitor in the future, even if it disappoints people outside the area who are tuning in.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
365
#9
I have to agree with you guys. Good job from the department in communicating their needs to the feed provider and Good job to the feed provider to pulling it off line.

Those clowns, agitators, and / or career protesters shouldn't have be able to " 1 up" our Men and Women in Blue during times of unrest.

#BackTheBlue
#ProtestPeacefully
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top