• 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

We need your submissions!

Status
Not open for further replies.

unleashedff248

Massachusetts DBA
Database Admin
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
50
Location
Sandwich, MA
#1
Hey guys,

I'm trying to update the MA database as much as possible. If you have any changes or additions, please submit them by clicking the "SUBMIT" tab on the interface. We need your submissions to make this site up to date and comprehensive.

Thanks,
Dave
MA DB Admin
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Messages
593
Location
Randolph, MA
#4
And only submit verified/confirmed info, info that has been confirmed by your monitoring. There's been a bit of incorrect info being posted here recently, as well as info that has been cut and pasted from other sources.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Taxachusetts
#5
Thanks Ken, I brought that up to the long-time folks who handled the MASS Info this am.

Too much is being obtained w/o confirming the data, or taken from other sites w/o Credit

kennyblues said:
And only submit verified/confirmed info, info that has been confirmed by your monitoring. There's been a bit of incorrect info being posted here recently, as well as info that has been cut and pasted from other sources.
 

garys

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
4,556
Location
Eastern MA
#7
ecps92 said:
Thanks Ken, I brought that up to the long-time folks who handled the MASS Info this am.

Too much is being obtained w/o confirming the data, or taken from other sites w/o Credit
It's OK Bill. Most of the blatantly stolen from my website information has been removed or at least reformatted so that it doesn't look like it was blatantly stolen. I only started PMing and emailing about this back in December.

Gary
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Taxachusetts
#8
It's a Shame folks can't do the time and confirm the information first, but to steal it. Atleast give credit.

Hmm..maybe there will be a new TAG on the groups, similar to what Lindsay has done here http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Terms_and_Conditions_of_Use
little wordy, but might fit as a footer or even a header :)-



garys said:
It's OK Bill. Most of the blatantly stolen from my website information has been removed or at least reformatted so that it doesn't look like it was blatantly stolen. I only started PMing and emailing about this back in December.

Gary
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,089
Location
Shavano Park, TX
#9
Folks, frequency and talkgroup information cannot be "stolen." Factual information cannot be copyrighted, and if some folks feel that they "own" certain, factual, frequency and talkgroup information, well - they shouldn't publish it in the public realm.

I've been pretty accommodating to folks that reach out to me to claim that "their" data was "stolen" from their site, but the argument is beginning to wear thin.

While I put a copyright statement at the bottom of each page on this site, I've never gone after anyone for reposting information from the site - except someone who was selling CDROM's of PDFs from the site (which are available to premium subscribers only).

Frankly, if anyone wants to "steal" factual data from this site and put it on their Web page, go for it. I'll even help you do it by providing Javascript APIs to let you do so....

Because most of the data comes from submitters, I've always determined to let the data be ALWAYS freely available - and that policy will never ever change. Those that think they "own" data are heading down a closed-ended path that will one day end.

Oh, and if someone wants to debate the legalities of this, be my guest. Just read up on Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.


Lindsay
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Taxachusetts
#10
Lindsay, the "theft" topic evolved out of , Give Credit where Credit is due. However the main reason was BAD information was taken from a thread on a yahoogroup and reposted pretty much verbatim w/o confirmation. Messages after the fact corrected the errors [on the yahoogroup]

It's just if your going to put things up, make sure it's correct, that's all, keep out the outdated/incorrect/unconfirmed stuff out of the RR databases.

The problem was, and still infact is, the listing of Input PL's which can/will confuse folks, rather than the output PL.

Enough said, we will give the person a 2nd Chance to CONFIRM the information rather than cut-n-paste from outside sources, such as the web which we all know is plenty out of date. Just do a search for any Federal Frequency in Boston [80% error rate]



blantonl said:
Folks, frequency and talkgroup information cannot be "stolen." Factual information cannot be copyrighted, and if some folks feel that they "own" certain, factual, frequency and talkgroup information, well - they shouldn't publish it in the public realm.

I've been pretty accommodating to folks that reach out to me to claim that "their" data was "stolen" from their site, but the argument is beginning to wear thin.

While I put a copyright statement at the bottom of each page on this site, I've never gone after anyone for reposting information from the site - except someone who was selling CDROM's of PDFs from the site (which are available to premium subscribers only).

Frankly, if anyone wants to "steal" factual data from this site and put it on their Web page, go for it. I'll even help you do it by providing Javascript APIs to let you do so....

Because most of the data comes from submitters, I've always determined to let the data be ALWAYS freely available - and that policy will never ever change. Those that think they "own" data are heading down a closed-ended path that will one day end.

Oh, and if someone wants to debate the legalities of this, be my guest. Just read up on Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.


Lindsay
 

garys

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
4,556
Location
Eastern MA
#11
blantonl said:
Folks, frequency and talkgroup information cannot be "stolen." Factual information cannot be copyrighted, and if some folks feel that they "own" certain, factual, frequency and talkgroup information, well - they shouldn't publish it in the public realm.
Lindsay
No, but formatting and other ancillary information can be. If what you are saying is strictly true, then no copyright is valid anywhere. Which isn't the point since if people didn't want to share their information, they'd keep it to themselves.

The point, as Bill points out, is that people shouldn't just cut and paste information from other sources and then submit it here as if it's the fruit of their own research.

Gary
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Taxachusetts
#12
And to give credit to the STATE Web site? Awesome. They don't list the channel plan
in the fashion posted. !

http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?aid=5355

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/firecont/direct/5firerad.htm

Lindsay, all we are saying is, there is too much being taken from outdated or incorrect sources and making what WAS a nice reference look poor.

PS, While we have it, what is the OFFICIAL Policy on Posting of and/or Removal of Frequencies that are:

a.) Not Licensed to an Agency [Surv stuff]
b.) Used by the Agency for Tactical Low Power Ops [Part 90 auth w/o License]
c.) And Outside of the T-Band limits for a Region [ie: 476 Mhz in New England]


garys said:
No, but formatting and other ancillary information can be. If what you are saying is strictly true, then no copyright is valid anywhere. Which isn't the point since if people didn't want to share their information, they'd keep it to themselves.

The point, as Bill points out, is that people shouldn't just cut and paste information from other sources and then submit it here as if it's the fruit of their own research.

Gary
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,089
Location
Shavano Park, TX
#13
Bill, there is no real policy that governs those three items above... so I would say the test would be to determine whether or not the entry of that frequency data would provide value to the community.

Don't forget, RadioReference.com is a collaborative platform, not a set in stone database. Much of what I have put my time and effort in here was to provide a platform that we all can use to update, change, and agree upon as (hopefully) a reference source that provides tremendous value to the community. If that objective is met - then I'll be successful financially as the business owner, and more important the community will be successful because they all contributed to the process.

So, I'd say that my intentions for the site are playing out perfectly. We entered some data, some folks identified it as needing updates or changes, and that process occurred. Mission accomplished ;-)

Warm regards,

Lindsay
 

KC1UA

Scan New England Guru
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,586
Location
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
#14
Once again, any information from Scan Cape Cod is available for addition to the database. I just don't have a lot of time to do it myself, or as a MA admin, I would. That said if it's used, somewhere in the mix I would appreciate credit to the source, which is not only the website but also the multitudes of monitoring enthusiasts in the area of coverage. The same courtesy was extended to Rich of ScannerMaster for his upcoming 11th edition pocket guide.

As stated in another thread, the key here is cooperation, not competition....it is simply kind to provide credit to the source. That said, Dave, the data at my site is all yours. I've no doubt it has the occasional error, but it is by and large confirmed and accurate, and if it will serve to help others here, primarily with regards to the import of such data into the various programs that support that feature...I'm all for it.

Enjoy!
 

unleashedff248

Massachusetts DBA
Database Admin
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
50
Location
Sandwich, MA
#15
Thank you for that courtesy Scott. You're a true gentleman and I applaud you for your efforts.

To address the previous concerns, I have some comments:

1. The information was not copied from the alleged web site. The information posted by the user on that website was actually "copied" from another site.

2. The information I posted was formatted in a confusing way for some users. Therefore, input PL information was removed and all PL's were changed to output only for simplicity. My statement posted in the category about the PL's being input only was apparently missed by some users.

3. The information was confirmed from monitoring. Unless you watch everything I do and know every channel in every radio and scanner I own, you are making a false assumption here. The DCR Blue Hills repeater was found through a number of sources. I did not have any confirmation on this that was recent, but I posted it due to seeing it on several reliable web sites, as well as it being in my database since the 90's. I maintain my own database which I update as much as possible.

4. Lindsay is right. The whole point of this site worked correctly in this case. I made a mistake by posting Blue Hills repeater, a user noticed it, and sent in a submission stating it was no longer in use.

5. Instead of jumping to conclusions that information was stolen because you noticed the same information posted on another website, search around and see how many other sites that information is posted on. I can name three sites and one publication in this case with the same exact information and descriptions.

I believe this discussion is beat to death. The whole point of this thread was asking for submissions, not pointing fingers and making useless accusations like a bunch of five year olds.

With that being said, I want to thank ecps92 for noticing the Blue Hills problem and bringing it to my attention. I have nothing else to say about this and will not take part in useless finger-pointing banter.

Thanks,
Dave
MA DB Admin
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
1
Location
Leverett Ma
#16
i Live in Leverett Mass i see thire is only one franklin county fire on the live audio feed will thire be one for the police to . i was just wondering the freq for the police is 460.350 it would be cool to here that one on thire to anyone that might know can drop me a e-mail thanks
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
54
Location
Nashua, NH
#18
More confusion leads to headaches

Once again, any information from Scan Cape Cod is available for addition to the database. I just don't have a lot of time to do it myself, or as a MA admin, I would. That said if it's used, somewhere in the mix I would appreciate credit to the source, which is not only the website but also the multitudes of monitoring enthusiasts in the area of coverage. The same courtesy was extended to Rich of ScannerMaster for his upcoming 11th edition pocket guide.

As stated in another thread, the key here is cooperation, not competition....it is simply kind to provide credit to the source. That said, Dave, the data at my site is all yours. I've no doubt it has the occasional error, but it is by and large confirmed and accurate, and if it will serve to help others here, primarily with regards to the import of such data into the various programs that support that feature...I'm all for it.

Enjoy!
I can see where he is getting at because of the issue is to give credit to the source of the party that has been submitted. Now I am not taking either side as to who's right & who's wrong but I made a website calling Scanning News & Sharing where I stated that if any submission provided from another website, was to give credit where its due and to the party or parties involved. I would like to Praise Scott and many others for all the hard work they put into sites as this. If you would like to peek at my home page please feel free to do so. But I rather not take sides to who is right & wrong.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
1
Location
Norton,Ma
#19
Norfolk Countuy

Just a quick update, Starting in October, Norfolk County Ma communities will be undergoing re-banding to narrow band to be in compliance with FCC changes. Several towns will be using NCC channels during transitions.

Also the Stoughton Fire Department channel 2 is 453.8125* 131.8 it is repeated as well

Eric H (NCC Car6)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top