Feeds violating RR TOS

Status
Not open for further replies.

JoeyC

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,503
Location
San Diego, CA
The admin would have taken down illegal feeds if they knew about them and they were in fact in violation. Admin team probably does not do random sweeps through the feeds but probably has to act now that they have been exposed. The system is on an honor system - all you have to do is say you won't then you can do whatever. It's not a high priority - the more feeds online the more profitable/successful looks Lindsay.

I'm sure nobody went over the speed limit today either...
 

djl998

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
143
Location
Indianapolis
You've got waaaay too much time on your hands, but still not enough to do your little crusade correctly. One of the feeds in your list, Ball State University Police, I am very familiar with because I was the provider of that feed. It was deleted years ago (if you had looked you would have seen "Deleted" under Status) because I moved away from the area, and car-to-car TGs were allowed at that time.

Clicking through some of those links, I see a lot of other feeds that were already deleted who knows how long ago.

 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,921
Location
Attleboro, MA
Ed I agree with you most of the time but will have to disagree this time about the encryption comment.

Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
Actually, it should have read "one of the main excuses departments are using for encrypting" Didn't catch it before I posted.
 

pepsima1

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,078
Location
Pimp County, Neveda
Honestly who really cares about streaming audio and what people are publishing. It doesn't matter and whoever started this thread, please get a real life instead trying to police streaming audio feeds. Do something more productive to enhance your life instead of trolling audio feeds. You are scratching the bottom of the barrel right now
 

k1agh

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
414
Location
Maine
Penobscot and Piscatiquis Counties Sheriff, Fire, EMS and Police

Is ok because here in Maine tac channels not what you think they are, most departments transmit in the clear on them-mostly traffic stops or special events.
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,921
Location
Attleboro, MA
Ban me. The fact that the referenced "Announcement" (not an actual part of the Rules and Guidelines) exists does nothing but to support the allegations that Radio Reference broke off the live feeds to distance itself from the departments that are using the lame excuse of streaming to encrypt. They are supposedly two independent sites with two independent revenue streams-there should be no concern about talk of encryption by the powers that be-unless it threatens a revenue stream. There are supposed rules that broadcasters have to follow-the OP here pointed violators of those rules out and has pretty much been dismissed, without investigation, as should be, since this is not Broadcastify. Nor would I expect to see an investigation, as once a feed is approved, it becomes part of the revenue generating model, with the revenue being made on the backs of the poor saps providing the feed who see very little in return beyond some meager access. Some day, people are going to smarten up and stop sharing information/feeds for free that is in turn used to generate significant profits for the site owner-both in the feeds and databases.
 

milf

Careful, I CAN hear you!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
13,698
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Seriously, if ANY ONE of you tossing out all this H***fire & brimstone about how this site and/or broadcastify operate really are so upset, then please do dissapear. It would make your life so much happier. Unless of course, you are only on to grumble about things.
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,921
Location
Attleboro, MA
Disprove any of what I posted, and I'll stop. You want to ban me, that's the prerogative of the site management, but I guarantee you that I have the ear of several local and at least one national news reporter and I can make this VERY public. The majority of people using this site do not realize that the information or content that they provide is being used as a revenue generating tool, or that the membership they pay for to access data is also augmented on the other end by lucrative licensing agreements with Whistler and Uniden. The success of this site is due to exploitation of good people and what they are willing to do for free, but no one seems to want to admit it. Do not get me wrong, the site is an amazing resource that has plenty of purpose, but there is a history of swift and decisive editing/moderating/removing/banning whenever someone starts to point out the facts of it's business model.
 

joeuser

The Wretched
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
1,614
Location
North Central Kansas
Disprove any of what I posted, and I'll stop. You want to ban me, that's the prerogative of the site management, but I guarantee you that I have the ear of several local and at least one national news reporter and I can make this VERY public. The majority of people using this site do not realize that the information or content that they provide is being used as a revenue generating tool, or that the membership they pay for to access data is also augmented on the other end by lucrative licensing agreements with Whistler and Uniden. The success of this site is due to exploitation of good people and what they are willing to do for free, but no one seems to want to admit it. Do not get me wrong, the site is an amazing resource that has plenty of purpose, but there is a history of swift and decisive editing/moderating/removing/banning whenever someone starts to point out the facts of it's business model.
Citywide173 for President! Well written sir! Well written!
 

fxdscon

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
4,968
Seriously, if ANY ONE of you tossing out all this H***fire & brimstone about how this site and/or broadcastify operate really are so upset, then please do dissapear. It would make your life so much happier. Unless of course, you are only on to grumble about things.

+1000 on that milf!!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,133
Location
Peoria, IL
Seriously, if ANY ONE of you tossing out all this H***fire & brimstone about how this site and/or broadcastify operate really are so upset, then please do dissapear. It would make your life so much happier. Unless of course, you are only on to grumble about things.
I agree with you about what you said. I love listening to the live audio feeds and never have a complaint about it :D.
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
11,672
Location
Central Ontario
Gentlemen, a reminder that the purpose of this thread is to discuss several feeds which appear to violate the TOS. It is not for discussing feeds and encryption.
There's a thread for specifically discussing that topic which you can post to.
Any further off topic comments will result in infractions being handed out.
Thanks.
 

joeuser

The Wretched
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
1,614
Location
North Central Kansas
I agree with you about what you said. I love listening to the live audio feeds and never have a complaint about it :D.
Listening to these audio feeds are barely worth the time. There is so much more out there that cannot be broadcast, for whatever reason, I fail to understand why one would serve the feed - let alone listen. I know for a fact, I am not alone in this belief.
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,921
Location
Attleboro, MA
My posts are germane and on topic. The OP posted a question regarding TOS violations on Broadcastify, and was then attacked by multiple people who have nothing to do with the administration of the live feeds. NO WHERE does ANYBODY with a connection to that administration address the question or indicate that an investigation of the allegations is currently, or has been, conducted. The OP appeared frustrated, and I tried to explain why he would probably not see any action on his post. Subsequent posts came after a NON-MODERATOR posted a link to an irrelevant announcement. There are many infractions to be handed out in this thread, as many people attacked the OP, but I feel that I'm the only one who will see any.
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,687
Location
San Antonio, TX
Most of the feeds listed by the OP were deleted long ago.

If we have instances where feed providers are violating our terms of service, we will immediately address them. Please open a trouble ticket with Broadcastify support.

We address this all the time and rarely does our admin team read forum posts to address these issues. If you go through our official support channels then we address it 100% of the time.

Thanks,
 

quarterwave

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
559
Location
TBD
We do understand that not all "Car to Car" and "TAC" channels are that, right?

I know of many agencies that refer to their chit-chat, or business channel or talkgroup as "TAC" as an identifier, but there is no "Tactical" action being undertaken. It sounds cool, it's easy, people know it means not-the-main channel, what have you, but I have yet to see a Fire Department performing any "Tactical" actions...yet all of them in my county have VHF simplex channels they call "TAC" on the air...albeit they should be listed as something else, like FIREGROUND.

"Car to Car" is simply a way to do the same thing in a LE agency where they need to relay information without bothering the dispatcher. Where I am from this is a left over from the Low Band half-duplex days where you would switch the car radio to the Base TX frequency as a means to talk to another car directly.

Designations are often misused in the world. Not every copier is a Xerox. My local Sheriff's departments people will go to "Talkaround" on thier radios....except they think it is another channel, seemingly not realizing other cars can still hear them, and they may be talking over the dispatch if they are close to another car who is not in the conversation....ironically they hardly ever go to their "TAC" channel, repeater or talkaround, which is where they should have the conversation anyway, and it should be labeled "Car to Car" since no tactical action is taking place. Of course they have a NPSPAC UHF Simplex programmed, and they don't know how/when to use it either..... If a channel is truly tactical in nature, it should probably be encrypted anyway.
 

webstar22

policescanner.ca
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
863
Location
Ontario, Canada
We do understand that not all "Car to Car" and "TAC" channels are that, right?

I know of many agencies that refer to their chit-chat, or business channel or talkgroup as "TAC" as an identifier, but there is no "Tactical" action being undertaken. It sounds cool, it's easy, people know it means not-the-main channel, what have you, but I have yet to see a Fire Department performing any "Tactical" actions...yet all of them in my county have VHF simplex channels they call "TAC" on the air...albeit they should be listed as something else, like FIREGROUND.

"Car to Car" is simply a way to do the same thing in a LE agency where they need to relay information without bothering the dispatcher. Where I am from this is a left over from the Low Band half-duplex days where you would switch the car radio to the Base TX frequency as a means to talk to another car directly.

Designations are often misused in the world. Not every copier is a Xerox. My local Sheriff's departments people will go to "Talkaround" on thier radios....except they think it is another channel, seemingly not realizing other cars can still hear them, and they may be talking over the dispatch if they are close to another car who is not in the conversation....ironically they hardly ever go to their "TAC" channel, repeater or talkaround, which is where they should have the conversation anyway, and it should be labeled "Car to Car" since no tactical action is taking place. Of course they have a NPSPAC UHF Simplex programmed, and they don't know how/when to use it either..... If a channel is truly tactical in nature, it should probably be encrypted anyway.

Shhh don't say TAC channels are not always "Tactical" channels, that will violate everything the site admins believe. They don't own scanners themselves so they don't understand how it all works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top