Do you have proof this was broadcasted on a tac channel?
Why is this allowed?
- Thread starter tipster67
- Start date
- Status
Do you have proof this was broadcasted on a tac channel?
tipster67
Member
Pretty much, first I had my scanner on and was monitoring Tac10 for what was happening at time. As you can see my post I listed the Time of the Event. I just went and downloaded the Audio file from that time slot. On the MP3 file I downloaded at about the 26:23 mark, The dispatch clearly states that she will no longer be monitoring that TAC channel and the Officers should go back to their normal Dispatch channels. Then an officer says "you know we will stay on this channel" and call you if we need ya. She then replys she will let their dispatcher know they were staying on TAC10.
tipster67
Member
Thanks for letting me know I had imported the wrong channels they are all gone now. Again thanks.
I have removed the channels mentioned above because I was under the impression that they are not allowed to be on a feed. Since then I have noticed other Feeds broadcasting TAC Channels. Are They allowed or not? If not why was my feed the only one noticed to have the channels.
ak4fn
Member
Nice to be able to monitor 2 freqs at the same time! Good for you, glad to see you are using what is available! That is the great thing about having two people in the same area with overlapping freqs, there is less chance to miss any of the action. Hopefully you can get some more people to provide feeds in your area.:twisted:
Absolutely no TAC channels for any feed. If you see or notice feeds with TAC you have to bring it to our attention or else we can not look into it. Thanks
Last edited:
Yah Thagewood, can't have any Tac channels. The reason your feed was noticed was because tipster was mad you were feeding some of the same Wichita frequencies as him. Exact duplicate feeds aren't allowed but yours covers the metro area so you are all good.
Jason
Jason
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Many agencies designate channels as TAC and it has nothing to do with "tactical" traffic such as would be meant by RR's TOS.
ecps92
Member
Correct.
Even now some Fire Dept's have begun to use the word "Tac or Tactical" for Fireground channels. Tactical has more than one meaning, if you are going to only go by the label of a channel you might as well shut down the entire system.
And many PD/EMS agencies will use "TAC" for a channel assigment for events/issues other than routine Dispatch
Even now some Fire Dept's have begun to use the word "Tac or Tactical" for Fireground channels. Tactical has more than one meaning, if you are going to only go by the label of a channel you might as well shut down the entire system.
And many PD/EMS agencies will use "TAC" for a channel assigment for events/issues other than routine Dispatch
I have to say, the more feeds the better. I certainly have no right to be the only provider of a certain area or agency. More feeds = more opportunity to get casual listeners.
Nothing is more frustrating than getting interested in a particular situation, only to have the scanner go off into scan mode and lock on the trash haulers jawing about nonsense. I used to host two agencies on my feed, and was delighted that another provider was providing a straight feed for one of the agencies.
IMO, I can concentrate on a single jurisdiction, which makes it much more coherent and interesting to the listener.
Nothing is more frustrating than getting interested in a particular situation, only to have the scanner go off into scan mode and lock on the trash haulers jawing about nonsense. I used to host two agencies on my feed, and was delighted that another provider was providing a straight feed for one of the agencies.
IMO, I can concentrate on a single jurisdiction, which makes it much more coherent and interesting to the listener.
W8RMH
Feed Provider Since 2012
The Feed Provider Terms of Service specifically states:
Law Enforcement Feeds, "Feed providers agree to ONLY broadcast routine dispatch and special events channels and talkgroups for law enforcement agencies. I agree to NOT broadcast dedicated tactical, car-to-car, SWAT, narcotics, detectives or any other channels or talkgroups that are not routine dispatch or special events related."
Fire / EMS / Rescue Feeds, "Feed providers agree to ONLY broadcast routine dispatch operations and fireground / on scene operations for fire, EMS, and rescue agencies."
It doesn't get any more cut-and-dried than that. If it is other than routine dispatch, special event, or fire ground/on scene ops it is not permitted.
Law Enforcement Feeds, "Feed providers agree to ONLY broadcast routine dispatch and special events channels and talkgroups for law enforcement agencies. I agree to NOT broadcast dedicated tactical, car-to-car, SWAT, narcotics, detectives or any other channels or talkgroups that are not routine dispatch or special events related."
Fire / EMS / Rescue Feeds, "Feed providers agree to ONLY broadcast routine dispatch operations and fireground / on scene operations for fire, EMS, and rescue agencies."
It doesn't get any more cut-and-dried than that. If it is other than routine dispatch, special event, or fire ground/on scene ops it is not permitted.
Last edited:
Ohhh so if we start calling car chases "Special Events" then it's allowed.
This whole TAC thing needs to be relooked at as more and more PD's switch to TAC's just to get the comm traffic someplace more manageable then having 100's cars try to talk over each other on a normal dispatch channel.
Heck they switch to TAC's for accidents now just to get the comms of traffic control off the normal dispatch channel.
This whole TAC thing needs to be relooked at as more and more PD's switch to TAC's just to get the comm traffic someplace more manageable then having 100's cars try to talk over each other on a normal dispatch channel.
Heck they switch to TAC's for accidents now just to get the comms of traffic control off the normal dispatch channel.
Boston Mass PD Channel 1 460.35 R is usually unused but sometimes has parades and demonstrations, sometimes has SWAT type incidents, is sometimes used if a district channel goes down, and once in a while is used for a surveillance. ???????
What if you hear this on a normal police dispatch channel? "I am watching this guy pick up a beer bottle now" - thats a 'surveillance' right?
Part of the problem might be that the 2 sentence long policy about police feeds has 1 sentence that states what CAN be fed, and 1 sentence that states what CANNOT be fed
What if you hear this on a normal police dispatch channel? "I am watching this guy pick up a beer bottle now" - thats a 'surveillance' right?
Part of the problem might be that the 2 sentence long policy about police feeds has 1 sentence that states what CAN be fed, and 1 sentence that states what CANNOT be fed
IredellMon
Member
Actually it does not get any more VAGUE than that! As many have pointed out the line between what is a tact ch and what is a special event ch is not clear at all, and either can be used for any reason at any time at the discretion of the agency that uses the radio system.
In addition some of the traffic on a dispatch is of a tactical nature.
THIS is why RR.com needs to change the policy and allow a 10 minute delay on Law Enforcement feeds (and even require it in some cases). On a live feed, you just cannot segregate traffic that is too sensitive to broadcast from that which is not unless you are sitting there with a censor button 24/7. It is time to allow feed broadcasters to protect the safety of our police officers by the use of a short 10 minute delay of the audio.
Last edited:
JoeyC
Senior Member
BINGO! Somebody finally gets it! Where is that LIKE button?
The interpretation of what is or isn't a TAC channel or what goes out over a TAC channel is as widely varied as peoples listening preferences making the "policy" here horribly vague if not a joke. And, many will stream whatever they wish, as we've had several examples already. My department regularly patches TAC channels with dispatch channels when urgency arises and to avoid having 20 cops fumbling to change channels when the s*** hits the fan. I say again, allow none of it - preserve the hobby and stop thinking you are providing a great service. Its little more than entertainment, but few will admit that. Probably time to close the thread as the reality factors arise.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Trying to establish nationwide rules is a difficult proposition, especially when the policy is expressed very briefly using specialized terminology. The collective wisdom of the RR community is aware that terminology is as local or regionalized as frequencies and codes are. "Special Events" can be handled on "Tactical" radio channels. Neither term has a universal meaning.
As for protecting the safety of police or other personnel, get over yourselves. A computer-based scanner feed is the least portable or convenient way to follow police activity or get involved in it. If you think listening to communications is too dangerous to public safety personnel, then get rid of your scanners altogether. It is hypocritical to distinguish the "risk" or "danger" according to how many people are listening to the same receiver. Besides, the real appeal of online feeds is to listen to events from far away. How does anyone monitoring NYPD from Minnesota endanger any police personnel?
Some people who are involved in providing or managing online audio feeds are taking themselves and their hobby far too seriously. Just chill out and enjoy the hobby.
As for the fire/EMS part of the policy, streaming appears to be allowed for any sort of activity in which a fire department or ambulance might engage. Those things listed are exactly what they do.
As for protecting the safety of police or other personnel, get over yourselves. A computer-based scanner feed is the least portable or convenient way to follow police activity or get involved in it. If you think listening to communications is too dangerous to public safety personnel, then get rid of your scanners altogether. It is hypocritical to distinguish the "risk" or "danger" according to how many people are listening to the same receiver. Besides, the real appeal of online feeds is to listen to events from far away. How does anyone monitoring NYPD from Minnesota endanger any police personnel?
Some people who are involved in providing or managing online audio feeds are taking themselves and their hobby far too seriously. Just chill out and enjoy the hobby.
As for the fire/EMS part of the policy, streaming appears to be allowed for any sort of activity in which a fire department or ambulance might engage. Those things listed are exactly what they do.
IredellMon
Member
You are wrong.. a computer-based scanner feed is in fact the MOST convenient, portable and most importantly CHEAP way to follow police activity IF YOU ONLY WANT TO DO IT A FEW TIMES and for a short time. Because everyone now days, esp drug dealers, have fancy phones and can download a free app to listen in for free. So it becomes an opportunity for the occasional crook to gain an advantage for pretty much free. It has happened and it will again. THATS the difference between RR feeds and someone actually going to the trouble to buy a $300 scanner and program it just to commit a crime. And I for one appreciate the people involved in doing the feeds being responsible and aware of the risk of lawsuit it includes. If there was no valid argument for a safety delay in the feed then there is also no valid argument in limited the content of the feed.. anything would be allowed.
No maybe if we disallowed anyone with a local IP from listening so only DX people could listen in.. an few crooks would go to the trouble of using a proxy server because thats too hard for them to figure out while on crack... but no, thats not the answer ; )
73
No maybe if we disallowed anyone with a local IP from listening so only DX people could listen in.. an few crooks would go to the trouble of using a proxy server because thats too hard for them to figure out while on crack... but no, thats not the answer ; )
73
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
I still disagree. We (Americans) have been conditioned over at least a couple of generations to be afraid of our own shadows. Lawyers ensure their own continued employment by thinking up phantom dangers against which we should protect ourselves, mostly by hiring lawyers. To those who still think for themselves, it is obvious that most of these bugaboos simply do not happen, or are so rare as to constitute insignificant risks.
Looks like we all got spanked via email today.
- Status
