Why is this allowed?

[IredellMon]

Looks like we all got spanked via email today.

Not at all.. what you saw was the classic risk management message. Just more evidence that reasonable people see the risk in live LE feeds. The management of RR.com is positioning themselves for a good legal defense (while maybe leaving the individual broadcasters out in the cold). A 10 min delay would solve all these issues.

 

[SCPD]

On one of the feeds I provide, when the main dispatch has a big event going on they will move the normal dispatch traffic to a LE-TAC talkgroup. When those LE-TAC talkgroups are not being used in that way then other traffic may appear on those talkgroups that are possibly in violation of the RR live feed TOS. I have since removed those LE-TAC talkgroups but have received a message that routine calls were being missed when that traffic was moved due to the main dispatch talkgroup being tied up on a major incident.

I can't be at the radio 24/7 to make a manual switch when this happens to keep the LE TAC's off the feed when not in use. May just pull the feeds to avoid any issues or grief.

 

[longreach]

Hi all, I broadcast my local TAC channels for my local and neighbouring State Emergency Service TalkGroups. The SES have just chosen to name their TACtical channels as their working channels. I do follow the TOS and do not voilate those terms and infact do not broadcast the local fireground channels as they can get sensitive at times.
cheers all
Matt

 

[N0YFE]

Many areas name their multi use channels as "TAC's" and are open for all uses. They are not dedicted to law enforcement tactical operations. I do feel that any talkgroups that are dedicated for law enforcement tactical operations should continue to be resticted from being carried by Radio Reference.

I believe the main issue is to consider the main channel use when looking at what is and is not allowed. By restricted talkgroups that have "TAC" in the name, that may be limiting the shared channels for specific radio systems.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Exactly right. In my county, TAC talkgroups are for interoperability.

 

[W8RMH]

Exactly right. In my county, TAC talkgroups are for interoperability.

Interop channels are prohibited too. It is not about a tactical description.

"Routine Dispatch" and "Special Events" channels Only. Period.

 

[IredellMon]

Interop channels are prohibited too. It is not about a tactical description.

"Routine Dispatch" and "Special Events" channels Only. Period.

But interop channels are for special events! See the issue is that your definition and mine differ.. and so does John's and Bill's and Alice's and Lyndsey's and.. etc... the point is you can't define what is allowed by referring to terminology that has widely differing meaning. If the terms of service dealt more with the description of the content of the transmissions instead of ill defined labels that would help.

 

[rdale]

Interop channels are prohibited too. It is not about a tactical description.

"Routine Dispatch" and "Special Events" channels Only. Period.

First time I've heard that... So if two FDs talk on the same channel, it's a violation?

 

[aliby19]

First time I've heard that... So if two FDs talk on the same channel, it's a violation?

First, there is no provision in the Feed Provider Terms of Service (Feed Provider Terms of Service - The RadioReference Wiki) that explicitly excludes broadcasting of interoperability channels. However, assuming that the OP was referring to fire-related feeds, the following conditions are noted in the TOS:

• Feed providers agree to ONLY broadcast routine dispatch operations and fireground / on scene operations for fire, EMS, and rescue agencies.
• Feed providers agree to not broadcast dedicated channels or talkgroups for Ambulance to Hospital Communications.
• Feed providers agree to not broadcast dedicated channels or talkgroups related to investigations, arson, and fire marshal activities.

I know that for my county, we have Fire Ops channels (1-4). Each incident is assigned a separate ops channel, so all communications are handled in one place. In addition, any mutual aid from surrounding counties/jurisdictions also use our Ops channels if they are assisting with our incidents.

So, does that count as "interoperability?" Because I would call that "routine dispatch operations and fireground / on scene operations for fire, EMS, and rescue agencies"

Thanks!

 

[jpalm]

The agency on my feed uses the dispatch talk group for tactical situations most of the time.Even though they have several TAC channels. They'll just put the dispatch channel on minimum traffic or 10-33. I've double checked, and as long as it is a dispatch channel, I'm good to go as far as the TOS is concerned.

I have also noticed that about 70 to 80% of my listeners are using cell phone's. Either a dedicated app or the phone browser. This bothers me a little as darn near everyone has a cell phone these days. I can't monitor the feed 24/7, but when I do hear something that might be an officer safety / tactile issue, I will lock out until it's clear. There was an incident a few days ago where an attempted car jacking suspect with a knife would not exit the car. They were broadcasting all the options for apprehending him. I shut it down at that point.

 

[IredellMon]

I have also noticed that about 70 to 80% of my listeners are using cell phone's. Either a dedicated app or the phone browser. This bothers me a little as darn near everyone has a cell phone these days. I can't monitor the feed 24/7, but when I do hear something that might be an officer safety / tactile issue, I will lock out until it's clear. There was an incident a few days ago where an attempted car jacking suspect with a knife would not exit the car. They were broadcasting all the options for apprehending him. I shut it down at that point.

So you agree that a 10 min delay on LE feeds is a good idea I assume.

 

[jpalm]

So you agree that a 10 min delay on LE feeds is a good idea I assume.

I don't know about 10 minutes, but I'm not opposed to a delay of some kind. A few minutes would have been enough to solve the issue I cited.