Technical > Ham Radio > RadioReference.com Change

RadioReference.com Change

I have only used it occassionally and am not a major user. However, from reading through the thread, I have to agree with those that use their resources (internet connection, computer, scanner, etc.)to provide a feed that having to pay to now stream is stupid. Seems they want to split so they can double dip by charging for users to listen and charge for the incoming content they are going to make money off of.

Seems to me to be the current ISP vs. content provider mentality where the ISP wants to double dip.

reply to GeekNJ
I must say I will be reconsidering if I continue to provide my feeds.

The only "perk" (other than feeling a little important in my community for providing said feeds) is now being taken away.

The amount they are asking to pay isn't high, but that isn't the point if you have been a feed provider since the day they opened their site and service.

Oh well what can you do? I will miss my feeds though, and I know lots of others will to.
Heck the police dept. and news media here even use it regularly.
--
Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry,
and all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be.

reply to GeekNJ
I don't stream, or listen to the streams, so this doesn't affect me directly.
I can understand why they want to split the site, and I'm neutral on charging for it. We all know it costs money to run these sites, but I think if you're a feed provider you should get a free or reduced cost subscription.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.

reply to GeekNJ
Looks like the site owner felt he answered all the questions he needed to answer and closed the thread.

reply to GeekNJ
I am a Global Mod over there in the forums as well as a Database Administrator.

I have always wondered how he could afford the massive hosting costs associated with the live audio platform as the incredible costs were the reason that it was agreed that he would take over Scanamerica.com

As far as those who are screaming about the only perk being taken away, it wasn't that long ago that there was no live audio platform and people were stuck paying the $2.50 PER MONTH to have the ability to program their scanner by directly downloading the data from radioreference.com

The database will still be free as it always has been, and the streaming audio will still be free. Not only that, but the free version of the live audio will include way more than even the paid service provides now.

If anyone has any wuestions I will do my best to answer them (unofficially of course).
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home!

Maybe I have been reading it wrong on their forum. I feel a little dumb here so I must ask since you Mod over there.

I have not had to do this yet, but soon our area will be doing the narrow band thing, and some depts. quite possibly will be going digital, which means I would have to purchase another scanner.

If I have to get another scanner, I understand at present I can get downloads for the scanner from the site free for now since I provide a feed.
But after the change I will no longer get this free as a provider?
Is that correct? Or am i misreading it.

Thanks
--
Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry,
and all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be.

reply to burner50
From what I would personally think as well as what those that seemed to voice their displeasure in the thread before it was closed, the perk associated with providing a feed in the new model/site isn't anything the feed providers are looking for. They were enjoying the perk of the premium sub on radioreference.com associated with the database.

As someone else pointed out, it's referenced as $2.50/mo but it's more accurately $30/yr since you aren't paying month/month. So though the site owner is touting the new "perk" as an $83.40 perk, if you don't want anything the perk offers it's useless. So the folks that did want the current perk are now out $30/yr.

Is $30/yr a lot if it's an important hobby to you - no. But I dropped my $30/yr geocaching.com sub and others such as my XM radio in 2 car subscription, multiple magazine subs, etc because in the end, I was spending hundreds/thousands a year on subs. At some point, enough monthly fees is enough and people make a choice. I happily paid my QRZ.com annual subscription as it's a primary hobby and the value I get is tremendous. I'm sure many will feel the same about radioreference.com if that's a primary hobby, but I think there will be some fallout.

I posted this in the thread but the site owner never responded:

Current cost of site access to RR features for current feed providers: [$0]
Future cost of site access to RR + BCify for current feed providers: [$30]

Current cost of site access to features for RR paid subscribers: [$30]
Future cost of site access to features to RR + BCify for current RR paid subscribers: [$113.40]

If that's filled out, I imagine the expense will be obvious. I could be wrong, but I filled it out with what I think the answer is.
--
Tweaked your connection? | Mail Parse | Speed Converter

reply to GeekNJ
I do know that before RadioReference took over Scanamerica, The site was run from the owner's home... Now it takes a giant cloud account with AWS that costs over $10,000/mo.

The streaming platform was about to go under when Radioreference took it over, and that is when it was just a few hundred feeds... Now there is a few thousand feeds and anytime there is a major incident, there is tens of thousands of connections every minute... It is very expensive.

I don't know that the reasoning is the cost, I found out about it from this thread myself, but I can see it being a major contributor. I wonder if he is looking to sell the live audio platform off... The leg work would all be done now.
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home!

reply to GeekNJ
It's Lindsay's sandbox. He can do what he wants.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes

reply to burner50
I think some of these complaints are funny.

Did you really spend $500 on a digital scanner and hook it up to a $300 computer to save $30/yr?

I doubt it.
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home!

EDIT : found my answer on RR's site.

reply to mr weather

reply to burner50

reply to GeekNJ
As a feed provider the change really does not bother me, I can't say I ever used any of the "premium perks" or really even know what they are.

You know it really costs nothing besides the electricity to host your own feed and it's not that hard to do. I hosted my own feeds and website for years before providing my feed to RR and still do.

The only reason I started providing a feed to RR is I had listeners request it because the smart phone scanner apps pull their feeds from RR.

I think the new name "Broadcastify" is dorky, they are trying to hop on the "ify" popularity of service like Spotify.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/

reply to burner50
I'm a feed provider and I'm with everybody else that voiced their displeasure to the change. I'm going to be shutting my feeds down also, which means "Broadcastify" will lose their "inventory". Can't really sell "inventory if it's not there"

I don't listen to other feeds. I enjoy the ability to download right into my other scanners as a premium service. That's why I host a feed - for the ease of use of Radio Reference to quickly update my scanners.

People post frequencies, and other content that drive the site for pure pleasure. It's a smybiotic relationship. The fact that he closed the thread shows exactly the problem - and he knows he made a mistake. If the feed costs are the issue, then shutdown the site and somebody else will take over (which I'm sure somebody else will anyway).

I'm upset, but life will go on and I save my bandwidth, get a couple scanners freed up, get a computer freed up, and save some monthly cash by not paying either of his sites.

Yeah him closing that thread hit me the wrong way. He also didn't answer to my point/question.

But closing it to end all discussion of the subject he started in the first place made me flash back to the days I used to visit QRZ. But as soon (and it didn't take long) as I realized the attitude of the owner of QRZ and his bozo buddies, I got out.

And more OT...Ham radio and operators just isn't the same as I remember it many years ago.
--
Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry,
and all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be.

reply to GeekNJ
The way he is going about this seems backwards to me. Wouldn't you normally give you providers the "perks" to supply you with content and then charge a little to the consumers? I do not know of too many people that want to PAY to deliver content.

If this really does work, then someone should trick the media broadcasters (ABC, NBC, etc..) into doing this. That way we could all get our cable for free and they could pay Comcast, Time Warner, etc. to distribute it.

reply to GeekNJ
I just read that thread and I am a bit perturbed. He seems to be pissing off a lot of people with his reply's. Without those members providing feeds and updating the DB he has NOTHING more than a forum. Ultimately I personally think he is spinning off the feeds as a separate entity to sell down the very near road.
--
Professional student pilot!