TiVo Community Forum banner
  • TiVoCommunity.com Ambassador Program Now Open! >>> Click Here

SDV FAQ

854K views 2K replies 303 participants last post by  dlfl 
#1 ·

What is SDV?


SDV stands for Switched Digital Video, a scheme where not all TV channels are broadcast out from the cable headend to the homes that it serves all of the time. This is attractive to cable companies, because they can offer more TV channels than their cable plant has the bandwidth to broadcast. For example, your cable company may have 10 different channels in your lineup, but only 5 physical channels to send them from the headend to the houses they service. This requires a cable box that can communicate back upstream to the headend and say "I would like to watch ESPN2HD now" and then headend would take that request, assign it to a frequency and then tell the cable box "ESPN2HD is available on xxx,xxx kHz"




What does this mean for the Series 3, Tivo HD and TiVo Premiere?


With out an additional Tuning Adapter supplied from the provider, the Series 3, Tivo HD and TiVo Premiere is not able to communicate upstream to the cable headend, so it cannot send the request for channels that are assigned to SDV. Users of the S3 and THD will not be able to watch or record any of these channels.

Which channels will be converted to SDV?

Traditional methods send every channel to everyone, and if no one on your head-end is watching that channel, the bandwidth is effectively wasted. SDV allows them to turn off that channel when it's not being watched so that another channel can occupy that bandwidth. If a channel is always being watched it will probably never be converted to SDV. So the less popular a channel is, the more likely it will be converted to an SDV channel. See this Multi-Channel news article. That being said, there are some providers who use SDV to deploy a very large number of channels, though.


The solution

The NCTA and TiVo worked together for over a year and finally the first working solution has reached TiVo owners in NJ on Comcast. The device from both Cisco and Motorola are called Tuning Adapters (formerly known as Tuning Resolvers) and connect via USB to the TiVo (9.4 or higher) and feature pass-through coax connections, so a splitter is not needed. So when you attempt to tune a channel delivered using SDV, the TiVo sends a signal via USB to the Tuning Adapter which sends the signal via coax upstream to the providers head-end. This turns the channel on and returns the tuning information back to the TiVo.

In a demo at the Cable Show a few years ago I had a chance to play and was not able to notice any difference in speed when changing channels that were deployed with traditional QAM or SDV.

Depending on the head-end there are two solutions, Motorola and Cisco (formerly Scientific Atlanta). If your operator hands out Cisco set-top boxes, then odds are they'll use a Cisco TA.

The Cisco STA1520


The Motorola MTR700


Some providers are offering these for free, but some charge at first or after a few months.

Here is TiVo's FAQ that address the Tuning Adapter.

Here is Time Warner's FAQ about the Tuning Adapter.

San Antonio TWC customers can pre-order their Tuning Adapter from here.

Here is some of the history of the Tuning Adapter, formerly known as the tuning resolver:
http://www.tivolovers.com/2007/05/10/mr-tivo-goes-to-washington
Here is TiVo's official info on the adapter.
http://tivosupport2.instancy.com/LaunchContent.aspx?CID=CBECF1B9-88DE-4B74-82C1-754C3260112A
CableLabs press release about USB dongle
http://cablelabs.com/news/pr/2007/07_pr_dcr_devices_112607.html
NCTA and TiVo press release
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...11-26-2007/0004711019&EDATE=#linktopagebottom
Of if you want to do something about it, report your missing channels to the FCC.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_general.html


What about FIOS?


Right now, because of the fact that FIOS uses fiber optic cable to your house, FIOS has no plans to deploy SDV - they have instead chosen to invest in expanding their QAM RF overlay infrastructure and use IPTV for PPV and VOD.

Where is SDV located right now?

SDV deployments are changing very rapidly and impossible to track, in fact even most of the CSRs don't know if their company uses SDV and even if they do, not which channels.

Tuning adapters are here to stay
TiVo has asked the FCC to modify the rules pertaining to 3rd party CableCARD devices and eliminate Tuning Adapters. The proposed solution was to allow the TiVo to communicate via IP to the operators servers to perform the requests that are currently handled by the TA. This would've require that you have internet service from the same provider, but would eliminate a set-top box from the equation.

TiVo claimed it was necessary to increase reliability and would reduce costs for the operators. The NCTA and its members claimed that the TAs are well accepted and supported and it is not necessary to make any changes.

The FCC determined that it would rather not mandate a specific solution, but instead mandated the SDV channels work for CableCARD users and will be making it easier to report issues so that consumers could help enforce the mandate.
 
See less See more
3
#2,277 ·
Yes with time new laws will need to be written, but I don't think SDV or Tru2way does anything to make cable cards obsolete. Cable cards fulfills the requirement for separable security devices. I suspect that the cable companies will still have to have some form of separable security no matter what other changes they make to their networks. Our early cable card devices will be obsoleted by SDV and Tru2way not because of cable cards.
I agree except I wonder if (hope?) you are a too pessimistic about "our early cable card devices." I have periods of several weeks without any major TA (or CableCARD) problems and during that time "how sweet it is!" -- well relatively speaking; still an assortment of small problems that I can live with. Maybe TA/CableCARD problems will settle down eventually and our devices won't be obsoleted. We'll probably never have VOD but that doesn't bother me that much. There's Netflix, Amazon and YouTube. For MRV with CCI = 0x02, I wonder it isn't feasible for TiVo to give us a solution through just a software update?
 
#2,278 ·
When I read "our early CableCARD devices", TiVo didn't spring to mind. I thought about the millions of televisions sold with CableCARD slots; eventually they won't be able to get much of anything with just a CableCARD.

TiVo's fine right now and I don't see that immediately changing. If you wanted cable providers VOD, why'd you buy a TiVo? As for MRV, they probably should redo that to use some secure streaming method (as they should have done to begin with, like Moxi) instead of just slowly copying files around. (I wonder what Moxi uses for that? There are a few different streaming protocols emerging which use DTCP/IP for authentication and protection).
 
#2,279 ·
I'll point out that there is one exception to cable cards obsoleting our early cable card devices and that's the M-Cards. Some devices can't use M-Cards at all and some can only use M-Cards in S-Card mode (like the S3).
Then the technology that the cards use isn't obsolete, they are reduced function with the older S3 units.
 
#2,280 ·
I agree except I wonder if (hope?) you are a too pessimistic about "our early cable card devices." I have periods of several weeks without any major TA (or CableCARD) problems and during that time "how sweet it is!" -- well relatively speaking; still an assortment of small problems that I can live with. Maybe TA/CableCARD problems will settle down eventually and our devices won't be obsoleted. We'll probably never have VOD but that doesn't bother me that much. There's Netflix, Amazon and YouTube. For MRV with CCI = 0x02, I wonder it isn't feasible for TiVo to give us a solution through just a software update?
SDV probably won't do it, IF they continue to work out the kinks with the TA's. I just don't know enough about Tru2way to say. Can they upgrade the OS enough to do it with a firmware /OS update or does it actually require a hardware update. But the Cable Card is probably going to be around a while.

Out of curiosity does anyone remember, why they decided to use CC in the first place? IIRC the cable companies fought to get something to address security issues with 3rd party CE devices and the CC was what came out from that.
 
#2,281 ·
Some devices can't use M-Cards at all and some can only use M-Cards in S-Card mode (like the S3).
Do you know which devices can't use them? By spec, M-Cards are supposed to be indistinguishable from an S-Card when plugged into an S-Card-only slot (I assume that the card can tell by some difference in signalling and puts itself into compatibility mode). This was so service providers wouldn't have to continue stocking S-Cards when M-Cards became available.
 
#2,282 ·
Out of curiosity does anyone remember, why they decided to use CC in the first place? IIRC the cable companies fought to get something to address security issues with 3rd party CE devices and the CC was what came out from that.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the cable industry to separate the mechanisms which they use for secure conditional access from the devices which they lease so that the those mechanisms could be incorporated into retail products in such a way as to be portable from cable system to cable system. This was similar in intent to the congressional fiat which resulted in the creation of the modular phone jack; I date myself, but when I grew up you had to lease phone handsets from your service provider (at that time, always a division of Bell).

The cable industry created CableLabs to create standards for that and a few other things (like data modems); CableCARD was a creation of their OpenCable project.

The FCC asked the cable industry and CE OEMs to sit down and agree upon a standard for carriage of digital television over cable; the separable security requirement got rolled up into that. The two sides went round and round arguing about the details until the FCC finally told them to decided on something by a given date, or they were going to decide for them (having a solution in place was considered to be crucial to the success of the DTV transition). At the end of 2002, the industries came back with the "Plug and Play Memorandum of Understanding", signed by all of the major cable MSOs and CE manufacturers. In September of 2003, the FCC adopted those recommendations (with, I believe, some minor modifications), codifying them into their regulations.
 
#2,284 ·
Re: bicker's response to my recent posts - I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, here. I don't agree with your rationale, you don't agree with mine. That's cool - it's an internet message board. Where would we be without conflicting opinions? :D

One genuine question, though:
bicker said:
The problem though was prompted by the government rushing regulation when the marketplace was not sufficiently stable enough to determine what the requirements should have been.
I thought the government gave the cable co's lots of time to do this, but that they were dragging their feet and stalling because they didn't want to help their potential competition? Quite seriously - is that not what happened or is this just your personal interpretation?
 
#2,285 ·
Read the words you quoted again. I said, "... the government rushing regulation ..." The point I was making was that the entity that rushed was the government... The government acted before it (the government) was adequately prepared to act (in a manner that would have deftly avoided the imperfect situations that we have been discussing).

Now, whether that was because
(1) the government dragged its feet, or was otherwise unwilling to invest the resources it needed to invest to get itself to the point where it could be adequately prepared to act (i.e., issue regulations to deftly avoid the aforementioned imperfect situations),
or
(2) because the reality simply was that there was no way for the government to have been adequately prepared to act (because the future directions of technology and need were not yet clear enough for any reasonable person to have reliably determined what they were going to be) at the time that political pressures were applied, effectively forcing the government to act before it was adequately prepared to act,​
... that's an open question.
 
#2,286 ·
Read the words you quoted again. I said, "... the government rushing regulation ..." ...
I understood that you said the government was the one who rushed the regulation - sorry if I was unclear.

I'm not trying to be contentious, but what I'm asking is what evidence you have of that being the case? I'm not accusing, it just wasn't what I thought was the case so I'd like more information about it.
 
#2,287 ·
"They" are still not obligated to do so. The obligation to put such strictures in place rests on the government. What you're seeing is a reflection of the government lacking the intelligence to foresee what technologies are going to be needed in the future, and building those technologies before the marketplace prompts suppliers to provide capabilities for which those technologies that government should have already put in place would provide the kinds of flexibility that we might want.
For starters I don't have an issue withe SDV if it gets more channels on the system fine. Nobody can see into the future that well to predict what the situation will be in 1 year let alone the 5+ years since those regulations were codified. (regulations that the CE OEM's and cable companies helped write I might add) And while the cable companies don't have a legal responsibility to help with TA's, they probably did so voluntarily to prevent the FCC from getting involved. The FCC wanted to help promote competition so they opened up the cable systems to 3rd party devices like Tivo. If the cable companies after years of negotiation with CE OEM's come up with a standard that the FCC codified, then unilaterally made changes to their systems that makes those standards obsolete, without making attempts to minimize the impact of those changes (i.e. help with developing TA's), the FCC would have been justifiably concerned with such actions. IMO that is probably why that enforcement decision was overturned. If they hadn't been working with CE OEM's like Tivo to where possible add an external tuning adapter that enforcement action might have stuck.
 
#2,288 ·
For starters I don't have an issue withe SDV if it gets more channels on the system fine. Nobody can see into the future that well to predict what the situation will be in 1 year let alone the 5+ years since those regulations were codified. (regulations that the CE OEM's and cable companies helped write I might add) And while the cable companies don't have a legal responsibility to help with TA's, they probably did so voluntarily to prevent the FCC from getting involved. The FCC wanted to help promote competition so they opened up the cable systems to 3rd party devices like Tivo. If the cable companies after years of negotiation with CE OEM's come up with a standard that the FCC codified, then unilaterally made changes to their systems that makes those standards obsolete, without making attempts to minimize the impact of those changes (i.e. help with developing TA's), the FCC would have been justifiably concerned with such actions. IMO that is probably why that enforcement decision was overturned. If they hadn't been working with CE OEM's like Tivo to where possible add an external tuning adapter that enforcement action might have stuck.
Unfortunately for me SDV hasn't been ruled out as the reason for my issues.
 
#2,289 ·
Do you know which devices can't use them? By spec, M-Cards are supposed to be indistinguishable from an S-Card when plugged into an S-Card-only slot (I assume that the card can tell by some difference in signalling and puts itself into compatibility mode). This was so service providers wouldn't have to continue stocking S-Cards when M-Cards became available.
I don't know of any personally, but I recall reading posts by some people who have older TVs that don't work with M-Cards. Remember originally the TiVo S3 didn't work at all with M-Cards until a software upgrade gave it the partial compatibility it has now. So apparently M-Cards aren't 100% backwards compatible or that wouldn't have been an issue. That or chip manufacturers weren't building the card interface to spec.

Many older TVs don't have the ability to upgrade their firmware so if there is a compatibility problem with M-Cards the user is SOL. The number is probably small though since TVs with cableCARD slots never really caught on.
 
#2,290 ·
I understood that you said the government was the one who rushed the regulation - sorry if I was unclear.

I'm not trying to be contentious, but what I'm asking is what evidence you have of that being the case? I'm not accusing, it just wasn't what I thought was the case so I'd like more information about it.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Let's turn this around, and let me ask you: Why do you think that the government's rules for separable security and facilitation of digital cable-ready access failed to satisfy your personal criteria, with regard to the discussion we're having?
 
#2,292 ·
JWThiers said:
IMO that is probably why that enforcement decision was overturned. If they hadn't been working with CE OEM's like Tivo to where possible add an external tuning adapter that enforcement action might have stuck.
I don't see anything in the FCC decision overturning the fines of the enforcement division that would support that.
In the decision as you linked in an earlier post:

In para. 14:
We do recognize, as the Bureau found, that implementation of SDV may have a
disruptive effect on the relatively small percentage of consumers who use CableCARD-equipped
UDCPs. Again, however, that negative impact must be considered in the context of our rules and the
consumer benefits of SDV described above. In addition, the potential disruption may be limited because:
(1) the more popular cable channels are not prime candidates for SDV migration because cable operators
only free up capacity to the extent that subscribers do not request a particular channel at a particular time;
(2) market demand for UDCPs is not strong and consumers with TiVo UDCP devices can use the tuning
adapter to access SDV programming
;and (3) bi-directional devices that will work with SDV content are
beginning to be introduced in the marketplace. We further note that TWC and Cox have sought to
minimize the inconvenience associated with SDV migrations by offering set-top boxes to subscribers with
UDCP devices at reduced rates for a limited period. In addition, TWC has offered customers free tuning
adapters, which allow TiVo UDCPs to access SDV programming without a set-top box
.
Bold emphasis added by me.

Then in the Para. 15:
For the above reasons, we find that TWC’s and Cox’s migration of programming to an
SDV platform did not violate Sections 76.1201 and 76.640(b) of the Commission’s rules, and we vacate
the Bureau’s previous decisions proposing and instituting forfeitures against TWC and Cox related to
their deployment of SDV.
Thus it seems there is at least some support for JWThiers's opinion, noting that the highlighted text was only a small portion of the overall collection of reasons given. If the highlighted reasons did not exist, would the decision have been the same? We can't be sure of that in fact.
 
#2,293 ·
And the TA would work with other CE devices that have an actual USB port (Unfortunately that does NOT include any TV's That I am aware of), not just Tivo's. I have seen where people have used a TA with Windows Media Centers on PC's equipped with cable card devices.
 
#2,294 ·
And the TA would work with other CE devices that have an actual USB port (Unfortunately that does NOT include any TV's That I am aware of), not just Tivo's. I have seen where people have used a TA with Windows Media Centers on PC's equipped with cable card devices.
The TA can be made to work on any CableCARD tuner device with a functional USB port, if the manufacturer of that device chooses to modify its code to handle it and can distribute the new firmware to the owners for installation. I believe that there are quite a few televisions on the market with USB ports, generally put there to give access to photos on flash drives and to allow for firmware updates. My 3 y/o Mits LT-46231 (w/CableCARD slot) has a USB connection; I've got a flash drive with a firmware update to give its TV Guide On Screen feature the ability to get data from DTV channels (as opposed to the VBI of now non-existent analog channels).

Any new Unidirectional Digital Cable Ready devices should probably come with the ability to handle a TA, or be prepared to update soon after launch, like Moxi DVR. However, I suspect that the Moxi DVR will be that last UDCP ever brought to market.
 
#2,295 ·
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Let's turn this around, and let me ask you: Why do you think that the government's rules for separable security and facilitation of digital cable-ready access failed to satisfy your personal criteria, with regard to the discussion we're having?
Yeah, maybe our signals have crossed a bit.

My issue with the whole situation is this: SDV was rolled out before a solution for people with CableCards was created and solidified. While I think the blame lies with the cable company for the rollout timeline, if faulty government regulation allowed this, then that would be my issue with the regulation.

When "broadcast" (i.e., non VoD or PPV) channels are offered to standard customers, they should be offered to CableCard customers (so other devices could use the cable network). That's basically the issue regulation was trying to resolve (right?).

I think this comes down to the fact that to a non-cablecard customer, SDV doesn't even appear to exist. Yes, it's a new technology that operates behind-the-scenes a tiny bit like VoD, but ultimately it's just a more efficient way of doing broadcast television on a cable network.

If cable companies can bypass support for third-party devices (Tivo, Moxi, CC-ready TVs, etc.) and force people to rent their boxes to receive "broadcast" service, then that's the issue I have with the regulation and/or cable company rollout of SDV (depending on where you want to put the blame).

I think the FCC recognized what was happening (how SDV is really just broadcast television with new technology), and fined the cable companies for their premature rollout. The fines were recinded when it appeared the cable companies were trying to make amends via tuning adapters.

So, my thoughts summary:
* CableCards are supposed to supply decryption service to allow consumers their choice of device so they wouldn't have to rent boxes from the cable company to watch broadcast television.
* SDV is really just efficient broadcast television.
* The regulation is poorly written if it allows "broadcast" television to be delivered without support for third party devices.
* It appears cable companies took advantage of this loop-hole to roll out SDV without CableCard support and thus not allow/enable "broadcast" television service to third party devices.
* The FCC fined the cable companies for doing this.

That seems pretty clear cut to me. It all comes down to whether or not SDV is truly broadcast television or if it's a specialized service like VoD. Legally, it may be classified as the latter (from what has been said here). However, because of how it behaves, it should be classified as the former.

It's hard/impossible to predict where technology will go, so I don't think it's fair to blame the government for not planning for all contingencies in its regulation. I believe the argument Bicker is trying to make is that the regulation was faulty because it was premature.

That very well may be true, but if it is, my long held belief was that the cable companies were trying to stall/block this regulation altogether, and were "dragging their feet" to achieve that goal. If the regulation is poorly written (which it apparently is), then I've always thought it's a result of this foot-dragging, not the government jumping the gun as it was simply trying to put an end to the stalling tactics.

So, if there's any evidence one way or the other, I'd genuinely like to know.

(Sorry for the length of the post - I'm trying to explain myself as clearly as I can.)
 
#2,296 ·
Yes.. That is what impresses me about them in this case. They have poured much effort into this issue. My email file with discussions is huge and I get responses in hours to sometimes minutes. Once you get into Tech Ops... everything changes. One of the guys I deal with has a TiVo S2 DT himself.

Carolinas... but not based in Raleigh.
I am on the Greensboro TWC system and I have experienced nothing but frustration. I would love to have a contact that actually understands the technology. Most support people that I have spoken to have limited (if any) understanding of cable cards / tuning adaptors /Tivos.
 
#2,297 ·
.........When "broadcast" (i.e., non VoD or PPV) channels are offered to standard customers, they should be offered to CableCard customers (so other devices could use the cable network). That's basically the issue regulation was trying to resolve (right?).
...........
That seems pretty clear cut to me. It all comes down to whether or not SDV is truly broadcast television or if it's a specialized service like VoD. Legally, it may be classified as the latter (from what has been said here). However, because of how it behaves, it should be classified as the former.
.............
It muddies these discussions to use an incorrect defintion of "broadcast", (e.g., "non VoD or PPV"). From FCC regulations, Title 47, Part 2.1 (Terms and Definitions):
Broadcasting Service. A
radiocommunication service in which
the transmissions are intended for direct
reception by the general public.
This service may include sound transmissions,
television transmissions or
other types of transmission
Thus only local broadcast stations are encompassed by the definition in the context of this discussion, which for most systems excludes the major portion of non-Vod or PPV channels.

This is an important distinction because there are FCC rules for cable services that are specific to broadcast TV stations, e.g., "must carry".
 
#2,298 ·
I am on the Greensboro TWC system and I have experienced nothing but frustration. I would love to have a contact that actually understands the technology. Most support people that I have spoken to have limited (if any) understanding of cable cards / tuning adaptors /Tivos.
I'm in Greensboro and have had TiVo with cablecards and tuning adapter since they came out. I was the first tuning adapter install in Greensboro.

What kind of trouble are you having? If you're having trouble with SDV channels, call TWC and say, "I need to be connected to Cable Card Support". Those guys know what they're doing. If you need someone local, pm me and I can give you the email or phone for the supervisor for our area.
 
#2,299 ·
It muddies these discussions to use an incorrect defintion of "broadcast", (e.g., "non VoD or PPV"). From FCC regulations, Title 47, Part 2.1 (Terms and Definitions):
Thus only local broadcast stations are encompassed by the definition in the context of this discussion, which for most systems excludes the major portion of non-Vod or PPV channels.

This is an important distinction because there are FCC rules for cable services that are specific to broadcast TV stations, e.g., "must carry".
Good point. I was thinking of 'broadcast' from a perspective where a transmission is sent out with no particular target in mind, not the apparently much narrower FCC definition.

What word should I use to mean: "channels sent out to all people simultaneously on a cable network"?

Incidentally - I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about in this discussion. I'm not a lawyer, nor a television industry expert. I'm an engineer in an unrelated field with some very basic knowledge of the underlying technologies and how they behave, and I thought I had some basic knowledge of how and why things are they way they are in the cable TV industry. I'm really just looking for new information or clarifications of that knowledge, as it seems like the CableCard situation is even muddier than I already thought it was (which is pretty muddy).
 
#2,300 ·
Good point. I was thinking of 'broadcast' from a perspective where a transmission is sent out with no particular target in mind, not the apparently much narrower FCC definition.

What word should I use to mean: "channels sent out to all people simultaneously on a cable network"?

Incidentally - I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about in this discussion. I'm not a lawyer, nor a television industry expert. I'm an engineer in an unrelated field with some very basic knowledge of the underlying technologies and how they behave, and I thought I had some basic knowledge of how and why things are they way they are in the cable TV industry. I'm really just looking for new information or clarifications of that knowledge, as it seems like the CableCard situation is even muddier than I already thought it was (which is pretty muddy).
"Broadcast" has traditionally meant OTA, i.e., from an antenna, in the radio and TV industry. In the TCP/IP world there is a broadcast mode that matches your concept, I think. I'm not sure what single word would mean what you intend. Frequently it's just left as implicit context, but I suppose you could say "non-premium, non-PPV and non-VOD" (very clumsy of course).

My perspective is very similar to yours actually, EE by education at a time when vacuum tubes were mainstream technology. :D

I think we engineers (being nerds of course) tend to think if we can understand a situation we can devise a solution. In the case of TiVo and Digital Cable, from a user perspective, it may not work that way. It involves so many interlocking political, technical and economic factors.
 
#2,301 ·
Unlike Cisco TAs the Moto TAs don't have any specific diagnostics page to indicate which channels are SDV. However after some fooling around I came up with a reliable indirect method:

There is an indirect way to find out if a channel is SDV with TiVo and Motorola Tuning adapter, but it's not very eloquent:
1. Tune to channel you want to check
2. Go to TiVo Central->Messages&Settings->Account&System Information->Tuning Adapter->DVR Diagnostics and note the Frequency associated with the channel you tuned to.
3. Left click out and then choose Tuning Adapter Diagnostics and then scroll down to DOWNSTREAM STATUS and click SELECT. If the INBAND FREQ listed on that screen matches the frequency you noted in step 2 then this is an SDV channel.

The key is that the INBAND FREQ in DOWNSTREAM STATUS page only updates when tuning to an SDV channel. You will note for example if you tune to known non-SDV channels such as local broadcast channels that the INBAND FREQ will not update.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top