TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-31-2007, 04:05 PM   #151
txagfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by txMonkey
Hi.

Never having owned a TiVo, I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new HD model and it's lower cost. Imagine my horror of learning about SDV while researching from the comforts of home in... Austin, TX (argh!).

I have a couple of questions that are probably pretty simple but ones which I haven't seen clear answers to:
1. The listing of SDV channels for Austin shows some w/ multiple numbers for digital and analog. If this is the case will the TivoHD be able to view those in analog mode via the CC? (The wife's addicted to E!.)

2. According to TWC-Austin's site, they are introducing 'Open Cable CableCARD' by 1Q08 which allow viewing of SDV channels. Does anyone know whether TiVoHD will be able to utilize these cards (a) out of the box?; (b) with a firmware update?; or (c) nope--outta luck?
Thanks for all the great info!

_Todd
Your tivohd with cablecards will get the channels with multiple numbers in analog form (my S3 does). Your TivoHD will never be able to do SDV. I know, someone will mention something about a possible usb addon, but I am certainly not holding my breath.
txagfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 04:09 PM   #152
ah30k
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by txMonkey
1. The listing of SDV channels for Austin shows some w/ multiple numbers for digital and analog. If this is the case will the TivoHD be able to view those in analog mode via the CC? (The wife's addicted to E!.)
IF the digital simulcast goes to SDV and an analogue version is available you should still be able to TiVo that. That is the intent anyway, no guarantees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by txMonkey
2. According to TWC-Austin's site, they are introducing 'Open Cable CableCARD' by 1Q08 which allow viewing of SDV channels. Does anyone know whether TiVoHD will be able to utilize these cards (a) out of the box?; (b) with a firmware update?; or (c) nope--outta luck?
Current CableCARDs allow viewing of SDV. This is how the July 1st deadline is being met by the cable operators who must now ship CableCARD set top boxes. There is much discussion about how CE devices such as TiVo may or may not be able to take advantage of the two-way features. Open Cable and OCAP are at the heart of this discussion. Just try to separate out the capabilities of the CableCARD itself from the host devices that will accept the card. It sounds like they may be referring to the infrastructure required to support OCAP host devices.
ah30k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 04:36 PM   #153
GoHokies!
O2->CO2 Converter
 
GoHokies!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: KFME
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by txagfan
DCFirths, you make very good arguments. I hate to see the analog go away on one side, but would love for it to go away for all of the benefits that would come out of it. Good point. I think the cable co's are finally coming around with SOME good support for CC, at least in my area. The new stb's don't count, because all of those are staged just like any other box.
I think that a mandated "analog shutdown" on the cable side of things just like OTA would have been a perfect chance. Just like you can't sell a TV with an OTA analog tuner without also including the digital tuner, force the inclusion of a digital cable tuner and cablecard (or whatever security device decided upon) to be included in all new TV sets.

Yes, it would have impacted a lot more people, but sometimes, that's the price of progress.

I'm not real sympathetic to cable in this situation, because the problem is of their own making. If they had put in a fraction of the effort they have expended in trying to get waivers and push back on CC into developing a solution that gave them the bandwidth they need we wouldn't be in this situation. The insistence on bi-directional products being OCAP-certified has one intent: to keep the power on the side of the cable company. Remove that requirement and publish a 2 way cable card standard that allows the OS of a users choice to be run, and all these problems go away.
__________________
  • "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

  • To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  • To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GoHokies! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 04:47 PM   #154
bdraw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 456
The least they could do is require a QAM tuner and then the cable co's could continue to offer a basic tier like they have for years, of just clear QAM channels. A stb that works for both OTA and QAM could be purchased with grama's $40 voucher and she'd be covered both way.

But instead most TVs don't include QAM even though they have ATSC, and retailers don't even know to tell customers they can just plug it in and get basic digital cable.
__________________
How good can it be, if it isn't HD?
Ben Drawbaugh
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 05:17 PM   #155
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesH
They won't allow the cable company to provide a cheap clear-QAM(no cablecard) -> NTSC converter? Not that the cable companies would want to do this, since it excludes the $$ extras.
I think the cable companies wanted to deploy a very cheap barebones digital box to all of the analog TVs in the kitchen & bedroom. I don't know the particulars, but presume one could be a digital tuner with coax output, etc.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 05:31 PM   #156
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw
The least they could do is require a QAM tuner and then the cable co's could continue to offer a basic tier like they have for years, of just clear QAM channels. A stb that works for both OTA and QAM could be purchased with grama's $40 voucher and she'd be covered both way.

But instead most TVs don't include QAM even though they have ATSC, and retailers don't even know to tell customers they can just plug it in and get basic digital cable.
Actually I think clear QAM is starting to show up in new TV sets for which its not even in the listed specs. I think its included in newer chip sets, but nobody wants to talk about them because of all of the problems folks have had.

I would be happy if clear QAM channels would approach the equivalent of today's basic cable tier, but I fear it will actually end up being the equivalent of the FCC's mandated basic tier, which is the unadvertised, but universally available broadcast tier. This tier usually has local broadcast channels, local govt and access channels, and maybe ESPN. ESPN will probably go bye-bye, as well as local broadcast channels from adjacent markets.

Additionally cable companies are making it hard to find channels on clear QAM tuners. For instance local analog channel 7 transmits 7.1 and 7.2 on the freq for channel 18. These channels show up on the cable box as 7, 707, and 185. Without a cablebox or cablecards they show up as something like 7, 116-1 and 116-2, and the cable company won't provide a clear QAM channel listing to help you figure it out.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 06:16 PM   #157
jrm01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMWinnie
I find this surprising. Could you point me to a citation? (An appellate decision would be nice, though an FTC or DOJ announcement is probably more relevant in practice.)

Seriously, I have no axe to grind here. I've had both econ and law professors hold up CATV as an example of a natural monopoly and both a de jure (prior to the meaningless Boulder decision in 1982) and a de facto municipally-licensed monopoly as well. I would love to have a counterargument handy.
I'm no lawyer, and I don't know about your other points, but the municipal franchise agreements do not grant exclusive rights to one cable company. I was involved in negotiating our community's agreement, and assisted on several others. There was nothing that made it exclusive, except the high cost of a new company coming into the municipality. There are two communities in PA that have actually negotiated an agreement with a second cable company. Unfortunately I can't remember which ones.
jrm01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 07:46 PM   #158
txMonkey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Re.: SDV w/ TiVoHD?

@txagfan & ah30k,

Thanks for the quick replies. Sounds encouraging enough to give the TiVoHD a shot, even if it's not the solution for the next ten years. Anything to get away from that 8300 box.

Cheers,
_Todd
txMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 07:23 AM   #159
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCIFRTHS
Discussing this issue with you is the same as banging my head against the wall and then sticking it in a 550 degree oven.
I feel the same way about discussing it with you. My only solace is that the way I'm describing things is actually they way they work. If you want to go though life continually disappointed because you refuse to acknowledge reality, that's your business. How about, instead of polluting thread-after-thread with squabbling, you just have your say, and you let me have mine?
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 01:38 PM   #160
TexasGrillChef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,790
Just keep in mind. A friend of mine that works for TWC here in the DFW area, recently informed me of a plan that 98% of the cable companies here in the USA have plans to DROP all ANALOG service by 2012. Some cable companies even sooner than that.

So those people who are using analog cable ready TV's (without the cabel card) will so no longer be able to receive Cable TV unless they get a Cable Card ready TV &/or a STB/DVR that is cable card ready as well, or one from the Cable company.

He further informed me, that one of the MAIN reasons that MOST of the cable companies are considering dropping analog service is to allow more bandwidth for more HD channels and other services. At this time TWC in DFW has no current plans to switch to SDV. That could change though.

Here in the DFW area, TWC is upgrading it's system to 1ghz. Some areas of DFW are allready on the 1ghz system. (I am getting 15mbs on my cable modem now). Other areas are still on 750mhz and a few older areas on the older 550mhz.

SDV as much as I hate the concept, Is a inexpensive work around to issues that the cable co is having. It is all about their bottom line. They are in buisness to make money for themselves & their STOCK holders. For example, as much as I hate TWC, I also own TIME WARNER Stock. (Keep in mind all the companies Time Warner owns!)

The truth is it's all a catch 22 situation for everyone. Everything could easily be done if we all wanted to sink 250 Billion dollars into the system. However.... Most of us are cheap Bast**ds and don't want to spend more money on services, or pay more tax dollars for government help or support.

Where the solution is? I have no idea. Whatever the solution is will require some sacrafice of some sort from someone. Thats the real truth.

TexasGrillChef
TexasGrillChef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 03:05 PM   #161
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
As well-meaning as folks might be, generally, it isn't clear that you should take anyone's word about what 98% of an industry will do in the future as gospel. Having said that, what is being asserted here is one of those "of course" pronouncements. Many folks with some significant insight into this issue is predicting, with very substantial levels of confidence, that analog will be history, on cable, by 2012 or 2013.

One of the main reasons for the conversion to analog is to make room for more and enhanced services; more VOD; more HSI bandwidth; etc.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 05:32 PM   #162
jrm01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker

One of the main reasons for the conversion to analog is to make room for more and enhanced services; more VOD; more HSI bandwidth; etc.
When they complete that conversion your "open" cable network will be even more open.
jrm01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 09:13 PM   #163
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Oops. I meant "conversion to digital" of course.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 09:55 PM   #164
jblake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 340
This may have already been asked and answered, what happens when every channel is requested at once in an SDV environment?
jblake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:46 PM   #165
jrm01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblake
This may have already been asked and answered, what happens when every channel is requested at once in an SDV environment?
Yes, you're right. It has.

It's kind of like designing a highway for rush hour traffic. What happens if everyone gets up at 6:30 and gets on the highway at 7:30 in the morning. It won't happen, so you don't design for it. You monitor the traffic flows and adjust accordingly.

If the impossible happens for SDV, you don't get traffic jams and road rage, you get a message saying "We're sorry for the inconvenience, but the channel you have requested is not available at this time. Please try again later". Then "home rage".
__________________
Comcast, Cox, TW, Charter and BHN are cabal companies.
(That is not a spelling error. Check the definition.
)
jrm01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:53 PM   #166
jblake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm01
Yes, you're right. It has.

It's kind of like designing a highway for rush hour traffic. What happens if everyone gets up at 6:30 and gets on the highway at 7:30 in the morning. It won't happen, so you don't design for it. You monitor the traffic flows and adjust accordingly.

If the impossible happens for SDV, you don't get traffic jams and road rage, you get a message saying "We're sorry for the inconvenience, but the channel you have requested is not available at this time. Please try again later". Then "home rage".
Well, don't use that example because most roads are clogged daily around here

If you have thousands of users on a node, serving hundreds of available channels, with half the capacity, the cable cos are setting themselves up for a very bad problem
jblake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 12:50 AM   #167
DCIFRTHS
I dumped SDV / cable
 
DCIFRTHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
I feel the same way about discussing it with you. My only solace is that the way I'm describing things is actually they way they work. If you want to go though life continually disappointed because you refuse to acknowledge reality, that's your business.
You are the only person who is right. We all know that. For the record, I couldn't care less what your opinion of me is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
How about, instead of polluting thread-after-thread with squabbling, you just have your say, and you let me have mine?
If you look back at the posts in this thread, your first contribution to it was directly below my post that contained the words cable and monopoly. It seems that you just do a search on these words, and then post you own pollution when you get a hit.
DCIFRTHS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 06:58 AM   #168
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Maybe if folks stop posting anti-business diatribes, I won't have the need to reply. No one is entitled an unrebutted soap-box to spread anti-business rhetoric, or anything else. You post a controversial message, like you have, and you had better expect a reply.

For the record, my reply was not in reply to the message you linked to, but rather to your earlier message, #115.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 08:09 AM   #169
DCIFRTHS
I dumped SDV / cable
 
DCIFRTHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
Maybe if folks stop posting anti-business diatribes, I won't have the need to reply. No one is entitled an unrebutted soap-box to spread anti-business rhetoric, or anything else. You post a controversial message, like you have, and you had better expect a reply.
I am for competition being introduced into areas where the consumers only choices for Pay TV, and high speed internet, are the cable companies. Please tell me how this earns me the label of being "anti-business" and on a "soap-box".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
For the record, my reply was not in reply to the message you linked to, but rather to your earlier message, #115.
A reference to the post you are responding to can go a long way in helping the reader to understand what you are responding to. I expect no less from someone who doesn't like to read obfuscating posts.
DCIFRTHS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 07:54 PM   #170
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCIFRTHS
I am for competition being introduced into areas where the consumers only choices for Pay TV, and high speed internet, are the cable companies. Please tell me how this earns me the label of being "anti-business" and on a "soap-box".
Tactics. The right way to support competition is to break down the barriers that keep new companies from building their own networks. One great example of this is the Massachusetts Cable Choice and Competition Act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCIFRTHS
A reference to the post you are responding to can go a long way in helping the reader to understand what you are responding to. I expect no less from someone who doesn't like to read obfuscating posts.
Typically, when I don't include a quote, my intention is for my statements to stand on their own, even if in response to a specific message.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 08:49 PM   #171
DCIFRTHS
I dumped SDV / cable
 
DCIFRTHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
Tactics. The right way to support competition is to break down the barriers that keep new companies from building their own networks. One great example of this is the Massachusetts Cable Choice and Competition Act.
Based on your statements, you obviously feel that the cable companies should NOT have access to the phone companies networks, and they should build their own.
DCIFRTHS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2007, 08:49 AM   #172
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Absolutely. The Massachusetts Cable Choice and Competition Act will accelerate cable competition in Massachusetts. It will allow video providers to apply to the Department of Telecommunications and Energy for permission to offer cable TV service, rather than negotiate a license with each individual town - a lengthy process that delays competition. In addition to streamlining the process for new competitors, the bill will enable current cable providers to apply for licenses to expand their reach by entering new markets.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2007, 09:33 AM   #173
DCIFRTHS
I dumped SDV / cable
 
DCIFRTHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
Absolutely. The Massachusetts Cable Choice and Competition Act will accelerate cable competition in Massachusetts. It will allow video providers to apply to the Department of Telecommunications and Energy for permission to offer cable TV service, rather than negotiate a license with each individual town - a lengthy process that delays competition. In addition to streamlining the process for new competitors, the bill will enable current cable providers to apply for licenses to expand their reach by entering new markets.
Just so that I'm sure I understand what you are saying.

Should the phone companies be required to allow access to any of their equipment? This includes the "last mile" of copper (or fiber) that is currently connected to most US businesses and residences.

A yes or no answer would go a long way in helping me understand your point of view.
DCIFRTHS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2007, 09:58 AM   #174
vman41
Omega Consumer
 
vman41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,455
The phone company wants to do cable, but will hypocritically lobby against the cable company being able to provide phone service. Vice versa for the cable companies WRT phone service.
vman41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2007, 05:36 PM   #175
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCIFRTHS
Quote:
It will allow video providers to apply to the Department of Telecommunications and Energy for permission to offer cable TV service, rather than negotiate a license with each individual town - a lengthy process that delays competition. In addition to streamlining the process for new competitors, the bill will enable current cable providers to apply for licenses to expand their reach by entering new markets.
Just so that I'm sure I understand what you are saying.

Should the phone companies be required to allow access to any of their equipment?
No, I'm saying that they should be required to allow access to NONE of their equipment, and similarly the cable companies should be required to allow access to NONE of their equipment. Each company should be able to build their own networks, without unreasonable interference with such competition.

(Reasonable interference is, of course, okay. I really hated to add that sentence, but I suspect that if I didn't you'd almost surely have misread THIS message, just as you misread the previous message.)
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 02:16 AM   #176
DCIFRTHS
I dumped SDV / cable
 
DCIFRTHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
No, I'm saying that they should be required to allow access to NONE of their equipment, and similarly the cable companies should be required to allow access to NONE of their equipment. Each company should be able to build their own networks, without unreasonable interference with such competition.

(Reasonable interference is, of course, okay. I really hated to add that sentence, but I suspect that if I didn't you'd almost surely have misread THIS message, just as you misread the previous message.)
Do you consider pricing unreasonable interference?
DCIFRTHS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 07:48 AM   #177
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
What do you mean?
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 10:46 AM   #178
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
I stumbled upon these 2 links with some interesting info on the subject:

first one is Big Band networks ad for SDV- says they can get a cable company to 100HD channels in 90 days by going SDV. Has a nice primer on the subject- with a pretty color graphical explanation that really simplifies it for people who don't quite get what's going on:

http://www.bigbandnet.com/index.php/...motile=90-days

second one is an interesting article from cable360 talking about how to respond to Directv's 150 HD channels. Has an interesting quote about HD and SDV:

Quote:
A second option and particularly "hot topic" is switched digital video (SDV). SDV enables our operator to take advantage of the old 80/20 rule by reassigning the bandwidth from programs that no one watches to programs that someone watches. However, as most HDTV set owners will attest, HD programs are not the programs that no one watches and are therefore less likely to give up their bandwidth in a SDV environment. A system with any number of HD channels is less likely to recognize enough of a bandwidth benefit from SDV to solve the problem completely.
(bold added by me)

can be found at this link:

http://www.cable360.net/ct/strategy/...ses/23790.html

the cable360 article seems to imply that MPEG4 is the final answer (or part of the final answer)- try explaining that to the cablecard crowd though- maybe tivo's could handle it (assuming a standard was agreed upon that the tivo chipset could handle) but I'm guessing there's not a single TV with a cablecard slot with an MPEG4 decoder in it. Hec- probably not a single non-Tivo cablecard device with an mpeg4 decoder. (maybe a moxi?)
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:08 PM   #179
philipl411
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7
Isnt that swell

So let me understand this, Since I am going to be moving to Austin, and TWC appears to be the only cable I can get, my series three tivo is going to be crippled?

Tivo was well aware of SDV and made no option for a series three to work?
philipl411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 03:10 AM   #180
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,893
Other reasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef
Just keep in mind. A friend of mine that works for TWC here in the DFW area, recently informed me of a plan that 98% of the cable companies here in the USA have plans to DROP all ANALOG service by 2012. Some cable companies even sooner than that...

He further informed me, that one of the MAIN reasons that MOST of the cable companies are considering dropping analog service is to allow more bandwidth for more HD channels and other services. At this time TWC in DFW has no current plans to switch to SDV.
Another big reason is the FCC is requiring CATV operators to provide a la carte programming. 100% digital lineups are the only practical way to provide this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef
SDV as much as I hate the concept,
Why? It increases the number of channels the CATV provider can deliver almost without limit. Note SDV has been implemented here in San Antonio, but there is only 1 channel I don't get which I would like to get. In the rest I have no interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef
For example, as much as I hate TWC, I also own TIME WARNER Stock. (Keep in mind all the companies Time Warner owns!)
Time Warner has been trying to get rid of their CATV holdings for some years. No one seems to want to buy at the price TW wants, and plans for an IPO fell through, but they're still looking for a way to get rid of non-core businesses. CATV is definitely non-core for Time Warner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef
Everything could easily be done if we all wanted to sink 250 Billion dollars into the system.
Oh, a great deal more than that has been sunk into the issue, and a great deal more than that will be in the future.

Last edited by lrhorer : 08-13-2007 at 03:52 AM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |