TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-28-2013, 03:31 PM   #31
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
I think it's similar to that cloud based DVR that recently wont in court to. As long as they can prove that each user is accessing a unique tuner they're not rebroadcasting. They're simply storing the hardware offsite. It's sort of a legal loophole.

I'm sure it'll be years before all this is hashed out in court, but if the networks keep screwing with the big MSOs they may put their weight behind the legal fight and push it through faster. And if it works out then the networks may lose out on that $1.76B they're getting now from the cable companies. So they should probably tread lightly.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:36 PM   #32
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
But if they have to stream it to me on the internet, how is that not rebroadcasting? That's the part I don't get. Even if there really is this alleged dedicated antenna for me, there is NOT a dedicated pathway for that antenna signal to get to me. It's just out over the internet, mixed in with everything else.

If they can do this, then I should be able to record something, then give JUST YOU access to it off of some server I setup in my bedroom. I can't imagine that would be legal.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:51 PM   #33
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
But if they have to stream it to me on the internet, how is that not rebroadcasting? That's the part I don't get. Even if there really is this alleged dedicated antenna for me, there is NOT a dedicated pathway for that antenna signal to get to me. It's just out over the internet, mixed in with everything else.

If they can do this, then I should be able to record something, then give JUST YOU access to it off of some server I setup in my bedroom. I can't imagine that would be legal.
Just because the packets are flowing over the public internet doesn't mean they're not dedicated to you. That's how TCP/IP works. Every packet is keyed with the target IP address. So only you will receive that packet and be able to decode it. So essentially it is a dedicated pathway to you.

As long as they're not transmitting the same data to multiple people simultaneously then they're not rebroadcasting. They're simply offering you remote access to a rented antenna. Really this is no different then a Slingbox if you think about it.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:52 PM   #34
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Just because the packets are flowing over the public internet doesn't mean they're not dedicated to you. That's how TCP/IP works. Every packet is keyed with the target IP address. So only you will receive that packet and be able to decode it. So essentially it is a dedicated pathway to you.

As long as they're not transmitting the same data to multiple people simultaneously then they're not rebroadcasting. They're simply offering you remote access to a rented antenna. Really this is no different then a Slingbox if you think about it.
But the sling box is something I own and buy and install to my own entertainment system. It's not quite exactly the same thing.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:58 PM   #35
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
But the sling box is something I own and buy and install to my own entertainment system. It's not quite exactly the same thing.
Not exactly, but it's similar. The only difference is that with Aereo you don't own the antenna, you're leasing it instead. But you, and only you, have access to your specific antenna/tuner and the data from that antenna/tuner is sent only to your devices. The data from that specific antenna/tuner combo is never duplicated or sent to anyone else.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 04:01 PM   #36
DaveDFW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
But the sling box is something I own and buy and install to my own entertainment system. It's not quite exactly the same thing.
But the court considered this and concluded that Aereo's system was sufficiently similar to the noninfringing remote DVR in Cablevision:

"As in Cablevision, the functionality of Aereo's system from the user's perspective substantially mirrors that available using devices such as a DVR or Slingbox, which allow users to access free, over-the-air broadcast television on mobile internet devices of their choosing. To the extent that the Second Circuit's holding in Cablevision was premised on an inability to distinguish Cablevision's system from otherwise lawful activities, Aereo's system deserves the same consideration."

Also, don't get caught up on the word "rebroadcast" because the discussion of infringement doesn't hinge on that. The issue is whether a particular transmission constitutes a "public performance."
DaveDFW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 04:03 PM   #37
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
I'm still skeptical that this is actually legal. And if it really is, I think it will be made illegal.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 12:03 PM   #38
marrone
Phased Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 1,429
It's not a public rebroadcast. It's a private transmission from your (rented) antenna to your PC. Sounds exactly like a slingbox.

I wonder what kind of uplink bandwidth Aereo has. That's a LOT of data if everyone has their own private stream (admittedly, only when they're connected).

-Mike
__________________
Cord & Dish free!
marrone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 11:45 PM   #39
tenthplanet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by marrone View Post
It's not a public rebroadcast. It's a private transmission from your (rented) antenna to your PC. Sounds exactly like a slingbox.

I wonder what kind of uplink bandwidth Aereo has. That's a LOT of data if everyone has their own private stream (admittedly, only when they're connected).

-Mike
It also sounds expensive. Which is why they are doomed, I don't think there is enough money in long run to make this profitable.
__________________
"It's tough thinking of something clever to write down here, I don't know how Chuck Lorre does it..."
tenthplanet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 02:05 AM   #40
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by marrone View Post
It's not a public rebroadcast. It's a private transmission from your (rented) antenna to your PC. Sounds exactly like a slingbox.

I wonder what kind of uplink bandwidth Aereo has. That's a LOT of data if everyone has their own private stream (admittedly, only when they're connected).

-Mike
The bandwidth would be the same even if everyone was sharing the same antenna. Everyone would still get a unique copy of the stream. This is really no different then a service like Netflix or Amazon.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 06:53 AM   #41
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
I'm still skeptical that this is actually legal. And if it really is, I think it will be made illegal.
Why? I guess you must assume the politicians have been completely bought and paid for by the networks and really don't care about the public at all. The whole purpose of OTA networks is to get TV broadcasts to the public at no cost, these networks are supposed to be supported by advertising only and not by subscriptions. If the politicians were doing their jobs of serving the public they would require OTA networks be retransmitted by cable & satellite and that it be for free. My take is if you want to be a subscription network get off the public air waives.
__________________
atmuscarella
R.I.P. - 04/04 - Dish 510
09/05 - Humax T-800
R.I.P. - 08/06 - TiVo
05/08 - TiVo HD
06/08 - Panasonic 50PZ800U 50" Plazma!!
03/10 - Series 3
11/10 - Premiere
09/13 - Roamio
atmuscarella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 08:34 AM   #42
WO312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
........ the politicians have been completely bought and paid for by the networks and really don't care about the public at all. .....
Is there any doubt ??
WO312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 11:20 AM   #43
unitron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
Why? I guess you must assume the politicians have been completely bought and paid for by the networks and really don't care about the public at all. The whole purpose of OTA networks is to get TV broadcasts to the public at no cost, these networks are supposed to be supported by advertising only and not by subscriptions. If the politicians were doing their jobs of serving the public they would require OTA networks be retransmitted by cable & satellite and that it be for free. My take is if you want to be a subscription network get off the public air waives.
A minor quibble.

Broadcasters are granted a license to transmit and operate "in the public interest", but there's flexibility allowed in how they pay for it. They can sell ad time, up to a certain limit per hour, and with certain restrictions on what's advertised and how, or they can run on donations like many PBS affiliates, or, one would suppose, someone with lots of spare money could do neither and go into their own pockets instead.

When radio stations started, they didn't run ads at first, because they were owned and operated by the manufacturers of radio sets to provide the public with an incentive to buy those radio sets.
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 11:46 AM   #44
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmuscarella View Post
Why? I guess you must assume the politicians have been completely bought and paid for by the networks and really don't care about the public at all. The whole purpose of OTA networks is to get TV broadcasts to the public at no cost, these networks are supposed to be supported by advertising only and not by subscriptions. If the politicians were doing their jobs of serving the public they would require OTA networks be retransmitted by cable & satellite and that it be for free. My take is if you want to be a subscription network get off the public air waives.
well, clearly, they are not doing this now. The law is setup in such a way as to allow the OTA broadcaster to demand payment for re-transmission by cable and satellite operators. So, yes, I DO think the politicians are bought and paid for by the networks. The rules clearly favor them, and not me.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 07:51 AM   #45
Series3Sub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettStah View Post
Broadcast networks shouldn't be able to demand to be paid as long as the cable or satellite company is simply re-broadcasting the OTA signal to the same geographic area the OTA reaches, IMHO.
Totally agree because we, the people taxpayers, OWN ALL those broadcast frequencies and the OTA Nets got it for free. After all, we can get it for free using OTA.
Series3Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 03:34 PM   #46
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
If anything the networks should want their station to reach more customers. However they have the advantage in their relationship with the cable companies and they know it, so they're trying to leverage that for more money. If cable companies take a stance and cut off all networks they will lose customers, and if they cave and pay the networks more their prices will go up and they'll lose customers. They're sort of over a barrel.

Their only hope is for congress or the FCC to step in and regulate, or for technology like what Aereo is using to catch hold so they can side step the network fees.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 03:54 PM   #47
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Series3Sub View Post
Totally agree because we, the people taxpayers, OWN ALL those broadcast frequencies and the OTA Nets got it for free. After all, we can get it for free using OTA.
I think this is the issue that Time-Warner is trying to make, why should they have to pay for retransmission while Aereo is not. If this go on to the point where Cox or Comcast have to negotiate retransmission with CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX and cable companies ALL say NO then the fun will begin. The cable companies have nothing to lose to saying "NO". Most people will find something else to view, put up an antenna, download the show from iTunes, or Amazon or obtain the show by using Vuze.
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 04:03 PM   #48
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
If anything the networks should want their station to reach more customers. However they have the advantage in their relationship with the cable companies and they know it, so they're trying to leverage that for more money. If cable companies take a stance and cut off all networks they will lose customers, and if they cave and pay the networks more their prices will go up and they'll lose customers. They're sort of over a barrel.

Their only hope is for congress or the FCC to step in and regulate, or for technology like what Aereo is using to catch hold so they can side step the network fees.
I disagree with you Dan, I think the cable companies have the advantage if they all just say "NO" to paying for the retransmission. See my post previous post.
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 06:51 PM   #49
aadam101
Future Prez of ABC
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 6,997
The interesting thing about Aereo is that if they are successful we should expect to see cable providers implement the same type of technology and bypass the retransmission fees completely. CBS is shooting themselves in the foot.
__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!
aadam101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 08:20 PM   #50
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johncv View Post
The cable companies have nothing to lose to saying "NO". Most people will find something else to view, put up an antenna, download the show from iTunes, or Amazon or obtain the show by using Vuze.
I disagree with this. A LOT of people have cable because it's an easy way to get local channels, and local channels still make up a good majority of what they watch. I think if cable companies just said "NO" then they would end up losing a lot of customers. Especially if Dish & DirecTV say "YES". Cable companies don't typically compete with each other, so they can can stand in solidarity, but you can get Dish & DirecTV pretty much anywhere so if they accept the fees then the cable companies are going to be screwed.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 08:21 PM   #51
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by aadam101 View Post
The interesting thing about Aereo is that if they are successful we should expect to see cable providers implement the same type of technology and bypass the retransmission fees completely. CBS is shooting themselves in the foot.
That's what I was saying above. If Aereo can make this work, and survive the legal battles, then cable companies are going to take note and attempt to do the same thing to bypass these fees.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 08:37 PM   #52
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johncv View Post
I think this is the issue that Time-Warner is trying to make, why should they have to pay for retransmission while Aereo is not. If this go on to the point where Cox or Comcast have to negotiate retransmission with CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX and cable companies ALL say NO then the fun will begin. The cable companies have nothing to lose to saying "NO". Most people will find something else to view, put up an antenna, download the show from iTunes, or Amazon or obtain the show by using Vuze.
Time Warner is certainly willing to pay to re-transmit. They have been doing it for years. And not just with CBS. This is just a pissing match over price.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 09:30 PM   #53
unitron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
Time Warner is certainly willing to pay to re-transmit. They have been doing it for years. And not just with CBS. This is just a pissing match over price.
Of course they're willing to pay, they can pass the cost on to us.

But when you get a situation like now where CBS wants double what they were getting before, they can see that giving in means everyone else is going do the same thing and next time CBS re-negotiates they could ask for yet again more and soon you've got a never ending upward price spiral and a lot of customers aren't going to put up with it and will cut the cord, which they'd like to avoid.

(at which point the broadscasters may finally remember the old story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs)

So they're making a stand now, before the broadcasters put them out of business.
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 09:36 PM   #54
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
Of course they're willing to pay, they can pass the cost on to us.

But when you get a situation like now where CBS wants double what they were getting before, they can see that giving in means everyone else is going do the same thing and next time CBS re-negotiates they could ask for yet again more and soon you've got a never ending upward price spiral and a lot of customers aren't going to put up with it and will cut the cord, which they'd like to avoid.

(at which point the broadscasters may finally remember the old story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs)

So they're making a stand now, before the broadcasters put them out of business.

How it this really different than the past? They have always wanted more and more money. Cable rates go up and up.

If they never resolve this and CBS is a permanent loss, will my cable rate go DOWN? Of course it won't. When this happens with NBC and NBC is gone for good, will may cable rate go down? Of course it won't.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 09:55 PM   #55
MeInDallas
Registered User
 
MeInDallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 835
So then are you OK with paying more and more and more for cable? At what point will you say "OK I cant afford this any longer, this is too much money" . . ?
MeInDallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 10:00 PM   #56
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeInDallas View Post
So then are you OK with paying more and more and more for cable? At what point will you say "OK I cant afford this any longer, this is too much money" . . ?
What else can I do? Stop watching TV?

Cutting the cord will cost me even more money. Not getting CBS from Time Warner isn't gonna save me money. Its actualyl gonna cost me more money out pocket


F U CBS

F U TimeWarner.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 10:16 PM   #57
MeInDallas
Registered User
 
MeInDallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 835
Well I know its an inconvenience right now, but in the long run its better for you and everyone that pays for cable. I've had cable since it came to Dallas and was Warner Amex, been thru them, Heritage, AT&T, Comcast, and now Time Warner, I've never left except for one month and I came crying back, but if they keep going up to the point to where I could go out and buy a 32" flat screen TV every month for what they are charging me, I'll just have to leave them and figure something else out.

It's just like these people that want their pay doubled working in fast food places, yeah it would be great for them to have it, but in the end me and you are gonna pay for it (which I just wont eat there and then everyone loses in the end). These big corporations will never take a pay hit for you, they are gonna pass the pay hit on to you in the form of charging you the consumer more money, thats just how it works.
MeInDallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 02:28 PM   #58
atmuscarella
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 3,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
How it this really different than the past? They have always wanted more and more money. Cable rates go up and up.

If they never resolve this and CBS is a permanent loss, will my cable rate go DOWN? Of course it won't. When this happens with NBC and NBC is gone for good, will may cable rate go down? Of course it won't.
This will be settled soon. In the end the less TWC pays CBS the better all subscribers are, the best case would be that TWC not cave and force CBS into using the must carry (for nothing) part of the law. I do not think that will happen but it is the best case for subscribers. If you can not pick up CBS with an antenna you can help assure everyones cable bill goes up and switch to one of the satellite companies and let TWC no why that might get them to pay CBS more and just raise your cable bill to cover it. Oh and if you think adding over a buck for one channel is nothing just do the math over 50-100 channels and see if you think more than doubling your cable costs is a good idea.
__________________
atmuscarella
R.I.P. - 04/04 - Dish 510
09/05 - Humax T-800
R.I.P. - 08/06 - TiVo
05/08 - TiVo HD
06/08 - Panasonic 50PZ800U 50" Plazma!!
03/10 - Series 3
11/10 - Premiere
09/13 - Roamio
atmuscarella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 03:01 PM   #59
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 25,258
How come must-carry hasn't kicked in yet?

Edit: Just reading up on must-carry and it seems it puts all the power in the hands of the broadcaster. If the cable company doesn't want to carry a channel the broadcaster can force them to carry it, but if the broadcaster doesn't want to allow the the cable company to carry it then they can deny them the rights and black it out. That's a really sh*tty law!
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo

Last edited by Dan203 : 09-01-2013 at 03:13 PM.
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 03:02 PM   #60
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,538
Me not getting CBS on my cable isn't in my best interest.

I can't get satellite where from my apartment.

CBS doesn't want me to get CBS OTA. They want me to get it from a provider. They want a provider to pay to carry. They aren't gonna let any provider carry it for free. This is just a price squabble. CBS wants to charge more. TimeWarner doesn't want to cut my rates.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is online now   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 01:47 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |