Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits
from the call-their-bluff dept
The entertainment industry has a long, long history of claiming that if copyright law doesn't go their way, they'll all go out of business. It's the adult version of "if you don't do it my way, I'm taking my ball and going home." If court cases don't go their way, or if the law isn't changed, we've been told over and over and over again for the last century (and more frequently in the last two decades) that the industry will take its ball and go home, because they won't create under such awful circumstances (even if those circumstances really aren't particularly different than they've operated under for years). The latest? First, Fox's COO, Chase Carey, claims that if they lose the Aereo case, they might shut down Fox, the network TV channel, and move all its content to cable TV channels.“If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution. One solution would be to take the network and make it a subscription service. We’re not going to sit idly by and let people steal our content.”That came out about the same time as another quote from a TV exec, Garth Ancier, who has worked at Fox, NBC and WB, basically saying the same thing, arguing that an unnamed "two" of the four major networks are considering shutting down if the Aereo case (and possibly the Dish Auto Hopper case) goes against them.
“I know two that are talking about it,” he says, leaving open the possibility that the others might be as well. He declines to specify which, saying he’d heard it in a “talking over coffee” setting and didn’t want to betray a confidence....Let's be the first to call bullshit on this. No networks are stupid enough to shut down over this, and if they are, good riddance. Put that spectrum to better use. First of all, network TV shows get a lot more viewers. By a wide margin. Yes, there's an occasional cable show (Game of Thrones) that sneaks in to the top ratings, but it's pretty rare. The cable shows that get the most viewers are still viewed a lot less often than most network shows. If you look at Nielsen's latest rankings for last week, the top 10 network shows all scored higher ratings than the top cable show (Walking Dead). And by the time you're at the 4th most popular cable show, you're talking about a show that's getting just around half of the tenth most popular network show.
“To say it’s serious is probably an overstatement,” Ancier says. Rather, it’s a contingency plan the networks in question are keeping in their back pockets in case they can’t prevail over Aereo and Dish in court or find some other way to stave off the threat they represent.
No network with any business sense at all is going to give up that prime position for getting viewers, and shunt themselves off into the hinterlands of cable TV. And, seriously, if they do want to cede that position, I'm sure there are plenty of smart folks willing to take over that position. And, of course, nothing that Aereo or Dish Hopper is trying to do does anything to threaten the traditional business model of network TV in the first place: ads. In fact, both serve to increase viewers. The real issue is that the networks have gotten fat and happy off of the money they get from cable and satellite companies for carrying the networks, and they don't want that gravy train to go away. So, an artificial situation came up that let them get lots of money, and now that it might go away (and reality is that it won't go away for a long long time) they're threatening to take their ball and go home?
This is clearly bullshit whining from the networks hoping that lawmakers will protect their revenues from cable and satellite providers. It has nothing to do with "stealing content" as Carey claims. Policy makers would be well served to call the networks' bluff. Let the cases play out and let's see (1) if the networks really give up their prime real estate and (2) if others don't rush in to make use of it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: auto hopper, cable, chase carey, copyright, garth ancier, hopper, nab, network tv, threats
Companies: abc, aereo, cbs, dish, fox, nbc
Reader Comments
The First Word
“This right here...
"If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution."This right here encapsulates everything that is wrong in the heads of those dependant on the insane version of copyright that we have today.
Business solutions (IOW adapting to the market) are seen as a last resort only after government lobbying and threats from lawyers have failed. That statement shows they have no desire to actually serve their customers and give them what they ask for (convenience, quality, and reasonable prices).
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Um...
Don't you mean 10th most popular NETWORK show?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
Yes... fixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Posturing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Posturing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This right here...
This right here encapsulates everything that is wrong in the heads of those dependant on the insane version of copyright that we have today.
Business solutions (IOW adapting to the market) are seen as a last resort only after government lobbying and threats from lawyers have failed. That statement shows they have no desire to actually serve their customers and give them what they ask for (convenience, quality, and reasonable prices).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This right here...
Hope this News Story on the whole Fiasco goes Streisland on them.People should learn what they are doing to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This right here...
Good! Finally! Pursue business solutions. At least then when you're solutions are moronic you only take yourself down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hope they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hope they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hope they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hope they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hope they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hope they do
Btw, I imagine a few random "sorry for the interruption" incidents would make life interesting for the aereo business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hope they do
But I'm sure a few 'there were no newspapers printed today' incidents would make life interesting for their business model...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idle threat, it’ll never happen. I hope aero wins though, both because they are doing nothing wrong and to see broadcast networks squirm because of disruptive technology they can’t control.
As Robert A Heinlein said, “There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one "deserves" a profit. You earn a profit. This is the problem right here.
Why not just stream their network TV through the internet? Aero would go away in a heartbeat because that's what customers want. They won't because...because. Because they've been making money the other way and never want it to end.
That's bullshit. Do corded phone manufactures deserve profits? What about the poor typewriter manufacturers? You know, those horse-and-buggy guys sure got screwed by these newfangled "car" things. Where's the profits they deserve?
TV is like the VCR and cassette tape; old technology that no longer has relevance to the modern world. The TV distributers either need to update to new tech or GTFO.
Nobody has a right to legislate their business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet, I have been watching TV for free for over 4 decades. Maybe the bullshit around here is your maxist viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, sure, the Duck Dynasty guys have some kickin' beards. But 2 spots? C'mon people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are so many people out there that would be happy to have eyeballs for their content. The networks are not alone in the universe anymore.
How long do we have to wait before these multi-national media conglomerates crumble? It's tiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Riddance
Of course, now, the commercials don't seem so egregious; it's the network content that makes me want to invest in a Home Lobotomy Kit.
Thanks, but no thanks, Network TV. Your content is useless drivel and your business model is dead, even if you don't know it. Take your broken ball and get off my playground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Riddance
PISSES me off that i go to a freakin' MOVIE theater and not only sit through 20 minutes of stupid previews of stupid movies i am not interested in and will never see, but NOW i get TEE VEE COMMERCIALS i am forced to watch in a freaking MOVIE theater...
gee, why is it i only go when i'm 'forced' to by SWMBO and/or grandmonsters ? ? ?
'CAUSE BIG MEDIA SUX ! ! !
fuckers
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cmon FCC
If the networks don't want the spectrum GIVEN to the stations, then take it away and let the people do something with it.
The FCC should have a few hearings on this so the network reps can rush there and tell us how much their statements were misunderstood.
Stories like this just fuel my dream to build a time machine to go back and make sure the VCR and Cable TV are outlawed. Then I could return to the present day were TV Companies and Movie Companies either don't exist anymore or exist in a very weakened state....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cmon FCC
> a time machine to go back and make sure the
> VCR and Cable TV are outlawed.
Just curious, even if you had such a machine, on what legal basis would you be able to outlaw those things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cmon FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cmon FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cmon FCC
They tried that. Every studio, label, and advertiser lined up to sue the VCR out of existence. Resulted in a massive loss for the 'mafiaa' and the legalization of not only the VCR but carved out personal time-shifting as specifically not infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since all cable packages already include them and would be unlikely to drop them (in the short term) if they stopped over-the-air broadcasting, their numbers could show that the risk of losing viewers is a better option than losing the carriage fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait...pay Aero? Maybe that is what has their panties in a twist. They can't figure out a way to monetized Aero's users without PAYING THEM. They would need Aero's information to quantify and qualify those users to advertisers. And that just burns their cookies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really wouldn't mind if FOX and CW/WB went off the air. I know I'm not the only one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aye, mate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aye, mate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Supernatural is re-running on TBS or TNT.
If the CW drops, it could move to the Turner stations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the CW drops, it could move to the Turner stations...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't TBS/TNT a cable only network? How would moving those to TBS/TNT help someone who has gotten off of cable and is digesting over-the-air broadcasting if that over-the-air channel disappears?
Sure, it would still exist if it moved stations, but why would CW die if it was still accessible on cable?
It just wouldn't be available to those who cut the cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...This coming from someone who intentionally broadcasts their content for free public consumption.
Reminds me of the RIAA screaming their heads off about piracy while illegally bribing DJs to play their songs more often. "People listening to our music for free is great, but people listening to our music without having to pay for it is terrible!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Stomps away taking ball with them]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kidding aside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So long as they didn't kill their web presence, shouldn't be much of an issue. The only show on CBS I watch religiously is Big Bang, and they stream it from their website.
I actually can't get them from my house, ever since they went digital. My digital receiver looks cross-eyed whenever I try to connect because their signal is too weak and too far away. The only time I've seen them recently (since cutting the cord) is when I had my RV in a campsite a couple miles from them and they came in clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is too much credit. There is nothing adult about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question
If we lose something (e.g. Free-to-air), and we valued it economically how long to get it back if rules were tweaked back? On the other hand, if we lose a right (e.g. First sale) and we valued it as a personal right, what can be done to reinstate it?
My opinion is that, even if we assume the CM bluff and that it was right, and we lose something, the rules could be changed back fairly easily and we'd lose very little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the thing it was only 2010 that they even started to be paid for those rights.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08/news-corp-says-it-will-take-fox-off-air-if-courts-ok-ae reo-1-.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The world needs plumbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable
> shut down Fox, the network TV channel,
> and move all its content to cable TV channels.
Awesome. That would only make the shows better, in my opinion. No longer having to worry about the FCC's ridiculous 'decency standards' allows shows to really open up and deliver unsanitized drama. Most of the shows I watch now aren't on broadcast for that very reason-- JUSTIFIED, THE AMERICANS, SONS OF ANARCHY, GAME OF THRONES, WALKING DEAD, HOUSE OF LIES, CALIFORNICATION, DEXTER, SOUTHLAND, AMERICAN HORROR STORY, TRUE BLOOD, etc.
Cable is where the quality is these days. FOX moving there wouldn't be a bad thing, even if their reason for doing it is just a whiny bit of nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cable
Have you been watching my DVR again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad they didn't stop at "shut down Fox"
And nothing of value was lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, Finally, 99% of the content that these networks produce are CRAP, CRAP, CRAP!!! 80% of the crap on television today consists of reality television and in giving President Obama and Paul Krugman facetime in the media.
There are not a lot of decent programming that's being broadcasted. The one show that had promise, SMASH, is failing because NBC execs decided they wanted to be directed involved in the producing the show. As a result, they fired the lady who created and produced it, replaced her with some idiot guy who has destroyed the show and moved the show to a dead zone in television broadcast history.
Take your networks off the air, just gives me more time to read a good book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny no one has mentioned "The Following" on FOX. Now that's a good network program with a sufficient amount of murder and gore; add some real curse words and a little nudity and it would rival the cable stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not legally. The FCC public broadcast license will not allow them to encrypt it. In a matter of fact, until recently, cable companies which rebroadcasted public television stations were not legally allowed to encrypt them either (they have found other ways of dealing with it now.) The cable companies have been complaining about that for some time, because they all had "Essential" tiers which had the local broadcast channels plus a few basic cable channels for a huge discount (I believe I was paying about $35 for it, at the time.) The problem was, the person could cut out all the channels and just use broadband, and could still receive the broadcast channels without "paying for it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ION is current using some of their spectrum for a service called Dyle. It will have a couple free stations, the rest will be encrypted and require a subscription.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People would build their own "pirate" descramblers to get the over the air signal, and were all but impossible to catch, unlike someone doing it on cable or satellite.
Another problem is that cable/satellite theft laws would have to be amended to cover this. The reason nobody ever got prosecuted for stealing encrypted over the air signals from TV stations is because cable/satellite theft laws do not cover this. Yes, you read this right, if you were stealing contant from scrambled over the air signals, mostly on UHF, back in the 1980s, you were not breaking any laws, because the laws regarding cable and satellite theft do not cover stealing scrambled over the air UHF signals coming from your local TV station.
And building a descrambler to get over the air scrambled services like StarTV, was rediculouslu easy. I did that, as a teen, back in the 1980s. Just a few dollars worth of components from the local Radio Shack is all that it took. In less than an hour, I was getting StarTV for free.
And since the cable theft laws did not, and still do not, cover stealing encrypted transmissions from your local over air TV station, I was not breaking any laws by doing that, back in the 1980s
Before TV stations try over the air scrambled progamming again, the laws regarding cable theft will have to be amended to cover that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two networks colluding "over coffee"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool Thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should actually watch it one day
If you moved to cable, I would not miss any good Fox shows. Think about why
Signed
AUSTRALIAN "Game Of Thrones" Fan
i.e. a CABLE show
Have you worked it out yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, I don't understand a lot of this but I do know that when it comes to broadcast rights, that anyone who wants to rebroadcast these TV networks signals needs to get authorization from those networks in order to do that.
It also sounds like that Aereo isn't compensating these networks and has acquired a single broadcast signal and transformed that into a business model.
Don't get me wrong. I think content providers are the worst lot in this country because of how they stifle ways to receive their content. But, this Aereo case has been nothing but one major scam on the courts and someone down the line is going to declare Aereo to be infringing on the rights of these networks and either force them to start paying up and order them to halt their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason NBC does not show a lot of Olympic events live, coast to coast even when the Olympics are in a suitable time zone to do so, is that local stations don't want to give up all their local programming, especially their news.
By going to cable, NBC won't have that problem anymore with local broadcast affiliates, and will be able to broadcast Olympics, and other international sporting events, live, coast to coast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author has missed the point
The only people affected are the tiny percentage who only receive their Fox TV programming using TV antennas.
The vast majority of viewers connect their TVs to cable, satellite, or some form of IPTV like u-verse. The TV signal is sent to the providers over leased lines and then sent to the user over the providers' cables or satellites. No broadcast was necessary. No broadcast frequencies were used to get the signal to the viewer.
What Fox is talking about is turning off those big 100,000 watt transmitters that almost no one is using anyway. No programming changes, no programming goes away, and the vast majority of US TV viewers are completely unaffected.
Aereo doesn't work without the radio signal broadcasts, and Aereo can't use any other feed to send to their customers because only the radio-frequency broadcast feed falls into the loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author has missed the point
The only people affected are the tiny percentage who only receive their Fox TV programming using TV antennas.
The vast majority of viewers connect their TVs to cable, satellite, or some form of IPTV like u-verse. The TV signal is sent to the providers by leased lines and then sent to the user. No broadcast was necessary. No broadcast frequencies were used to get the signal to the viewer.
What Fox is talking about is turning off those big 100,000 watt transmitters that almost no one is using anyway. No programming changes, no programming goes away, and the vast majority of US TV viewers are completely unaffected.
Aereo doesn't work without the radio signal broadcasts, and Aereo can't use any other feed to send to their customers because only the radio-frequency broadcast feed falls into the loophole.
The FCC does not have regulation authority over direct-to-viewer providers, thus, since Fox is no longer "broadcasting" over public airwaves Fox no longer requires any FCC license to operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO IT!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somehow, this is going to be bad news for Aereo and force these networks to deal with these issues head on. I just see these broadcasting networks drastically changing the face of local television programming because there would be no more affiliate stations and it would decimate the entire broadcast community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Furthermore, if CBS and FOX go cable only, they lose all the cushy perks their affiliates got under the 1992 Cable Act. No more mandatory carriage, no more retransmission-consent, no more government-mandated geographic monopolies, no more mandatory access to the basic tier. From the cable TV operator's point of view, they'll become just two more advertising-supported video feeds competing for channel space in an already-crowded market.
But their former affiliates will still have these perks!
And do CBS and FOX really think the cable TV industry is going to welcome them with open arms? It would be a perfect opportunity for cable operators to play hardball after years of abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumbest threat ever
It's not even I'll take my ball and go home. It's more like "I'll deflate my ball and play with it in private and you will all want it more."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best attempt at a pirate-istic lawyer threat ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike Masnick is whining about about disruption to the Aereo business model.
Boo hoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadcast Flag anyone
After it stalled in Congress, they went whining to the FCC and the FCC gave out a mandate that was quickly slapped down by the courts.
Same stuff, different year. I stopped watching FOX about ... 2007, so go ahead and go off broadcast TV, I don't watch you anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They won't do it
Why? Because MLB, NBA, and NFL would take them out back and beat the ever living shit out of them.
As for the the networks that don't carry the big three? They'd be placing themselves into an extinction position by making sure that they never will carry one of the big three in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They won't do it
The NBA, on the other hand, makes all its money from ESPN and Turner. If ABC disappears, I'm not sure the NBA would miss it that much, save for Xmas-day hoops and the Finals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yabbut wait!
And here I was daydreaming (still legal in New Mexico) about what we'd replace it with once it was finally gone.
As much as I miss the wonders brought to us by record labels and television (The Monkees!), once those industries were destroyed by VCRs and cassette tape recorders it wasn't all that bad.
I find I somehow enjoy the desolation and economic mayhem we've been left with since the loss of more jobs than there are humans on the planet, and the total loss of all art.
It's an acquired taste, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/06/25-things-vanishing-in-america-part-2-homes-without-c able/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellphones
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090713/1916365532.shtml#c105
http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Television_channel_frequencies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dish and Aereo are only the beginning of the networks' troubles
I came across www.commercialbreak.com
This is hilarious!
Letting viewers avoid watching commercials on live TV. It's different than the Dish service but also aims at giving viewers what they really want, which is the content without the commercials. Pretty cool, if you ask me, and it's free!! (I don't get it ???)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is Broadcast Which Gets a Station onto Cable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/public-a nd-broadcasting-july-2008
"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the 'public interest, convenience and necessity.' This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
http://mashable.com/2013/04/08/fox-tv-threat/
http://benton.org/public_interest_obligatio ns_of_dtv_broadcasters_guide/public_standard
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, if Fox goes off the air, few people notice because the 21st century is about content, not networks. Cable cutters will just find their shows on Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube and stream them on their TVs in HD.
Second, if the networks decide to follow through, they would be sued by every local TV station in the country. Congress won't come to their aid because Congress can't agree on anything.
What the Aereo lawsuit does is empower the cable companies to renegotiate the outrageous and potentially illegal fees that keep inflating cable bills and cause blackouts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DVD recording
A few years ago, when I recorded the last show of "House" on Fox32, I had sound but no picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dish network
Thank you very much*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]