David

Is there any good kayfabe explanation for putting Punk in the match? I guess you could have him tick off Orton (who would then demand that Punk be put in the match) or have Vince come back as a babyface and do it to oppose Orton and Batista, but both of those are pretty weak.

Is there any way to determine how much bandwidth is used by HD video on the network?

Is anyone else having problems with the live stream on their computer?

Is there any good way to jump ahead while watching something in the library on an iPad that doesn't mess up the video? I'm not having any luck.

After reading the front-page story in today's Observer, I can't see how WWE has any chance of getting a big increase in rights fees. - Ad rates for WWE programming are low (Raw has the lowest ad rate per viewer on the USA Network). - WWE's viewers don't watch other shows on the networks that carry the programming. - It will be difficult to find someone who will give them four primetime TV slots, considering the fact that it is wrestling. The real value of Raw to USA is that it ensures the network is the highest rated cable channel.

It was over 1,500 prior to Monday. I believe the commercial during this week's Raw is the only instance where WWE said one thousand instead of 1,500.

Assuming This is NXT is a weekly show and Beyond the Ring, Best of Raw, and Best of Smackdown are each two hours, that's 13 hours of programming per non-PPV week. I'm curious as to how they're going to fill the rest of the 155 hours. Edit: I just got this response from Dish Network on Twitter after I asked them about Elimination Chamber a couple days ago: "We are not offering this PPV. WWE is not willing to adjust their PPV costs to satellite and cable companies, which is unfair to their customers. We need to re-focus our efforts to support partners that better serve DISH customers." Though they did send someone else a tweet that makes me wonder if they'll end up showing WrestleMania: "WWE has chosen to launch a 24/7 online network, without its TV partners, that includes all of its pay-per-view events. As WWE enters the increasingly fragmented media world by themselves, DISH will continue to consider the value of WWE pay-per-view on an event by event basis."

It looks like AT&T U-verse is also not going to show Elimination Chamber. It's not listed on their February schedule (http://uverseonline.att.net/uverse/ppv). Dish and AT&T have a total of about 19.5 million pay TV customers (out of the circa 103 million households that have some form of pay TV). Could this be a sign that the floodgates are opening, and a number of providers are going to announce that they're dropping PPVs?

They're probably doing it to show UFC and boxing that if they try doing something like that in the future, their PPVs will be dropped. Remember that WWE's contracts with the providers say WWE can't sell the PPVs at a lower price than the one they have through the providers; if Dish continues to show the PPVs, they're pretty much telling UFC that they will get away with it if they, say, show the PPVs live on Fight Pass.

Does anyone know what's going on with Dish Network and Elimination Chamber? Dave said they aren't showing it, but PWInsider is reporting that the PPV is still being listed internally at the company.

I don't know if there's any way to explain it besides "Vince is just in one of his moods."

For what it's worth, Classics on Demand blurred Jacqueline's nip slip when that segment was shown, so I'm guessing the network will do the same thing.

I believe WrestlingForum gets plenty of traffic.

So the site's interface will be changed?

According to Mike Johnson: "There was also a feeling that as much talk as there was about potential creative changes in the last week, there wasn't any real sign of that once they started learning what their segments were. In fact, most I spoke to in the last 24 hours were doubtful there would be any sort of real shake-up with current Mania plans." (http://pwinsider.com/article/83337/smackdown-main-event-trial-run-for-wwe-network-why-some-are-frustrated-right-now-and-more-news.html?p=1) If this turns out to be the case, is this the best option at this point?

In regards to question 2, the only thing I've seen about TV programming is that the ECW TV will be on the network at launch (though I don't know if that's just ECW Hardcore TV or if it includes ECW on TNN).

Is there any reason to believe Bryan's quarter hours would do better if he got a bigger push? I don't see why it would make much of a difference, considering the fact that's not a midcarder who doesn't appear every week.

I feel like she got humiliated a lot between 00 and 02. Did it happen much after that? After she stopped doing the "Daddy's Little Girl" character in the spring of 2002, I don't think so.

After that segment, it seems pretty clear to me that Batista is winning and facing Orton.

I realize WWE.com hasn't officially reported Bryan's concussion, but what reason is there to believe that the concussion is a work?

If WWE is violating their deals with the PPV providers by selling the WWE Network at $10 per month, why hasn't DirecTV threatened to file a lawsuit?

Looking at some of the articles about the WWE Network on mainstream media sites, it strikes me that the people writing about it don't really understand it. This article is a good example: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simp...evision-cheaper The author thinks this could actually happen: "Now, imagine this. Imagine if the NFL comes out with a similar streaming package. They charge $14.95 per month (but you have to pay for a full year at a time) for it and it includes the 24/7 programming of the NFL Network plus streaming of all games for your four favorite teams (or maybe $19.95 a month for all teams). Plus, the package includes archives of all games from past seasons, plus the full NFL Films library on demand." Can someone please explain to me why this would be a good idea? Why would the NFL threaten their multibillion dollar TV deals by letting people get every game without any kind of local blackout restrictions? Plus, there's this: "Let's say you're a big basketball fan, but you like to watch full runs of dramatic television shows and some comedies, too. You currently pay for broadband internet and an $80 a month cable package. Now, let's say the NBA copies this kind of streaming package described above, enabling you to watch games online for, say, $20 per month. At that point, you could just ditch your cable package, get the NBA package, add Netflix for another $9 a month, and get a digital converter box so you can watch over-the-air local channels for free. You would essentially retain everything you enjoy watching on television and save $50 per month. Here's my advice to you: if there's just one or two things holding you back from dropping your cable bill, watch very carefully over the next year or two and see if they pop up as an online streaming service. If they do, you should strongly consider dropping your cable package and replacing it with a digital converter box and antenna (for free over-the-air local channels), the streaming service of whatever it is you enjoy, and perhaps also a general streaming service like Netflix. The total cost of those things would be about $30 a month on top of the internet bill you already have and would allow you to completely drop your cable bill." Do people like him not understand that WWE isn't leaving cable? You still need cable or satellite to watch Raw and SmackDown when they first air. You're not going to be able to get all of WWE's content for a much smaller price (besides the PPVs). The sports leagues would be insane if they allowed people to watch everything live without having to get cable or satellite (as would WWE).

Has anyone clarified if the Raw episodes uploaded on the Network are full or the edited ones that go on Hulu Plus now? Dave and Bryan have said it's believed that the new episodes will be the edited versions.

This was quite the gem in the LA Times: "While a more traditional channel could ensure a certain level of distribution, McMahon, chairman of WWE, said in an interview that the terms pay-TV distributors wanted in return for carrying a WWE channel were 'too restrictive.' McMahon said WWE had deals ready to go with major distributors for a network that would have generated fees of 20 cents per month, per subscriber. 'I said, much to the chagrin of my staff, I'm not going to sign it,' McMahon said." (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-wwe-network-20140108,0,2623775.story#axzz2pu5QUWTt) I love how WWE is completely spinning the development of the Network, and the press just takes them at their word.

I tried to get some dollar figures from my source. He couldn't tell me anything a) he's most likely not privy to that information and even if he was, yeah, that wouldn't be a great idea to give it to some idiot like me. I will say though, look at their clients. CBS, ESPN, Major League Baseball add in the fact they are the unquestioned leaders in live streaming (sports and non-sports) and yeah, it's a steep price but in my opinion worth it for the stability. Thanks for checking.