WWE rushed the announcement of its own television network in order to get out in front of UFC and its perceived plans to do the same. Except UFC signed a deal with FOX Sports and now that's completely off the table for them. Nevertheless, WWE is going forward with its network for a sometime in 2012.
Details are still extremely murky and that's because they're still being worked out. There may be some clues, though, in a recent surveys released by the company. Here's one from ProWrestling.Inc:
Imagine a 24-hour cable network that was run by The WWE. It featured a mix of WWE-made programs, including new shows, repeats of Raw and SmackDown from USA and Syfy and "classic" or "historical" programs featuring shows from different promotions like classic WWE footage, WCW, ECW, NWA, AWA, etc. from years past.
It would have two new weekly WWE live in-ring shows (wrestling), but not SmackDown or Raw.
It would have a daily live in-studio viewer interactive show similar to SportsCenter.
Additionally, this network would include WWE's "classic big 4" pay-per-view events including WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble to the lineup at no additional cost. Rather than having to pay for them, they would now be specials with the same match quality you're used to seeing on pay-per-view for no additional cost. These 4 events would only be available on The WWE Network.
In addition to The WWE Network, you would receive approximately 30 additional channels including NFL Network, NBA TV, Biography Channel, Fox Business Network and Fuel TV.
How interested would you be in upgrading your service for an additional $7-$12 per month to a tier which would include the WWE Network described above?
I would find it not only odd but absolutely insane if WWE started giving away its "big four" pay-per-views, in particular WrestleMania, just to drive subscriptions to the channel. I can't imagine that makes any sense economically.
Use the comments section to fill out the survey, Cagesiders. Are you up for paying the extra coin for all of that?