Putting Cable In A Headlock

Ever since it was invented, television has been a world full of idea thieves. No sooner does one network have a good idea than you see many, not-very-different versions of that same idea pop up on other channels. This is always done with a wink and nod because there is a certain honor among the thieves (not to mention the knowledge that whatever network they are copying today will turn around and do the same thing to them tomorrow). Of course, credit is never given for who came up with the idea first, normally because of money issues. You see, the way copyrights work if you started each show by saying "this is based on an idea some other guy had" you would then have to pay that person every single time that show aired. Given the way programs are syndicated across the Globe these days that would add up pretty quickly and eventually it would cost the networks more than any lawsuit ever could. So, I would like to think money is the main reason people steal ideas and don't tip a cap to the originator of the concept, but I know that just as often it has to do with who the idea is being stolen from. The people with the higher profile steal from the people underneath them, as has happened in all walks of life since the beginning of time. For example, when the WWE launched the ill-fated XFL they had too many gimmicks which did not work. However, they did have one great idea - the pulley cam over the middle of the field. That concept was quickly "borrowed" by the NFL and since then that view has given us some iconic images in the last couple of years, all without any acknowledgement of where the idea of putting a camera over the middle of the field came from. I am convinced that is because the NFL looks down on pro wrestling and doesn't think there is anything they can do about it. Unfortunately they have so far been proven right. But, something happened this week in the WWE that could shake up the future of television and if it does there will be no debating where it came from.

The other day the WWE announced that they will be launching their own channel next month. Now, that idea in and of itself is not particularly special because having channels dedicated to just one sport are quite common. On my cable guide I have the Golf Channel, NFL Network, NBA Network, MLB Network, NHL Network, a soccer channel, a hunting channel, a fishing channel, a tennis channel and even a horse-riding channel, so a pro-wrestling channel almost seems overdue. But, here's the difference - the WWE channel is going to completely bypass traditional cable and only stream online through tablets, gaming systems (thus giving you the ability to still watch it on your TV) and smart TVs which come equipped with internet connections. Additionally it will be subscription channel. You would pay $10 a month (six months at a time), which would grant you access to 24-hours worth of classic matches, old pay-per-views and even some new original programming, such as career retrospectives and reality shows about what wrestlers do in their spare time. Think of it kind of like NetFlix, but all the movies are about wrestling. I know $10 for one channel sounds like a lot but it suddenly seems like a much better deal when you learn your subscription also allows you to watch all the pay-per-views at no additional cost. Considering ordering one of those is like $40 and there is one a month, this service basically pays for itself within a couple of weeks. I have to say, even though I haven't watched wrestling in years I love this concept.

Admittedly my admiration of this idea has less to do with the WWE than what it represents - freedom. Everyone knows the cable TV system in this country is extremely flawed. These cable companies just keep raising rates and lowering customer service standards and there is nothing anyone can really do about it because, really, who has hours to spend on the phone fighting with these people? Even worse, I'm not even sure the cable people know how broken their system is. For example, remember last paragraph when I told you about all those sports networks I have? I don't want about half of them. I have never watched the fishing network or the hunting network or the tennis network and I don't intend to start now but I had to buy them because I wanted the Golf Channel and it was part of a package deal which the woman on the phone seemed to actually think was a good deal. I didn't have the heart to tell her that wanting to buy 1 additional channel outside of my normal package which should only cost about $2 extra per month and being forced to pay $15 but getting 10 channels I don't want and will never watch is not actually a bargain. With the WWE channel you pay for what you want and only get what you pay for, which is how it should be. There is no going through a third party for bundling or delivery services, which means there is also no going through a cable company who can suddenly deprive you of a channel because they don't like the deal they signed with that channel, like what happens when Time Warner decides they don't want to carry the Comcast Sports anymore and it disappeared without warning. (As if to prove my point, DirectTV is now threatening to not carry WWE pay-per-views.) If you are just buying the channel directly from the company than there should be nothing to get in the way of your service. Imagine a system where you only have to pay for the channels you want - wouldn't that be something?

Now, I am not saying this will take the world by storm and we will all be streaming our channels through the internet by the end of the year. The WWE's channel hasn't even launched yet and there are bound to be some issues when it does, as always happens when a new product launches. Not to mention, anytime a new channel launches you have to worry if they will have enough content to keep people viewing, which makes the idea of paying for it right now slightly similar to committing to eat a cake before it even goes in the oven. Plus, the elephant in the room which has to be address is the idea of streaming all programming is going to scare a lot of people (read: octogenarians) away. There are going to be a lot of citizens who won't want to switch simply because they are comfortable with the system they have, don't know how streaming works, aren't interested in learning because they assume it will be too complicated and fear change. So, I wouldn't call this imminent. However, I think the wheels have been put into motion and this is not nearly as futuristic a concept as people who work in TV may think. I would just caution them that they had better recognize what is going on and start to think of ways to adapt, specifically how to broadcast shows live on the internet at the same time as they broadcast through network television. If they don't they could very easily find themselves going the way of the newspaper - still around but rendered largely irrelevant as people have found faster ways to get their news. Better to get ahead of it because otherwise they could be as stunned as someone getting hit in the face with a folding chair.