In defence of Moov...
I dig it.
Yes, there is always an "I'd rather have X channel" that wins out. I have a couple of those preferred channels myself.
But the fact is NOT that I can't have Country Music Television for the missus because there is some stupid artsy-fartsy channel in the way.
I can't have CMT because CMT costs real money, requires real licensing contracts with Viacom, and creates real competitive pressures within Viacom about the competitive strain on existing distribution contracts.
Let's face it, Moov doesn't cost Comcast much at all. They aren't paying Grad School students top dollar for their art thesis projects.
When they NEED the bandwidth, they'll yank Moov in a Manhattan minute. Right now, it's not "eating up your bandwidth." It's a marketing tool for the brochures and selling the Sears foot-traffic crowd.
I like having a screen saver that I can put on at parties while the stereo plays a variety of music. Rave wouldn't exactly work for this. It would be disconcerting to see the White Stripes frenetic spasms while listening to Nora Jones. It's a great conversation piece that introduces many of my guests to Voom. On poker night, that 52 inch widescreen turns into a mirror to see the cards on one side of the table, but I can turn on Moov and have a neat, non-distracting picture on-screen.
Chill the eff out, folks! We all have that comic strip in the paper that we can't stand, and we all have that Voom channel we don't like. (Tennis channel? Oh good God, what were they thinking!) Yes, Moov is a nice straw man, but it's not inherently evil.
And before you start... divvying up the bandwidth among other channels will not resonate in sales the way one more HD channel tally will to potential customers. They are not going to do this. They are not going to do this. Did I mention that they are not going to do this? It's bad business from a marketing perspective, and this start-up is ALL about the marketing.