Recently in Bad Business Ideas Category

This chart says it all. A new study discovers that the vast majority of Facebook apps are an utter waste of time. But oh yeah -- Facebook is worth $9 billion, or $15 billion. And Slide is worth half a billion because it makes that super important FunWall application. Um, right.

here's the chart, courtesy of C|Net's Caroline McCarthy:

 Microsoft revealed its development of a digital forensic analysis toolkit at a security conference yesterday as part of a wider discussion of how technology can be used to fight crime. The Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, or COFEE for short, is a USB thumb drive that contains software capable of executing approximately 150 separate commands. Once plugged in, COFEE can be ordered to decrypt system passwords, display a history of internet activity, and search the system for evidence.

t's routinely shocking to me that so many bloggers think they should try and make a profit from their Web site.

Urged on by the success of mega blog networks like TechCrunch and spurred forward by stories from ProBlogger, or corner cases likeDooce.com, Daily Kos and others, an inordinate amount of people are hoisting ads on their blogs, from Google AdSense, from AdBrite orFederated Media, in the hope of turning their daily rantings into big dollars that could possibly change their life. It's no surprise that blogging for many has the shiny look of a "get rich quick" scheme, when actuality is far different.

Their hopes are misguided, and for most, a serious reality adjustment is needed.

In December, I wrote a post stating that Companies using Facebook Beacon as a marketing tool would get sued and demonstrated the privacy policies in effect at a number of the Beacon partners. One of those is Blockbuster, which as noted in the December post, was so over the top with it's privacy policy. It's, in fact, criminal, in my opinion.

Techcrunch is now reporting that Blockbuster is in fact being sued by a Texas woman who under the premise of a 1988 federal law called the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 USC § 2710) which was enacted after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was b0rked when video rental history was released during his confirmation hearing. The law prevents video rental companies from disclosing personally identifiable data regarding a member and his/her rental history.

Point of fact, this law has never been tested in court. However, non-lawyer Aaron does a great job of drilling down what's so messed up about this.

Regardless of whether a Facebook user has opted in or out of Beacon advertising within Facebook, express opt-in is required on the Blockbuster side. And at the time, and pertinent to this lawsuit, even with consent it is criminal for video rental companies to share this kind of data, per 18 USC § 2710.

I'll play around on PACER later on and see if I can dig up any more.

I will begin by addressing your trademark/trade dress claim.  You have referred to two trademark registrations, and have attached some printouts from the USPTO system but the depiction of the marks on the drawings provided is small and indistinct, making it difficult to determine exactly what the alleged resemblance is, and I need further information from you.

            First, I need legible, scale drawings of the marks, preferably with dimensions shown on the drawing.  To the extent that drawings are inadequate to show the nature of materials, finishes, print legends, colors and the like, I will also need examples of each of Monster Cable's actual uses of these marks in commerce; actual physical examples would be best, but photographic reproductions might do.  As you will understand, these considerations are essential to any claim arising out of trade dress, as you are alleging in essence that there is a resemblance sufficient to cause confusion over the identity or origin of the goods, and no mere line-drawing can suffice.

            Second, I will need copies of the trademark applications and any correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO in support of the applications.

Translatation: Prove it.

            Third, you have not identified the Monster Cable products in question, in actual use and distribution in commerce, whose trade dress you allege has been appropriated.   I have reviewed Monster Cable's online materials and have examined connectors on various Monster Cable assemblies in local retail outlets and am unable to determine which, if any, of these are thought by Monster to represent use of these particular marks.  I am also unable to determine from this review whether Monster Cable actually offers any product for sale to which the Tartan connectors are alleged to be particularly similar.  My own sense of it, in looking at the connectors, has been that there is no similarity between the Tartan connectors and any of the many Monster Cable connectors beyond the general  functional and conventional characteristics which all or nearly all solder-cup, mechanical-assembly, barrel-style RCA-type connectors share.  It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

            Fourth, if the dimensional characteristics of the connector as used in commerce vary from the dimensions of the scale drawing of your mark, I will need a proper scale drawing, with dimensions, of each version of the actual connector as used in commerce, as well as photographs of the connectors showing actual in-use finishes.   If there is more than one such connector design in actual use by Monster Cable as to which appropriation of trade dress is alleged, of course, I will require this information for each and every such design.

            On the basis of what I have seen, both in the USPTO documents you have sent and the actual appearance of Monster Cable connectors which I have observed in use in commerce, it does not appear to me that Monster Cable is in a position to advance a nonfrivolous claim for infringement of these marks.  There simply is not sufficient resemblance between the Tartan connectors and any mark or any example of the marks' actual use that I can find to support such a claim.  But if you have further information for me on that point, you are welcome to submit it.

Translation: You cannot be serious, but go ahead. I dare you.

            You have also supplied me with partial documentation on five design patents which you claim these connectors infringe.  I will begin by observing, first, that the five design patents are so very much unlike one another that it is very hard to imagine that any product could actually infringe more than one of them at a time; anything close enough to one of them to be deemed an infringement would, by that fact alone, be too dissimilar from the other four.  The dissimilarity of the Tartan connector from each of them is readily evident.

            I should add that, for the purpose of this letter, I am assuming that these patents are valid.  This is in no way a concession of the point.  In fact, this is a very significant and likely inaccurate assumption, and you should expect the patentability of these designs to be under attack if you commence an action for infringement.

Translation: I'm keeping a straight face, but if you really want to dance, let's dance.

For his next trick, he proceeds to rip apart Monster's "patents" even more. By this time, the lawyers have to wonder what is going on...

My sense, in looking at these five patents, is that either you are attempting to present some argument that I simply do not understand or you are arguing for untenably broad coverage of these patents which would sweep every functional aspect of the typical solder-assembly RCA connector within the scope of a handful of mere design patents.  You need to clarify this, and frankly, I think you need to indicate to me which, if any, of these patents you actually contend are relevant to the present discussion.  It cannot possibly be that you believe that more than one of these patents is pertinent, and if you insist that they are, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue on this subject.   Once you have identified the patent which you contend is relevant,  I need to see the file history and the references to prior art; I need copies of the applicant's correspondence with the USPTO; and I need a clear and cogent explanation from you as to exactly what aspects of the Tartan connector design are alleged to constitute the infringement, and how.

            Additionally, if you are able to identify any of these patents as applicable, please let me know whether Monster Cable presently sells, or has at any time sold, any products bearing connectors which are in conformity with the patent drawings or which are otherwise contended to be within the coverage of the patents, and identify those products for me.  Please also provide photographs and/or physical examples of these connectors as manufactured and sold.

            Also,  please provide me all of the information referenced above as it relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am attaching.  I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643 were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or otherwise.  Please let me know  which, if any, products Monster has ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent number, or other reference, to  D323643.  Please also advise me whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not, please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is based.  (On that note, let me point out to you that the "turbine cut" feature is irrelevant here as your client makes only functional, not design, claims for that feature in its marketing materials for the product.)  I would assume that you would agree with me that if the Tartan connector is less dissimilar from the D323643 patent than from any of the five patents you cite in your letter, then the Tartan connector is within the coverage of the prior art and cannot, as a matter of law, infringe any of your client's current patents.

            I must also point out that unless there is a good deal of background information you have not provided me which makes the case otherwise, Monster Cable cannot possibly square its patent infringement claim(s) with its own patent history.  Two views of the matter might be taken; the first, which is my view, is that none of the design patents, including D323643, encompass the Tartan connector.  If that is so, of course, the claim for infringement fails.  But if one grants the sort of breadth to these patents that you appear to wish to do, a problem arises for Monster.  D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents.  Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses.  You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

            Please also let me know whether Monster Cable or any related entity has brought actions to enforce any of the patents and trademarks referenced in your letter or above, and provide me with the jurisdiction, court and docket information pertaining thereto, along with copies of any decisions or judgments resulting therefrom.  If any such litigation proceeded through discovery, I will need all discovery responses, including document production, issued by Monster, as well as copies of any and all depositions taken and the exhibits thereto.

Translation: I Double Dog Dare You!!! Let's go!!!

Oh, and here's my favorite part when he insinuates that Monster operates an illegal tax shelter (probably true):

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements.  I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

Now, what Monster could not have known was that this guy was a highly trained and experienced litigator in a previous life, and the ending paragraphs of this response are absolutely the most priceless thing I've ever seen in my life and I assume have caused a few changes-of-underwear at Monster. Translation: You've f*cked with the wrong guy, buddy. You wanna play rough? I'll play rough!

I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters.  I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

            After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues.  My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle.  In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table.  I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word.  If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds.  As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

            I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion.  Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement.  Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands.  Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me.  You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction.  It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind.  If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish.  Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

            I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited.  If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee--say, ten cents per connector--as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures.  On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before.  Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

            I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            Kurt Denke

In an interview with the Royal Television Society's Television magazine, Berkett said that "this net neutrality thing is a load of b****cks", and revealed that Virgin is already in talks with unnamed content providers about paying to have their content delivered faster than others.

1. Virgin Media is in the UK. The UK has a completely different infrastructure for content delivery than the U.S. does.
2. Because there is much more state-run media in the UK, their regulator "Ofcom" has far more authority to regulate content delivery systems.
   
3. Despite Ofcom's previous statements to be "hands-off" I suspect that these types of comments will probably inspire some kind of action.
4. None of this has anything to do with the U.S. where the largest Cable provider is a known enemy of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (aka K-Mart) for their refusal to acquiesce to his desire for "a la carte" programmming.
   

8. Covenant Regarding Competition. I agree that for a period of one (1) year after my employment with the Company terminates, I shall not (a) engage in any employment, business or activity that is competitive with the Company's businesses; or (b) solicit business from, do business with or render services to, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, any entity that is or was a Company client or customer within the last twelve months of my employment with the Company, for a purpose or in a manner that is in any way competitive with the Company's business. If, during or after my employment with the Company, I seek work elsewhere, I agree to provide a copy of this Agreement to any person or entities seeking to hire me before accepting employment with or engagement by any such person or entity.

9. Solicitation of Employees. I agree that for a period of twelve (12) months immediately following the
termination of my relationship with the Company for any reason, whether with or without cause, I shall not either directly or indirectly solicit, induce, recruit or encourage any of the Company's employees to leave their employment, or take away such employees, or attempt to solicit, induce, recruit, encourage or take away employees of the Company, either for myself or for any other person or entity.

As a result of the recent California court decision in D'Sa v. Playhut, this approach by employers has been called into serious question.  Prior California cases have held that inclusion of an unenforceable noncompete provision could be the basis of a violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 (which 

voids any contract provisions that restrain an individual from engaging in his or her lawful profession, trade or business) and could possibly lead to penalties under the Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (which prohibits unfair trade practices). In D'Sa, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District took these rulings a step further by holding that such a provision may subject an employer to liability.

The big issue is the way it was implemented," said Jason Bouwmeester, a systems analyst in Canada and one of the group administrators for No Video on Flickr. "There was no public beta.... They just reset everyone's settings."

"I had hoped my [Pro membership fee] would go to fixing issues with the site, not to starting a video application," said Bouwmeester. "I can't see them reverting [the video service] altogether, but they should have some way for users to ignore it."

Sears, Roebuck, K-Mart $1,096,000 

Wal-Mart Stores/Sam's West $992,000 

Circuit CityStores $712,000 

Fry's Electronics $384,000 

Target Corporation $296,000 

Best Buy Co. Inc. $280,000 

CompUSA, Inc. $168,000 

Total:     $3,928,000

No, I wasn't there, but the FCC sent me a copy to read because they're such fantastic people. I routinely go back and forth on Martin. One minute I'm incensed at his hair-trigger indecency standards, the next minute impressed by how stubbornly he wants a la carte pricing, which might not be a bad idea, no matter what the industry says. Then, I'm totally floored by his insistence on open access for the 700mhz auction, possibly the smartest decision he's made in his tenure (and I suspect having to due with the influence of his old boss, ex-Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, whose book A Tough Act to Follow? should be required reading for anyone who wants to know about the FCC).

So, whenever I read or hear one of Martin's speeches, I never know how I'll feel afterwards. His CTIA remarks (delivered yesterday) are no different.

Here's an excerpt with an ending that you won't believe:

 

Although initially opposed by the industry, the Commission also worked to create a more open platform on a portion of the 700 MHz spectrum.  The Commission was determined to ensure that the fruits of wireless innovation swiftly pass into the hand of consumers.  A network that is more open to devices and applications can help foster innovation on the edges of the network.  As important, it will give consumers greater freedom to use the wireless devices and applications of their choice when they purchase service. 

 

I believe that putting these choices into the hands of consumers, rather than network operators, will spur the next phase of wireless broadband innovation - innovation that can make us more productive, keep us entertained, and improve our quality of life.

 

Ok, so you've got the big picture. Good. 

When adopting the open platform requirement in the 700 MHz band, we saw it as a rare chance to promote innovation and consumer choice while writing on a clean slate.  We targeted only one block of the spectrum.  And since I have been Chairman, I have opposed applying network neutrality obligations with mandatory unbundling or wholesale requirements to networks that would undermine investment incentives.  This careful balancing of spurring innovation and consumer choice while encouraging infrastructure investment is critical to the wireless industry's continued impressive growth.

 

 

So, what you're saying is if they already own it, they can use however they please, competition be damned. With wireline, you're right. Wholesale was a disaster. Wireless? We don't know yet...but wait, there's more...

 

And what we have observed since the adoption of our 700 MHz rules is quite outstanding.  The requirement for open access in the 700 MHz auction is leading carriers to recognize the benefits of a more open platform. 

 

In fact, in less than a year, many of you have evolved from vocal opponents to vocal proponents, embracing the open platform concept for your entire networks. 

 

Translation: Good job for seeing the writing on the wall before we had to smack you.

 

Verizon Wireless has committed to open its entire network to devices and applications of consumers' own choosing.  More and more wireless providers, including T-Mobile and Sprint through their participation in the Open Handset Alliance, and AT&T, are also embracing more openness in terms of devices and applications.  Indeed, in looking at the program for this conference, I was excited to see a number of educational sessions and panels focusing on the issue of openness.  This interest now appears to be shared across the industry.

 

So, Verizon is trying to catch up to GSM's convenience. They're...competing! But watch...after that eloquent pean to the glories of competition and the free market, Kevin is about to drop an anticompetitive, protectionist bombshell:

 

In light of the industry's embrace of a more open wireless platform, it would be premature to adopt any other requirements across the industry.  Thus, today I will circulate to my fellow commissioners an order dismissing a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Skype that would apply Carterfone requirements to existing wireless networks. 

 

 

Wait a minute! Whoa there! Because you've allowed open access on a network that hasn't been built yet, you're denying open access on the networks that already exist? What this means, is that Skype can't deploy an iPhone or BlackBerry application that lets you access your Skype account from your mobile device. It also means that someone like me, who only has wireless internet access (via a Sprint AirCard) could very well be denied the use of Skype (or Vonage, or any other VOIP service) through the connection that I pay for.

How is that premature? How is Carterfone (meaning that anything I can connect to the POTS network without breaking it is legal to connect) inapplicable to wireless networks? You're telling me that if I have an application that runs on my BlackBerry and uses the device's TCP/IP stack (an open industry standard since the 1970's, by the way) to provide me with a gateway to my VOIP-based phone number, it would be premature to tell my Wireless carrier that they have to let me use it even if it doesn't cause any harm to the network?

Oh, Kevin. You had me flipped. I was ready to start singing your praises to all who would listen...and now this? What are you doing to me? I hoped this was an April Fool's joke, but alas, my hopes were dashed. Even when you say things like this:

In conclusion, let me say that, at the Commission, our job is to provide ample spectrum for a range of wireless services and a regulatory framework that allows you - the entrepreneurs, engineers, and network operators of the world to provide lower prices, better and more innovative services, and more choice to wireless consumers. 

 

How, in the name of Guglielmo Marconi can you talk about the glories of competition and lower prices after you've slammed the door in the face of a service that lowers prices?

Please, Mr. Chairman. Quit playing games with my heart (and my phone). Pick a side.

We missed something. Too much about the toy, not enough on the game.

I'm reading Alex's post about Western Union's new "send money by prepaid phone" service and I can't help but think there is an invitation for regulatory disaster here.

I've had to send money with Western Union once in 25 years, to a friend who was stuck in Michigan with maxed out credit cards from a ticket and impound lot, who needed cash to fill up his car and drive back east.

When I called Western Union, they asked me a whole bunch of questions to verify who I was. They had my addresses going back five years (even my college dorms) and I had to think back to remember my old home phone number growing up (301-229-9041) and even some details about my parents.

The beauty of prepaid phones, however, is that they offer some level of anonymity by disconnecting the phone number from an identity. This is useful for say, people who are whistleblowers or sources for journalists, or even for plain old privacy-minded people who are willing to pay a premium to not have a name associated with their phone.

Western Union, which discontinued their signature telegram service last year, now makes their money taking a cut of funds that people send using their network. Those remittances that enterprising immigrants send home (which are, incidentally a huge part of the global economy) make up a massive pool of funds. For instance, Ghana's economy recieved $4.5 Billion in remittances from abroad in 2005, a huge chunk of that country's GDP.

In the U.S. many undocumented/illegal immigrants get paid cash. They send this cash home via Western Union. No tax is paid at any point, except perhaps by WU. On the other hand, this is cumbersome because of the paper trail required. Let's go back to me trying to send $150 tp Michigan. They knew everything about me. I'm sure they collect just as much information on Joe Blow trying to send cash, because they've been an easy target for money laundering and other underhanded enterprises. They cover their butts.

Another thing, if sending money is going to be so easy domestically, isn't the Government going to want a cut, or want to watch the sums moving around from phone to phone? I'd like to see the privacy policy associated with this service. Is reloading my phone with minutes going to be as document-heavy as sending money? Will I have to fill out a form, or will I just be able to buy a "card" with cash, no questions asked? Can you see where this is going?

Now, if I buy a prepaid phone from this service, am I going to have to document myself the same way? What if this becomes more widespread? Could this new "feature" spell the end of the disconnection of number and identity?

If so, the prepaid phone market will be all but dead, except to those who have no other choice. What bothers me about it is that right now, I have a choice, and should continue to have a choice whether or not to be anonymous. I'm afraid that in their zeal to open a new market, Western Union could make it an attractive option for the Government to take that choice from me.

I hope not.

Nokia showed off its N810 WiMax Edition, a mobile computing device with slide-out keyboard and 4.13" screen.  The new WiMax Edition will come equipped with web browsing, powered by Mozilla, and will even support a number of VoIP services, such as Skype.

I don't quite know how to react.  Sure, the N810 WiMax Edition can make calls using a VoIP (Voice over Internet Provider) client, but it doesn't seem to have a dedicated phone function in the same way that a BlackBerry or an iPhone does.  Also, if the screen is 4.13" that seems like it would make the N810 a little, well, large to be comfortably used as a phone on a day-to-day basis.  As we, and the washington Post, have commented before, does anyone really have room for another device to carry around with them?

Personally, I see WiMax like any other type of wireless data.  I think that the implementation would make a lot more sense if it was treated like EVDO or EDGE - just a faster connection to embed in high-end phones (and eventually not-so-high-end ones) and aircards.  I'm sort of thinking that anyone who would really be enticed by the N810 is probably taking their laptop with them everywhere, and the N810 can't compete with that kind of power.  A WiMax aircard, however, would let the user take their laptop online on the go, without the need for a stand-alone unit fo rmobile browsing.

WiMax has a huge potential to revolutionize the way we look at a wireless internet connection and has the power to allow people to replace their wired internet with it.  I feel like having a device whose comrades have floundered in the States (yes, i'm bringing up the Mylo again) as the flagship ambassador of WiMax is a bad idea.  Why not talk to RIM about bowing a WiMax BB8800 series?  Or preview a BB9000 with WiMax?

Currently, Sprint has a soft-launch WiMax network running in Chicago, DC and Baltimore.  They'r eexpecting nationwide rollout this year and are, in cooperation with Clearwire, looking for outside funds from Comcast, Time Warner and Google, to name a few.

Full press release at Nokia.

When you order Hi-Def TV, you expect it to be on the shining Excalibur level, but it looks like Comcast is degrading the quality of some HD channels in order to make room for more channels. To test this theory out, Avsforum member bfdtv recorded the same shows from the same channel at the same time on both Comcast Hi-Def and Fios TV. The left is the FiOs. The right is the Comcast. As you can see, the Comcast signal looks like crap. The forum threadhas more screenshots, a signal analysis, and some source videos. So far the Comcast channels receiving extra compression are: Discovery Channel, SciFi, USA, Food, NatGeo, UHD, A&E, HGTV, Starz, Cinemax, HBO, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery HD Theater, and History HD.