…but movie companies certainly don’t see that. Paramount Pictures released its study of the five million IP addresses it tracked who downloaded camcorded copies of Star Trek.  Writing to the FCC, Paramount says:

Just five years ago, one had to be computer literate and exceedingly patient to pirate movies. Today, literally anyone with an internet connection can do it. Clunky websites are being replaced by legitimate looking and legitimate feeling pirate movie websites, a perception enhanced by the presence of premium advertisers and subscription fees processed by major financial institutions.

So after years of suing and spending millions in lobbying, spying, and prevention, Paramount agrees it is easier than ever to download movies. Downloading movies “has advanced from geek to sleek” they say.

I interpret this as a sign that the movie companies’ campaign against piracy has not worked. It is easier than ever to download any movie, song, or game you want and it will only get faster and easier. More people are doing it and aren’t embarrassed by it. For all the propaganda (see last Sunday’s 60 minutes), file-sharing is what the market wants.

Paramount, of course, sees the opposite.  The spreading of file-sharing means movie companies need more laws to stop file-sharing, while never showing how these laws, assuming they worked (which they won’t), would encourage customers to go back to their former purchasing practices.

That’s why Big Champagne, a company that tracks online piracy, is urging movie companies to rethink their piracy strategies, claiming their own practices are encouraging file-sharing, especially in European countries where they might wait weeks or months for a TV show or movie to air. CEO Eric Garland tells CNET:

In the digital world, we don’t want to wait three months, six months. We’re just not accepting that anymore…we want it all, we want it right now and even Mom and Pa Kettle are getting to the point where they say if it’s not on, let’s just fire up the computer and watch it. If they want me to wait six months, I’ve got other options. And people don’t really have a conscious [sic] or qualms about that.

So we know waiting hurts (why wait when you don’t have to). But instead of searching for alternatives, movie companies want more windows, or at least maintain the ones they have. This goes against what customers are demanding. Instead of offering customers a compelling product, movie companies just want the government to pass laws supporting their obsolete business models.

For all the increases in file-sharing, movie production and revenue has risen (ignore the blatant lies in the aformentioned 60 Minutes segment), from 567 movies released in 2004 to 1177 movies scheduled for release this year.  Total revenue rose by about $300 million from 2004-2008 (this year hasn’t ended, and for reference 1037 movies came out in 2008).  So more movies, more money. I wish file-sharing would hurt my industry the same way.

I still find it surprising that often the people who create problems are asked to then fix them. And I’m not talking about the financial crisis. Broadband internet in the U.S. significantly lags behind many countries with slower and more expensive internet connections.  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found the U.S. ranks 19th in the world with advertised rates of 9.6 megabytes per second, far behind Japan’s 92.8 mbps, Korea’s 80.8 mbps, and France’s 51 mbps.

If the U.S. had real competition for internet access, we would likely have faster speeds and more ubiquitous access (a shared infrastructure like we have for telephones and power lines would be an excellent start), but instead of promoting competition, the government continues to listen to and reward the incumbent with free money and laws that only keep our internet slow and expensive.

First, the FCC is listening to ISPs urging the government to define broadband at significantly lower speeds than the lower speeds we already have. Both Verizon and Comcast suggested speeds of than a single mbps. These numbers matter, since the $7.2 billion from the stimulus package is meant for broadband speeds.

Of course, expanding broadband is also important than just increasing speeds, but we lack any real map of what parts of the country have and don’t have broadband access.  The FCC for years used knowingly faulty data to claim there was competition between ISPs. Of course, the ISPs keep these maps secrets, making it more crazy that the government would look to the telecommunication industry’s own organization, Connected Nation, to map the nation broadband infrastructure.  Lots of questions are facing Florida for why it granted its mapping to the new and unproven group, when its bid was more than double that of the highly experienced (in the Florida market even) second highest bidder.

ISPs claim customers don’t want or need these faster speeds, but at the same time, ISPs are arguing that they need to traffic shape or even charge more because users are using so much bandwidth. The truth is 18 other countries are still paying less for much faster service; service that is available in more households and more areas of the country.  These countries will be more competitive at attracting technology companies who want to offer more bandwidth intensive products, like high-def videos and gaming, to other products we can’t yet imagine. How could YouTube have existed before broadband?  Let’s start planning for the future. The U.S. needs to stay technological competitive, and listening to the companies that made us fall behind are not the ones to trust when thinking about how to fix it.

Like a 14.4k modem, broadband is crawling into the nation debate as an actual issue. Barack Obama reminded voters of his plan to use tax money to expand broadband lines to rural areas (where the government is almost discouraging expansion), though John McCain disagrees. Also, the Senate passed a bill on Friday to improve broadband competition. The bill just scratches the surface, adding a question on internet access to the Census and charging the FCC to gather data on telecommunication services annually. A similar bill passed the House last year.

Obviously this bill does very little and I’d love if Obama would push this broadband agenda which, along with green energy, are growing markets that would create jobs, capital, and innovation. Plus it’s an issue McCain doesn’t even know exists. Except when he invented that Blackberry Obama loves so much.

Several fiber optic companies in Amsterdam are testing 1 gigabit connections, internet speeds fast enough for four simultaneous HD movies at once.

The U.S. has been crawling behind Europe, Asia, and even Canada in broadband speeds and penetration.  Instead of rolling out fiber optic connections like Japan and Amsterdam, U.S. cable providers are imposing bandwidth caps.  Only Verizon offers high speed fiber optics in the U.S., which only gives speeds of 50 Mb/s, can cost almost $150, and is only available in a few major cities.

The U.S. suffers from a technological disconnect, only one part of our suffering infrastructure.  As more and more business and information moves online, countries with strong broadband infrastructures will have a competitive edge.  The Baller Herbst Law Group wrote a report on how the U.S. needs universal gigabits speeds by 2015 to stay economically competitive. But the U.S. lacks a broadband strategy like the successful seven year rollout in Japan.

In 2001, when the United States ranked 4th in the world, Japan had only a small handful of broadband lines. Spurred by the “broadband miracle” under way in nearby South Korea, Japan’s top government and private-sector leaders decided to make Japan the world’s leading broadband nation. They then developed and executed an all-hands-on-deck action plan to achieve that goal, including aggressive federal subsidies, low-interest and no-interest loans, loan guarantees, tax breaks, grants-in-aid to municipalities, targeted government purchases of services, a concerted national public education campaign, and a wide range of private-sector initiatives driven by a sense of national purpose and long-term thinking.

Today, Japan has the fastest and cheapest broadband in the world. Consumers in Japan can get broadband that is 10 times faster than the speeds available to average Americans, for prices that are less than a quarter of the prices that Americans must pay. Broadband providers currently compete at 1 Gbps, and this is expected to increase to 10 Gbps by 2010. Broadband is now available almost ubiquitously throughout Japan, and the “almost” will be removed by 2010. Today, 85 percent of households have access to fiber connectivity, and more than 35 percent of households have adopted it. Availability of fiber connective it will increase to 90 percent by 2010.

The U.S. ranks 15th in median broadband speeds at 2.35 megabits per second, behind Japan’s 63 mb/s.

To say the U.S. does nothing isn’t true.  Much of U.S. policy has hurt broadband penetration and competition.  The FCC uses provenly false methods of tracking cable competition and still pushes a 30 percent limit on cable company subscriber base.

While penalizing cable companies, the FCC lets telecommunication companies consolidate while doing away with common carrier requirements that have been vital to Japan’s success and would help increase competition.

The U.S. needs a broadband strategy that includes federal subsides and low-interest loans to encourage development.  These incentives ensure broadband will reach even the poorest areas and keep the United States competitive with the rest of the world. It will be expensive to full deploy fiber connections country wide.  Estimates in the U.K. are between $9 and $50 billion. As Japan (and Australia) have shown, results can be seen within a few years to the benefit of companies and citizens.

This is an issue unfortunately being ignored this election year.  When the next generation of Microsofts, Googles, and Apples originate in South Korea and Denmark, then the U.S. may get a clue.  But by then we might be too far behind to play catch up.