DCDC is lowering their prices.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Many customers I still service have used this service going on 3 years. With DeLuxe breathing down DC's back with a less expensive service, it's no doubt that prices will need to become competitive. I also wonder if they'll allow smaller exhibitors to sign up?
Here is the link.to the article...
https://bit.ly/3qCnL3y

[James Gardiner]

Yes this is a interesting business development. Personally I am super surprised DCDC didn't transitioning away from Satellite. (Or are they? Anyone know?) Satellite has never made long term sense apart from creating a perceived gatekeeper model were only one entity exists. Internet was ALWAYS going to eventually undercut Satellite. (As was indicated in my business plan analysis 10 years ago)

The issue here is that, making DCP FTR's available on the internet is well on its way to becoming as easy as making a DCP trailer available for download on the internet. Anyone can do it, and the costs are heading to be marginal, its just covered by general running costs and is no longer a key cost. (Ie, its no longer est. 50% or running costs type issue.. i.e. DCDC satellite costs)

I can see competition popping up all over the place. Its a major reason I think the incumbents are all forming a wagon-circle (joining forces) to establish a industry standard before the opportunity completely breaks down to a commodity type function.
For example, if some small distributor has a film you want.. And the company says. download the DCP-FTR this way. YOU DOWNLOAD IT THIS WAY. Exhibitors are not going to be able to demand them to use (insert Company typing to become an industry standard).

I always say, aim for where the target is going to be (Not were it is now). Internet is getting faster and cheaper every day. Plan for this inevitability.

[Mike Blakesley]

Well maybe Deluxe will buy DCDC and become the "Sirius XM" of film distribution. It would only make sense. Antitrust might have something to say about it but Sirius and XM did it, so...

[Jon Dent]

DCDC is going to have a rough road ahead. Deluxe is allowing pretty much anyone with decent internet to sign up for their service, whereas DCDC is still stonewalling smaller theaters like us due to concerns about operating costs, or at least that's what they told me. That doesn't bode well for increasing their install base.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Well maybe Deluxe will buy DCDC and become the "Sirius XM" of film distribution. It would only make sense. Antitrust might have something to say about it but Sirius and XM did it, so...

I would rather see DCDC offer the high speed internet service in addition to their existing satellite service. I should be very feasible with a simple change in the head end of the storage unit

[Marcel Birgelen]

Yes this is a interesting business development. Personally I am super surprised DCDC didn't transitioning away from Satellite. (Or are they? Anyone know?) Satellite has never made long term sense apart from creating a perceived gatekeeper model were only one entity exists. Internet was ALWAYS going to eventually undercut Satellite. (As was indicated in my business plan analysis 10 years ago)

Distributing DCPs is something that lends itself for broadcasting, as you have one sender and many potential receivers. With 99% of all Internet traffic being unicast and World-Wide multicast over IP not going anywhere soon in the near future, the satellite distribution model for such content still is a pretty feasible one and can be done rather cheaply with today's transponder prices on geostationary satellites. I'm pretty sure DCDC is paying less for their satellite bandwidth than Deluxe will be paying for their content delivery network, whoever they might have outsourced that too.

DCDC's only real problem here is that their end-user installation is almost always going to be more expensive than an Internet based one, as they still need to install a dish. Then again, their business model is starting to look extremely backward, as they seemingly don't want to sign-up single screens. Larger theaters, most often located in denser populated areas will almost always have access to some form of broadband and as such, their service is ideally suited for locations that simply don't have access to broadband, but it seems that those are the kind of locations their business model doesn't account for. The prime example is Mike, who wanted to get their service, but was repeatedly denied, because he apparently didn't enough content turnarounds for them to break-even. I guess they'll need to change that business model now, if they want to survive in the long run.

[James Gardiner]

I disagree Marcel.
Look at TV today. It has been greatly accepted that Free-To-air TV is dead for everything but mainly Sport, and a little News. Similar pressures exist for distributing DCPs over satellite. Yes it does make sense but when you add all the added capabilities of a by-direction network link that has costs being commoditized to near $0. Satellite becomes limited in scope and also has a far bigger risk factor. For example, the number of films being distributed of late is greatly reduced due to covid. DCDC still has the same satellite running costs. General internet delivery scales as demand scales. Much safer business model and can scale without issue. (Risk costs money to mitigate..)
Plus, I believe that, like with Emails, those who use Email have their own client of preference. They do this as its cost effectively the cheapest to achieve the goal and flexible enough to best suit the end user. I see a similar outcome eventually for receiving data (Or in this case DCPs).
Plus, and a huge problem we had when pricing this was many shopping centres wanted $1000 per month to allow a satellite disk on the roof of the shopping centre. So many issues...
Plus, like in Asia, so many regions none big enough to justify a satellite..
Remember, DCDC came into existence as Deluxe and Technicolour were setting up competing services. This was abandoned due to . even with the highest cinema density count in the world, being the US, they couldn't make the numbers work. The studios had to form DCDC.

Plus, if you do setup a internet based delivery solution, having a Satellite one just duplicates infrastructure. Again. No, does not make any business sense.

Sorry, Satellite is simply not a good path and is a ankar around the neck of whomever runs one.

[Mike Blakesley]

The prime example is Mike, who wanted to get their service, but was repeatedly denied, because he apparently didn't enough content turnarounds for them to break-even.

Yeah, and I even offered to pay for the service and they wouldn't even answer my last couple of emails. As it is now, their service is starting to look kind of old-fashioned, especially the part where they download every movie in release to every local system. Deluxe is tying theirs into their booking platform so it will only download what you need, which even in a large multiplex would decrease bandwidth needs substantially.

My big hope for Deluxe is that it has some settings to filter out unneeded trailers, but if it doesn't, we can live with that. Latest communication from them says we should see equipment "very soon."

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I disagree Marcel.
Look at TV today. It has been greatly accepted that Free-To-air TV is dead for everything but mainly Sport, and a little News. Similar pressures exist for distributing DCPs over satellite. Yes it does make sense but when you add all the added capabilities of a by-direction network link that has costs being commoditized to near $0. Satellite becomes limited in scope and also has a far bigger risk factor. For example, the number of films being distributed of late is greatly reduced due to covid. DCDC still has the same satellite running costs. General internet delivery scales as demand scales. Much safer business model and can scale without issue. (Risk costs money to mitigate..)
Plus, I believe that, like with Emails, those who use Email have their own client of preference. They do this as its cost effectively the cheapest to achieve the goal and flexible enough to best suit the end user. I see a similar outcome eventually for receiving data (Or in this case DCPs).
Plus, and a huge problem we had when pricing this was many shopping centres wanted $1000 per month to allow a satellite disk on the roof of the shopping centre. So many issues...
Plus, like in Asia, so many regions none big enough to justify a satellite..
Remember, DCDC came into existence as Deluxe and Technicolour were setting up competing services. This was abandoned due to . even with the highest cinema density count in the world, being the US, they couldn't make the numbers work. The studios had to form DCDC.

Plus, if you do setup a internet based delivery solution, having a Satellite one just duplicates infrastructure. Again. No, does not make any business sense.

Sorry, Satellite is simply not a good path and is a ankar around the neck of whomever runs one.

How can satellite NOT be a good path. 80% of the data that's transmitted by Humans goes by satellite. The other bit goes via a plethora of undersea cables. I see no reason at all why DCDC shouldn't offer both. It's been 100% reliable for the many people I know that use it. In 1958, not only did Eisenhower introduced Satellite TV transmission but he also introduced color TV to the general public. By the way, I don't even own a TV, but my room mate has one and we only have free air to TV here. And I can get 60+ channels over it. HDTV transmission has lots of room for sub channels. Not that ANY of it is actually worth watching.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I disagree Marcel.
Look at TV today. It has been greatly accepted that Free-To-air TV is dead for everything but mainly Sport, and a little News. Similar pressures exist for distributing DCPs over satellite. Yes it does make sense but when you add all the added capabilities of a by-direction network link that has costs being commoditized to near $0. Satellite becomes limited in scope and also has a far bigger risk factor. For example, the number of films being distributed of late is greatly reduced due to covid. DCDC still has the same satellite running costs. General internet delivery scales as demand scales. Much safer business model and can scale without issue. (Risk costs money to mitigate..)

I've never claimed satellite distribution to be the alpha and omega, but in this case, it clearly has its merits. Is it a model that will work until the end of times? Since broadband access slowly makes its way into the most remote parts of the world, I guess not, but nobody knows how long this journey will take.

You can also see their model as an advantage. If their customer base covers the costs, there is almost zero added OPEX and CAPEX for any new subscriber, at least on the distribution part of their network.

Going rates are about $200 per committed MBit a month. Since you can use spare capacity on a lot of cheaper transponders on non-prime satellites, you can probably even get better rates with good commitments. We don't know what kind of contracts they've made with their satellite distributors, but there's no need for them to be on any prime spot in the sky. I know a lot of companies are over-paying for satellite service, but if they're just halfway smart, their infrastructure cost can be pretty limited.

Plus, I believe that, like with Emails, those who use Email have their own client of preference. They do this as its cost effectively the cheapest to achieve the goal and flexible enough to best suit the end user. I see a similar outcome eventually for receiving data (Or in this case DCPs).
Plus, and a huge problem we had when pricing this was many shopping centres wanted $1000 per month to allow a satellite disk on the roof of the shopping centre. So many issues...
Plus, like in Asia, so many regions none big enough to justify a satellite..
Remember, DCDC came into existence as Deluxe and Technicolour were setting up competing services. This was abandoned due to . even with the highest cinema density count in the world, being the US, they couldn't make the numbers work. The studios had to form DCDC.

I don't see this as a "client application", this is more a means of distribution, much more like the "CPE" of your provider. They provide an end-to-end content delivery service. My e-mail client in this case, is much more the server I use to play back the content, which I'm still free to choose myself. Satellite distribution requires some pretty specific hardware, which I don't want to bother with myself. Heck, most people have someone to install their dish and satellite receiver for them, because they don't really want to bother with the details. This application is so niche, do we really need an open standard with 5 different clients for it? Is there even a market for that?

As for shopping centers wanting $1000 for roof access: Most shopping malls will probably have access to fixed broadband, so their tenants now do have an alternative and given the fact that a lot of those malls are struggling to keep their tenants, they may as well rethink those kind of hostile strategies.

Plus, if you do setup a internet based delivery solution, having a Satellite one just duplicates infrastructure. Again. No, does not make any business sense.

Sorry, Satellite is simply not a good path and is a ankar around the neck of whomever runs one.

I see satellite as a very viable option in locations where broadband via fixed lines isn't readily available. It makes less sense nowadays in most urban areas where there are a plethora of broadband options available, but there are still a lot of remote areas around the globe where access to fixed broadband is almost impossible to achieve. Also, if the infrastructure is already there, I don't see any problem in actively using it.

New developments like Starlink may prove to be even more effective, especially if they manage to get their inter-satellite links working the way they envision them to work. It may even be a game-changer for latency in many remote locations. Not very important for DCP delivery, but pretty important for any interactive broadband services.

Yeah, and I even offered to pay for the service and they wouldn't even answer my last couple of emails. As it is now, their service is starting to look kind of old-fashioned, especially the part where they download every movie in release to every local system. Deluxe is tying theirs into their booking platform so it will only download what you need, which even in a large multiplex would decrease bandwidth needs substantially.

It's strange they're allowing themselves this kind of level of arrogance. I guess a bit of competition serves them well...

As for DCDCs model of downloading everything: It's the way their technology works. They don't have a one-on-one connection with the device like Deluxe has over the Internet. Deluxe will save bandwidth and money by not sending you what you don't need. The DCDC way of operating is that they broadcast all the DCPs they have over the airwaves, much like a continuous TV program, your server simply saves everything, just in case you need it later on. That's also why they can't simply do individual deliveries per location, the bandwidth is shared with everybody who listens in to their "program".

Yeah, their technology is "more backwards" in that sense, but if you have sufficient subscribers, it's also highly efficient, as you just pay once for the bandwidth, no matter how many subscribers there are.

[James Gardiner]

Sorry Mercel,
It does not work like you think. The fact DCDC had to step in to replace the efforts of Deluxe and Technicolour when it started is a clear indication of this fact. It's far more complex and has more regional issues that makes satellite footprints and density of cinemas covered for more problematic. Satellite is mainly used for real time delivery requirements that is REQUIRED for news and sports, And that is predominantly what it is used for today. Why use a real time delivery solution when you don't need to (It has higher costs). DCPs can use whatever is the cheapest delivery carrier available. Typically that is not satellite due the reasons mentioned.
Plus satellite delivery REQUIRES remote management of boxes at every site. (Not cheap at all). Do you need a remotely managed server to to use DropBox, or many other data delivery services or CDNs? (No)

And again. It makes no sense to double up of delivery infrastructure as it COSTS to maintain it. Commercially I don't see the benefit. Yes you could have a satellite system servicing a region like the U.S but most of the rest of the world HAS TO BE INTERNET DELIVERY as they will never have a satellite density that make it viable. SO, you always going to have to implement Internet type deliveries. Then we talking about keeping multiple infrastructures. Due support teams and tech issues. blar blar..

Starlink does sound interesting.. But it's more of a internet delivery implementation, using low orbiting satellites, It's not equivalent. Not sure they can to multicast either.. (1 to many IP broadcast.) The design as I understand it may not be suited to IP multicast.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Sorry Mercel,
It does not work like you think. The fact DCDC had to step in to replace the efforts of Deluxe and Technicolour when it started is a clear indication of this fact. It's far more complex and has more regional issues that makes satellite footprints and density of cinemas covered for more problematic. Satellite is mainly used for real time delivery requirements that is REQUIRED for news and sports, And that is predominantly what it is used for today. Why use a real time delivery solution when you don't need to (It has higher costs). DCPs can use whatever is the cheapest delivery carrier available. Typically that is not satellite due the reasons mentioned.

I've literally worked on satellite based data distribution systems in the past, but hey... what ya know...

DCP delivery can be done on satellites that aren't considered to be in the prime window and are therefore offer pretty cheap bandwidth. Like I mentioned, $200 per month per mbit is a common going rate nowadays for PRIME constellations. I guess you can fit everything nicely within 50 MBit so, your satellite bandwidth would set you back like about $10K/month. It doesn't matter if you have one subscriber or 1 million, it will cost the same. So, satellite bandwidth really isn't the big cost-factor here, you'll be paying much more on your payroll and customer equipment expenses.

DCP delivery via satellite is done via broadcast, by a continuous stream of data, that includes a lot of checksum information. Features are usually repeated multiple times, in order to ensure delivery when service wasn't available somewhere, e.g. due to inclined weather. That's why your server needs to be listening all the time. You also can't simply order any DCP that isn't "in the program". That's also why they can't offer any traditional IP services via their service, it's a broadcast service, not a high-bandwidth bi-directional service.

The system is obviously way less flexible than Technicolor's content delivery system, but it's distribution model will be cheaper, as long as they can maintain a certain number of clients. The biggest advantage though is that this system will also be available in those areas were no broadband will cut it...

Plus satellite delivery REQUIRES remote management of boxes at every site. (Not cheap at all). Do you need a remotely managed server to to use DropBox, or many other data delivery services or CDNs? (No)

Technicolor obviously choose to implement a box at the customer location, so I don't see any difference here. Since the box is a big cost-factor if not the biggest, I guess they thought pretty well about implementing their service this way. I guess having people download 100 GB+ files from "DropBox" isn't really the way they envision how stuff should work.

Content delivery could eventually be integrated into servers or LMS systems, but I guess Deluxe & co. aren't willing to give away that level of control, also, it would require an open standard first and a bunch of software developers to agree upon an API.

And again. It makes no sense to double up of delivery infrastructure as it COSTS to maintain it. Commercially I don't see the benefit. Yes you could have a satellite system servicing a region like the U.S but most of the rest of the world HAS TO BE INTERNET DELIVERY as they will never have a satellite density that make it viable. SO, you always going to have to implement Internet type deliveries. Then we talking about keeping multiple infrastructures. Due support teams and tech issues. blar blar..

What double infrastructure are we talking about? DCDC has been around for a while now, the satellites they're using are already there and certainly aren't the newest ones. And as I've indicated, the satellite bandwidth isn't all that expensive, at least not on non-prime satellites. Have you ever looked at what a load of crap fta-TV content there is on many transponders on many prime satellite constellations nowadays? You think those companies are paying millions and millions a year to get that crap out there?

A satellite based distribution system for DCPs doesn't really make sense in Europe, as the availability of wired broadband is almost universal, especially in locations where you usually find a cinema. But I guess that for a continent like Africa, where datarates are still extremely high and wired broadband certainly isn't a given, it could still make a lot of sense.

Starlink does sound interesting.. But it's more of a internet delivery implementation, using low orbiting satellites, It's not equivalent. Not sure they can to multicast either.. (1 to many IP broadcast.) The design as I understand it may not be suited to IP multicast.

Starlink, if it ever works at scale, would be the definitive end of services like DCDC.

[James Gardiner]

Mercel, yes, I was the CTO of a company that had a satellite IP service for a while. I also scoped out satellite delivery for Australia as part off a submission. Based on this work and study of the industry and how DCPs are generally very regionalises. Yes we do have OV and VF files, but in general, new cuts of a OV file is used in different regions (Ie think per country). Yes, there are satellites that cover larger areas, but then you took these issues into account. It is only regions like the U.S. that the amount of data applicable to the locations under a satellite made commercial sense.
But I must admit, the costs your sprouting are far cheaper like at least more than half based on the prices we were quoted at the time four the regions of the world we were looking at. From what I understand, it's a supply/demand. Less satellites with footprints over the regions we were looking to service. So costs much higher I guess..

But like I am saying, if satellite only really makes sense over the U.S. Maybe the UK. And the rest of the world, Internet delivery is more commercially viable. At what stage does it become a no brainer just to go with a single type of system.. And that point will be reached eventually..

I think Content delivery SHOULD be integrated into TMS systems based on open source technologies. That's why my cinema-catcher-server tool set uses. All based on open protocols. If I can do it. I think the industry can do it. We just need some entities to pick up this torch.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Mercel, yes, I was the CTO of a company that had a satellite IP service for a while. I also scoped out satellite delivery for Australia as part off a submission. Based on this work and study of the industry and how DCPs are generally very regionalises. Yes we do have OV and VF files, but in general, new cuts of a OV file is used in different regions (Ie think per country). Yes, there are satellites that cover larger areas, but then you took these issues into account. It is only regions like the U.S. that the amount of data applicable to the locations under a satellite made commercial sense.
But I must admit, the costs your sprouting are far cheaper like at least more than half based on the prices we were quoted at the time four the regions of the world we were looking at. From what I understand, it's a supply/demand. Less satellites with footprints over the regions we were looking to service. So costs much higher I guess..

I've seen multiple IP-over-Satellite startups come and go in Europe, some from up close. IP-over-satellite is much harder to do than simple broadcast, especially if you want to run the "return channel" over satellite, which is were the real bandwidth-limiting factor is. Also, the huge latency of geostationary constellations are killing for modern application like VoIP or video conferences. But satellite bandwidth has been coming down steadily over the last years in most regions. A lot of real-time content delivery has since also moved to 4G and 5G, to the point that even broadcasters are now increasingly relying on terrestrial mobile than satellite. I guess that did have an effect on the market. The fact that the cruise and airline industries have been decimated the last two or so years also isn't helping, those industries are still highly dependent on satellite services.

But like I am saying, if satellite only really makes sense over the U.S. Maybe the UK. And the rest of the world, Internet delivery is more commercially viable. At what stage does it become a no brainer just to go with a single type of system.. And that point will be reached eventually..

In the long run, satellite based DCP distribution will go the way of the dodo, but it's hard to say how long it will take. Some places seem to be notoriously hard to service with broadband and the U.S. seems to be a special fractured market, where large parts of the country are simply left behind, because there is no profit to be made there. A DCP satellite delivery service makes little sense in most of Europe (Belgium needs at least 2 versions of everything, the Netherlands even needs a different version than Flanders and more importantly, all countries operate on different release schedules...), although modern satellites can do beam-forming and target specific areas with different content on the same frequencies. But Europe is too diversified and pretty wired up already. Still, what about Russia? Africa and vast part of China, India, etc.? Markets that will share a lot of the inventory and can be reached via a handful of satellites.

I think Content delivery SHOULD be integrated into TMS systems based on open source technologies. That's why my cinema-catcher-server tool set uses. All based on open protocols. If I can do it. I think the industry can do it. We just need some entities to pick up this torch.

More important to me than Open Source is Open Standards, but in an industry so niche as this, even an open standard is often hard to come by.

Update: About a year or two ago, before COVID19 hit, we were actually working on a content delivery prototype for big content files, based on a bittorent-like technology, where content doesn't simply originate from a central server, but can be efficiently distributed along the network by pulling chunks from local peers. Although this wasn't strictly intended for DCPs, a similar way of content distribution could also be used to deliver DCPs via a cost-effective way.

[Leo Enticknap]

Stepping back from the minutiae of satellite vs. wired Internet for delivery, the takeaway from this for me is that the major content distributors want to to phase out content delivery by means of shipping physical media (CRU drives, in most cases). When digital cinema began, there was simply no alternative, because almost no theater had the ability to receive between 100-200GB online in a viable timescale. A majority of theaters worldwide now either do, or can be subsidized to get there for less than the cost of maintaining the duplication, warehousing, and shipping infrastructure needed to move drives around. Assuming that the new Deluxe offering proves viable and reliable for smaller venues and those with only rural quality wired broadband access, I expect to see an announcement in anywhere from one to three years, announcing the discontinuation of physical media as a delivery option.