|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>I'm curious what the attraction of an internet feed is.
>Obviously, it's convenient for non-real-time data, end-of-day,
>or make-up data. And the ability to use a browser interface
>gives the promise of some platform independence - presumably
>your browser could run under Linux, or a Mac, and no-one would
>be the wiser. :)
The product we are thinking of releasing would run in a web browser, and it
would run real time. The attraction would be that you could have a data
vendor like CQG or PC Quote that could provide clean historical data called
upon demand. Many old problems are solved by providing a remote data base
of historical. Any platform that can run a browser could run the software.
You could have your custom studies local or remote also.
>But for a real-time situation, the question of reliability becomes
>paramount, and that means a connection to the net that is always
>there, especially during RTH. And from what I read, typical packet
>loss on internet routers runs above ten percent, not to mention the
>all-too-common configuration screwups that render portions of the net
>unreachable for minutes or hours. Believe me, as a list manager, I
>see plenty of this every day. This sounds potentially worse than the
>cable feed I abandoned because the cable company was so fond of
>playing with their equipment during market hours. My satellite feed
>has had exactly one outage in five years - when the Galaxy 4 bird
>lost it.
I have both a dedicated ISDN and a Cable Modem and both run around 40.00 a
month. Using either setup I have never had any problems that haven't been
self induced. The feed has been fast and dependable an several data feeds
on the Internet that I have tested. I also have satellite feed and have
compared the speed and found them to be virtually the same. The data
providers that have a (quote socket) are the ones that you will get the
fastest data from. This is a far cry from some data feed vendors which can
compare basically to email service.
>Then there's the cost; even if the data is free, what do people pay
>for that high-quality ISP? Last I checked (admittedly a while ago)
>people thought Eskimo's $100/month was a really good deal for 24/7
>connectivity. Yes, this is less than BMI's base fee, but when you add
>the cost of the extra telephone line (about $60 out here in the
>sticks, or maybe down to $30 if that new wide-area rate the local
>telco is considering goes through), it's not much less than BMI.
>DTN is even cheaper than BMI, and offers satellite service.
>I assume the RT exchange fees are the same for net feeds?
The cable modem is by far the way to go, 24/7 connection for 40.00 per
month total cost per month with around 150.00 setup fee.
The ISDN line is 40.00 a month (in my area) plus I paid 1000.00 per year for
24/7 connection with 15 IP addresses. I had to get a router 600.00 and a
hub 100.00 and some network cards 15.00 for each computer.
>
>So, other than the points mentioned in the first paragraph,
>what's the attraction? Am I overlooking something obvious?
For me its the convenience to have anything I need wherever I am, and not
have to worry about data corruption, data pasting ect. I like the idea of
landing somewhere and getting online and having everything I have at home at
my full disposal. I am not advocating that this will be the only method
that a software vendor should provide for their clients. However I have
great interest in the worlds needs and not the wants and desires of
stateside clients. I envision having a product that is native in the worlds
languages and is more than convenient for everyone to use. Satellite feed
will always have its place. I just think that as an alternative an online
service of extremely high quality would have great demand, especially if at
least on a delayed basis it was free. mb
>
>Jim
>
>
|