|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Osborn <jimo@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 8:52 PM
Subject: Viability of Internet RT feed
>was: Re: WOW Internet Trader 7.0
>
>Tony Hass <sptradr@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>I'm considering PC Quotes Hyperfeed as a serious i-net feed.
>
>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. :)
>
>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.
>
>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?
>
>So, other than the points mentioned in the first paragraph,
>what's the attraction? Am I overlooking something obvious?
>
>Jim
>
>
Jim, For what it's worth, we currently use CQG as our quote service (for
about 15 years.) Recently we have been testing internet data feeds for
various parameters. I can tell you that the speed of reporting (CQG vs.
Signal internet) is virtually identical. I believe CQG to be the Rolls
Royce of vendors because of their clean data and reliability (of course the
price is out of sight) but we love the price and portability of browser
based quote systems--we will also be testing several other internet source
and would be pleased to report our results if of value to the group.
Regards, Jack.
|