|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
While I wholeheartedly endorse and applaud your effort, and 100% agree that
the results be published, potential loss of advertising revenue isn't the only
reason that a publication might not publish your results, there is more.
:Let me ask you the following questions: (these only relate to the internet
feeds): Did you do the test from many representative parts of the country?
Just because you can get slow performance in LA, you might still get great
performance in NYC or even San Diego. Depends on where their server
farms are located.
Did you use a number of ISP's in each location? If you didn't use at least the
top 5-10 ISPs in various locations, you can't determine if poor performance
may be ISP based.
In evaluating ISPs a few years ago, a study was put out that got hammered,
because the testing was not representative enough. This may also be on the
mind of any potential publishers of your results.
Just a few considerations.
But, I'd personally still be interested in the results.
On 17 Aug 99, at 16:05, Carroll Slemaker wrote:
> Some have suggested that I seek publication elsewhere. Actually, I'm not
> actively seeking publication - I'm too busy as it is. But if anyone else
> wants to pursue the issue, I'll gladly supply the data and interpretation.
>
> Stay tuned - I've not finished yet. DBC apparently is telling inquirers
> that use of the Internet (Web, FTP, e-mail) concurrently with ESignal access
> will not adversely affect data reception (I was told this months ago, and I
> received a report from another subscriber that he was told the same). But I
> remain
> skeptical and intend to study the issue as soon as my data source (an
> ESignal subscriber) can conduct my suggested experiment and send me the
> data.
>
> Regards,
> Carroll Slemaker
>
|