|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
yep, i agree entirely larry....it's like when dtv sends an ecm to zap the
pirate cards, but gets 5-10% of the legit sub cards instead. then they
get the deafening howl from the paying banshees and adios ecm plan "A" or
on to ecm plan "B" :))
TJ
either you or i were bitchin the loudest.....i'm an original lotus black
box signal / equatorial sat to fnn to unfortunately dbc to bmi sat to dbc/bmi
to whatever that's not i-net delivery
gazing to the immediate future, larry, what do you recommend??? i've hooked
up bmi with umds and bay options.....real serious question, man.............
At Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:03:55 -0500, "Lawrence Chan" <stnahc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>the # of ticks from BMI for futures, especially sp, is almost
>always very close to the time & sales count.
>they specially made the the sp symbol to have precedence
>over other symbols such that they get less complains (I was
>one of those who keep calling).
>
>the problem lies more in the stocks as the bmi feed including
>the sat version, cable version, etc. usually has 1/4 of the ticks
>lost in space for the busy stocks ... thus the volume total is wrong,
>so is the tick count ... and that % lost is consistent with the
>calculation I posted earlier about the bandwidth capacity bottleneck.
>
>IF BMI is listening - all they have to do is to drop all the news items,
>all the option data (it is almost useless now as they strip 90% of the
>option data already) and the feed will be able to handle the current
>mkt condition. BUT in a few yrs, I can't imagine that they can
>still keep up...
|