|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
And one more thing. Another reason why DBC wouldn't cut stocks is not only
because they want to bleed BMI to death period but because it would expose
the ugly truth about DBC. It would expose the ugly truth that no matter how
much bandwidth you had, BMI cable subscribers would still be 30 seconds to a
minute behind the market!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Massey [mailto:bnm03@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 12:35 AM
> To: List, Omega
> Subject: RE: Comstock and quote.com
>
>
> I don't know how long you've been around this (you're a recent
> newbie) but, AS USUAL, you've missed the point here. The point
> was that before DBC bot BMI, there ** was ** more bandwidth,
> according to the numbers. I don't know what happened to it but I
> think they sold it. They aren't adding bandwidth because the
> future of data feed isn't cable and we all know that. So just
> chill out cause (AS USUAL) you don't have all the data. I've
> been dealing with DBC probably longer than you've been trading
> and I know DBC and the games they play, just as well as anybody.
> And believe me, it was WITH GREAT PLEASURE the day I dropped
> their feed and told them to f-off **.
>
> If this list is any indication then DBC is loosing BMI cable
> customers to competitors. How well DBC fares will be determined
> by how well they convert people over to eSignal. BMI is dead in
> the water! I went leafing through some recent issues of TASC and
> couldn't find a single ad for BMI. Found at least 1 in each
> issue for e-signal but none for BMI. The last 1 for BMI I
> remember seeing was about a year back. It appears as if DBC is
> intentionally trying to bleed off BMI. And recent comments on
> the this list attributed to BMI reps seem to indicate the same.
> Nothing is going to change yet market activity will increase and
> delays will get longer, and data quality worse. Nothing will
> change because the current system is in place and to change
> anything would cost more money.
>
> There are probably lots out ther who do both stocks and futures.
> So completely dropping stocks would be stupid. That'd be a sure
> way to loose a bunch of customers right now instead of loosing
> them slowly. Trading stocks off BMI (so called) RT on a 60, 30,
> 15 or even 5 minute time frame isn't that bad right now. In
> fact, it's pretty damn good. So why would BMI drop stocks since
> the moajority of their customer base probably trade stocks???
> Wake up Don. BMI is not going to stop broadcasting stocks.
> That's just you dreaming with your head in cow pod again. There
> always has been more stock traders than futures traders though
> some sheltered individuals on this list think that the universe
> revolves around the futures markets. It doesn't.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Don Roos [mailto:roos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 10:08 PM
> > To: bnm03@xxxxxxx; Omega Group
> > Subject: Re: Comstock and quote.com
> >
> >
> > JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT OUT
> TO GET YOU!
> >
> > Of course they could add bandwith: but everything has a price.
> > Apparantly the
> > bottom line indicates that it would not be profitable. Only if
> > the competition
> > is eating up their customer base will they make the changes necessary to
> > compete. Otherwise, it's business as usual, which is "do
> > nothing". There's no
> > conspiracy. Just a business decision, however strange it seems
> > to us. The
> > rumor about real time for the price of delayed would be just
> cutting their
> > profits with no big benefit. And the exchanges would laugh in
> > their face to be
> > asked to waive the exchange fees. The best idea that I can see
> > is to go to
> > futures only, like TJ has said, to improve their quality
> > dramatically, which
> > would allow them to continue with high prices. But you can't
> > have both poor
> > quality and high prices or you die as a business. ("Dah, it
> > gives me a clean
> > close shave, coach").
> >
> > Don
> >
> > Brian Massey wrote:
> >
> > > "I don't buy for a second the
> > > BMI claim that they can't add bandwidth."
> > >
> > > I'll go even one further: I bet they slow it intentionally.
> What ever
> > > happened to BMI's brand new 56K V-Line before DBC bought BMI out? I
> > > remember having to back down to 36.6 after DBC got their grimy
> > ass hands on
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Riddle me that DBC, you fn crooks!
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dennis Holverstott [mailto:dennis@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 1:18 PM
> > > > To: Omega List
> > > > Subject: Comstock and quote.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Riddle me this. :-) Everyone seems to praise Comstock as a "premium"
> > > > data feed and everyone ridicules quote.com's obviously crummy
> > EOD data.
> > > > Problem is quote.com gets their crummy data from Comstock. So is
> > > > Comstock really any good or does everyone just assume it is
> because it
> > > > costs so much? Will tradestation.com have the same crummy
> EOD data as
> > > > quote.com?
> > > >
> > > > ps - sorry TJ but I'll take realtime quote.com tick data for
> > the e-mini
> > > > over BMI any day. You must have lousy internet service to be
> > so critical
> > > > of quote.com. It ain't perfect but, on balance, it's a better
> > tick feed
> > > > than BMI.
> > > >
> > > > pps - I'll second the hope that DTN doesn't go away. They
> are a Bridge
> > > > feed which seems to have better EOD data than Comstock and they have
> > > > enough bandwidth to handle all the ticks. I don't buy for a
> second the
> > > > BMI claim that they can't add bandwidth. They just want to force
> > > > everybody to use E-Signal cuz it's cheaper and easier for
> > them. Problem
> > > > is there are better internet feeds than E-Signal so it's
> lose/lose for
> > > > DBC and BMI.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dennis
> > > >
> >
|