|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brian ("As Usual") Massey:
I figured that was your button! (:>}
Don
Brian Massey wrote:
> 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
> > > >
> >
|