|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Reading the "dramatic" changes in price policy made me immediately call
CSI to verify about that. Obviously there was a misunderstanding of the
UA usage. Find below the reply from CSI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Mr. Holzner:
Thank you for your message. Before seeing your news, we had already
recinded that announcement. Please see below for some details.
A CSI letter recently sent out to a handful of CSI users cautioned
against excessive service use and the possibility of increased fees. As
it turned out, some of the letter recipients involved were under a
misapprehension that they had to build portfolios of thousands of data
series per day to capture any one of the many thousands of markets CSI
offers. Such an account would have fallen into CSI's Commercial
category. We are surprised that that false assertion made it to the
Omega List.
CSI is not imposing any additional fees. In fact CSI's 25,000
Stock, Mutual Fund and Index series is priced at only $12 per month, a
fee less than half that of the competition. We haven't heard any
complaints about that.
The policy announcement turned out to be predicated upon a mistake
and there are no plans to implement any increase in fees. Our license
agreement defines personal use and daily distribution of the entire
database would place such a user in a commercial category and that was
not the case in the cases reviewed.
Customer usage is clearly spelled out below the portfolio/charting
screen for version 2.1.0 of UA scheduled for imminent release. If a
user is clearly commercial, however he will be subject to increased
fees, but it takes an enormous amount of data to fall into that
category.
Regards,
Bob Pelletier.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> I got a letter in the mail today from CSI. In a nutshell, it stated that
> any retail client that accesses more than 15% of their EOD database will be
> subject to "surcharges". As I read it, they are attempting to charge from 2
> to 10 times the normal rate based on usage. So if in a month you access 16%
> of their files instead of 14-15% the month before, you will pay DOUBLE. I
> am not making this up. It gets worse from there. The scale goes up to
> where you are paying 10x the rate you signed up for if you use close to
> 100%. So much for backtesting across a broad range of markets.
>
> Their logic seemed to be that 99% of their customers use less that 15%, so
> therefore anyone who uses more must be cheating them in some way. I guess I
> am on the "bad list".
>
> All this goes into effect May 1.
>
> I am going to reserve any further comment until after I speak with them.
>
> Anyone else make the "list"?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
|