|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Tradergirl-
I feel I must respond to your diatribe, not in defense of DBC but in defense
of the truth, because that is what Mr. Prunty is telling Mr. Cummings. BMI and
DBC use essentially the same cable technology, the vertical blanking interval
of the television signal. This technology was originally introduced by DBC
MarketWatch. In 1990, Lotus Signal was bought by DBC and the technology was
passed to Signal. The VBI has 19 unregulated lines, each line capable of 4800
bps. Since the Signal feed was limited by the bandwidth of FM sideband, the
transmission technology used by Lotus Signal, they use two lines. BMI uses the
same technology but with four lines. This is DBC's current broadcast
technology. As you can see, it is only capable of 19.2, much less than even a
56 kps Internet feed, to say nothing of cable and DSL modems. So when Mr.
Prunty writes that "both Signal and BMI broadcast system boxes do not have the
bandwidth...", he is telling the truth.
Furthermore, DBC has never really been able to get the full cooperation of the
cable operators, who control the use of VBI within their local systems, to
make VBI a viable long term technology. Now digital tv, which does not pass an
unaltered VBI, will put the final nail in the coffin.
You are certainly correct that were DBC able to lease a entire nationwide
cable channel, they would have plenty of bandwidth. Even were such a
nationwide channel available, which it is not, it would be prohibitively
expensive and is therefore not a viable option. The Internet, satellite and
phone lines are the viable alternatives. Many locations, including New York
City, are unable to see satellites or mount dishes and a dedicated phone line,
at least in New York, is $400/month. Face reality, the Internet is the most
cost efficient distribution technology, being essentially free. Using
Dynastore with QFeed, I am paying $130 for data which used to cost me $300.
The universe of users of real time streaming quotes is too small to overcome
the cost advantage of the Internet with any other technology. I have no
difficulty maintaining the necessary symbols for my trading while using the
same cable modem for placing orders and generally surfing the net. I have a
back up DSL feed for another $50/mn.
Finally, to compare DBC to Microsoft is absurd. The data distribution business
is a fixed cost business, which encourages consolidation. BMI required cash
infusions every year that it was owned by Bonneville Broadcasting and was
never profitable on its own. Neither was Lotus Signal. I can assure you from
personal knowledge that were the combined investment in DBC, Signal and BMI
subjected to the scrutiny of traditional business school investment
methodology and criteria, it would be a most unattractive investment.
JFB
NYC
Shaven Heads Trading
"[ tradergirl ]" <tradergirl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I received the following reply.
>
> Robert
>
> Mr. Cummings,
> Thanks for your email. Due to bandwidth constraints, broadcast systems,
> meaning both Signal and BMI broadcast system boxes do not have the
> bandwidth to keep up with the active trading that's occurring in today's
> markets. DBC makes no effort to conceal the situation.
> For this reason, DBC recommends eSignal to all existing and prospective
> customers. Internet is the only medium with a wide enough bandwidth to
> transmit the data.
> Sincerely,
> L. D. Prunty
> Technical Support Representative
> http://www.dbc.com
>
> ^^ okay.
>
> What they are doing, since I am pretty damn good at computers, is telling
> you the Internet has more bandwidth than Cable. What they are doing is
> lying.
> Look at Cable modems. Look at television. Cable. The only thing faster
is
> a fiberoptic backbone, like coming in from an OC3.
>
> Basically, DBC is like a Microsoft, bought out all its competitors, to
waste
> all possibility of competition. Removed delayed BMI data, and forced its
> subscriber base to go for real-time. 10-min delayed from BMI was pretty
> darn good for $65/month. If you call them they push e-signal. Why?
> Because the profit-to-expense ratio is like pure profit for them.
>
> When they say that the Internet has wide enough bandwidth, they are lying
> through their teeth. Bonneville, or BMI was a great awesome company
> until DBC came in. Now DBC is burying the technology. Think you can
> monitor 2000 symbols and run a set of indicators looking for patterns
> across the internet? Think again. I don't want to be downloading non-stop
> with my cable modem. That is for other purposes. For my own internet
> experience, not solely for the purposes of Tradestaion.
>
> Additionally, look at 2000i. Why didn't they create a module to enable
> TS4 to get real-time data like they fed us for so many years. Why?
> Because none of these corporations are really traders, they don't
> think like us, they try to manipulate us, and give us stuff we DO NOT
> want.
>
> 90% of the indicators out there are like this. Playing to the Holy Grail
> philosophy, and most fail miserable. Inspired by greed, they lack the
> purity us traders desire in technology and innovation. These people
> are not traders, nor do they have traders spirits. Look how BMI made
> it so only one port on their three port box works. Why not have all
> three open up. What are they there for?
>
> What is this Radar thing Tradestation has. I mean, come on. All most
> of us need is a copy of TS 4, and some realtime, and we can kick butt.
> Some of us don't even use indicators. I don't. Price action itself is
> the best indicator, same with setups and patterns. Anyone agree?
>
> So there you have it. My commentary on the usurping of traders pockets
> with useless bells and whistles and manipulation by dataproviders. One
> day information will be free (thanks to the Open Source people), and
> these types of guys can disappear for all I care.
>
> I know if Gann, or Fibonacci, or Elliot were alive, they'd look at these
> tactics and think: What a bunch of jerks, Omega Research, DBC,
> ASCTrend, and 90% of them out there.
>
> Signed,
>
> Tradergirl
>
> ps. anyone using PatternSmasher? :)
>
>
|