|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
David wrote:
> I meant Isn't signal slower than BMI?
> Does that mean the indexes will actually be slower?
>
Well, yes and no. The original Signal black box (back when it was run
by Lotus) was 9.6Kb... the next upgrade of this product was double the
speed, at 19.2Kb. At that point, BMI was faster than anything Signal
offered, at 38.4Kb (where it remains today).
Since those days of yesteryear, Signal has come out with a cable feed at
56KB, so that is the faster alternative. They bought BMI to obtain the
fast satellite capability (and to eliminate competition, of course).
For sheer bandwidth (via satellite) this is the fastest medium currently
available at DBC.
I'm currently running DTN side-by-side with BMI... DTN runs at 115KB, so
is triple BMI's speed. My impression is that DTN pumps the quotes a
good bit faster for most markets (the same quote on stocks arrives up to
a minute quicker on DTN)... BUT it's really apples and oranges, since
they both use different compression technologies in the datafeed, BMI's
being the more efficient. This means that BMI would assume the quicker
delivery in burst (fast market) situations. It's still not clear to me
which I like better. I'd hoped the options side of DTN would be
superior, but so far, I'm not convinced.
Whether or not this expedites the delivery of indexes would depend on
whether the index is computed by DBC or by the data source (i.e., the
exchange)... my guess is that BMI used to pass through the index quotes,
versus Signal computing it in-house, but I'm not sure of this. Now that
BMI and Signal feeds are borne of the same womb, index delivery speed
would be predicated on the speed of the medium alone.
Dick Crotinger
|