|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Chris Baker wrote:
quoting BMI tech support:
> "At one time we were working on a data receiver that would
> receive data at 56K, but that project was dropped after it
> was found that there were too many problems.
>
Dick Crotinger writes:
Thanks for several corrections to my misimpression of this.
quoting BMI tech support:
> In the middle of next year we will be restoring tick volume
> on options to the datafeed. This data was first dropped
> when we switched to direct exchange datafeeds on options
> one month ago."
Dick Crotinger writes:
I would prefer to see them fix the price quotes on options that they
just finished "enhancing" by switching to the Signal ticker plant! DBC
claimed that Bridge was causing all the problems with option quotes, and
they would be fixed by November 2... the bid/ask prices *still* don't
work right. Until this works correctly, I consider BMI to be a
downgrade from Signal, datafeed speeds notwithstanding.
> Restoring tick data for options would seem to make the
> problem worse. I was told about a year ago that about
> 1/2 of BMI data feed customers receive data on cable...
<snip>
I believe that would be "1/2 of *Signal's* data feed customers
receive data on cable." My understanding was that BMI was strictly
satellite, but could be wrong here too. Minor point, I guess.
Signal never did offer tic volumes on options. In the BMI feed, it
is a datum of about 5 extra bytes in the options trade report (which is
otherwise about 15 or so bytes: ticker, price, possibly time), and
considering that changes to bid/ask pricing constitutes about 65% (???
SWAG on my part) of the bandwidth of the data feed (and probably 90% of
that portion consumed by options), tic volume is not a major
contribution. If it had been, the BMI of old would surely have left it
out in the first place.
Dick Crotinger
|