|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
To all of you folks who are having problems with BMI/Signal and DTN, why are you not considering CQG (Commodity Quote Graphics)? They are more expensive, but it is a better service. Of all the things that we pay for in this business, it seems like clean, reliable data is critical, especially for intraday trading. A couple of hundred extra bucks a month is insignificant compared to what is at stake.
**Gerry Quigley
At 06:58 AM 12/5/98 -0700, Dick Crotinger wrote: >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... > > 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 > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry Quigley
e-mail: quig@xxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|