To: elmatador who wrote (36273 ) 10/16/2010 12:09:07 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 46821 Elmat, Jim, ftth... all, I've been following this discussion on HFT with considerable interest. I'd like to make two points: One: Microwave Radio shots are less costly, from a network latency perspective, than fiber. So why aren't microwave systems being employed in close-proximity settings, such as the distances between colos and ticker plants, instead of circuitous and sometimes serpentine fiber routes and fiber's inferior NVP (net velocity of propagation)? I suspect the answer to this is largely cultural and hype-related (FUD), owing to a kind of swarm mentality that Andrew Odlyzko discusses in one of his more recent writings, and in some ways similar to why copper has lasted so long in the enterprise, despite its inferior standing next to hybrid fiber-wireless-copper designs, in terms of copper's architectural impact on energy consumption and real-estate space requirements for equipment rooms and their attendant need for air conditioning. Two: Perhaps the best, if not the only way, to create a level playing field in HFT without intrdoducing additional algorithms into the mix (which would have the same effect), where distances are concerned, is to mandate that everyone use geostationary satellite links, which would introduce so much latency as to render the contribution of the medium so overpoweringly dominant a factor in the overall calculus as to render all speed algorithms and geographic vantage points moot. I've mentioned the use of microwave radio (One, above) to some practitioners, who look at me as though I were daffy. And of course, no one in the field that is so invested in the game would ever even consider neutralizing their long fought-for advantages by following Two. Just a couple of fermions for thought. FAC ------