Data doctor

As a GP who has invested £60,000 of my practice's money in computer systems and a further £60,000 in maintenance over 10 years, I am appalled at the prospect of having to retrain my staff and recover the inevitable data loss that occurs in transfer to another system (Blair's £40bn gamble on IT, April 25). This news has not been trailed in any information given to general practitioners. We are now paperless and the effort involved in the process has been enormous. Are we now to see others given a system and training while our efforts go unrewarded? Those of us involved in IT development have been frustrated by the piecemeal, uncoordinated growth of hospital computer systems where the system in the surgical directorate will not "talk" to the system in the gynaecology department of the same hospital! The free market philosophy of the 1990s saw GPs presented with a choice of 32 non-compatible systems plus myriad self-built and maintained units. General practice could collapse under this imposition if it is not planned properly.

John Orchard

drjmorchard@aol.com

Digital defence

In response to Derek Roughton (Feedback, April 18) on the subject of broadband digital TV. I am an ex-employee of one of the country's major cable companies, and disagree that digital TV is likely to have lower quality pictures and sound than "a good quality receiver in a good analogue reception area". The amount of bandwidth available for digital means that even with the hundred or so channels provided by my previous employer, the picture and sound quality far exceeds that of its analogue product. There is room for plenty more channels on this digital service. Also, there are areas where an external aerial (and in some cases a satellite dish) is not permitted by local authorities, Milton Keynes being a prime example. That limits customers to choosing a cable provider for their television service. These people have little choice but to pay a fee on top of their licence fee. I would like to know which digital television service provider quoted him £300 to enable him to watch one channel while recording another. My ex-employer would advise one of these two solutions: use an external analogue aerial with a signal combiner to provide an additional set of "terrestrial" channels or rent an additional set-top box that would provide a duplicate set of all the channels to which he subscribes for a monthly rental charge of around £10. And the cost of installing this equipment?It should cost between £50 and £75, depending on the area. The provider? The much-maligned NTL.

Michael Chowdhury

michael_chowdhury@hotmail.com

Switch off ads

I agree with Derek Roughton. The differences between digital and analogue TV are not comprehended, least of all by the government, which feels that 95% of the population "going digital" will be sufficient for them to switch off analogue. Households will only be able to watch (or record) one channel instead of the five they can currently access for the price of their licence. The way forward is to persuade the viewing public to want to switch to digital providers such as Sky, where the number of adverts currently accounts for 20 minutes in every hour. This makes it virtually unwatch able. The regulator should ensure at least 50 minutes of program content in each hour. He should also stop such things as Sky's insistence that all boxes are permanently attached to the telephone. This is a restrictive practice to tie viewers to their sales and quizzes.

Barry Joyce

barryjoyce@tiscali.co.uk

Location is all

"People with mobile phones still look at their watches if they want the time or the date. That is completely unnecessary..." (What's new, April 18). Unnecessary, but convenient. I can "glance" at the time on my watch, rather than find my phone and "read" the time. Users are used to looking at their wrists for authoritative, easily understood information. No one is more interested in this than watchmakers, notably Timex, who have declared: "Timex is interested in the real estate of the wrist. It's location, location, location. The wrist is the most accessible place on the body."

Paul May

paul.may@verista.com

One handed

Is it really an anachronism to look at our watches when we have a mobile as Victor Keegan suggests (What's new, April 18)?I find it easier to look at something stationary on my wrist, than find the mobile in a pocket. It would be better to migrate functions the other way: have the screen and keypad on, say, a wrist where it's less stealable and easier to get to one handed.

Andii Bowsher

andiibowsher@blueyonder.co.uk