Viewdata vs Internet: boils down to money

Viewdata vs Internet: boils down to money

I am writing in reference to Mike Cogan’s letter (Travel Weekly November 12) regarding viewdata.

Cogan states viewdata is inefficient, cheap and past its sell-by date. For finding holidays it may well be, but for other applications it is ideal.

On our system, connected to Fastrack Direct, we can run a viewdata emulation that operates at 19,200 bits per second. For comparison purposes, our web connection is 33,600 bits per second, almost twice as fast. We could get a faster modem, but the limiting factor is the telephone lines, not the modem.

If I want to book a Eurotunnel or ferry crossing for a client, we do not need fancy search facilities, because we already know which route, dates and times the customer wants. We just want the fastest way of entering the data to send to the carrier’s system.

Here, viewdata is far more efficient than the Internet. Due to its origins in the days when data moved at far slower speeds, the data transferred is pared down to a minimum, without unnecessary graphics, fancy images or Javascript designed to ask you which computer operating system and web browser you are using.

Just dates and times of travel and maybe a choice of route and cabin needs to be sent to the carrier. They just send us the confirmation number. It is quick, easy and highly efficient. The limiting factor, as far as time is concerned, is usually reading the data off the client’s booking form before keying it into the system.

So which do we use to book our clients? Ideally viewdata. In practice, as far as Eurotunnel at least is concerned, the Internet.

Why? Because we get a £2 discount for using the Internet, and this more than compensates us for the reservation taking three to four times longer.

Russell Hafter

Russell Hafter Holidays

Workington

Cumbria