In article <Uhw8S0zYrR+FFwvo@zen50073.zen.co.uk>, Paul Harris
<nospam@127.0.0.1> writes
>In message <pan.2007.03.14.22.40.09.407169@t.om.myy>, Tommy
><tommy@t.om.myy> writes
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:38:56 +0000, Geoff Winkless wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6449557.stm
>>>
>>> About time too!
>>
>>The excuse for not allowing mobiles in hospitals was that it could
>>interfere with hospital equipment. I believe it did interfere with some
>>equipment called "Patient Line".
>>
>They won't want to lose a profit centre so the new excuse will probably
>be that most mobile phones have cameras or video recorders and some
>even have nasty ring tones.

The camera thing is a problem. I'd never use a camera in a hospital on a
person (unless they consented) but there are plenty of peasants out
there who do things simply because they can without giving any thought
or consideration to anyone else. If phones were just phones, they'd be a
lot more acceptable in other places too - like changing rooms for
example.

As to Patientline, 10ppm outgoing is less of a rip off but at 39/49ppm
for incoming calls, screw 'em. How anyone can design a business model
that relies on ripping people off when they or their friends/relatives
are ill in hospital beggars belief.
--
Peter