Re: Engaged tone

Path	csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups	uk.telecom
Subject	Re: Engaged tone
Date	Sat, 18 Apr 2026 22:32:38 +0100
Organization	Frantic
Message-ID	<82cxzw9cp5.fsf@example.com> (permalink)
References	<10rkvi3$3vsri$2@dont-email.me> <82wly93f6d.fsf@example.com> <10s0sd8$31q5v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain
Injection-Info	solani.org; logging-data="590382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:MC7UIgrqj92eaEYlUZu3peXMBww= sha1:tzOsUG9f4xEimSVvhbr/E3quB3o=
X-User-ID	eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLvCnIoR3xL2F36VC8E0hEMumNHnQ5c5Jb9u2xGnlQNdvhqFxZLG/YuvwXVhEr
Xref	csiph.com uk.telecom:39406

Show key headers only | View raw

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 14/04/2026 13:22, Richmond wrote:
>> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> Years ago with POTS if you got a constantly engaged tone you could
>>> phone the operator and ask if there really was someone on the
>>> line. They could check and tell if there was a conversation going on
>>> or not, and perhaps the phone had been left "off the hook".
>>>
>>> I assume that this is still possible with purely analogue lines in
>>> some way, but what about Digital Voice?
>> I get an engaged tone when people hang up at the end of the call. I
>> think it comes from the router. It's probably the VOIP equivalent of
>> "Oops, something went wrong".
>
> It seems strange that an engaged tone should be used when the
> connection has been terminated; if you hang on long enough does it
> change to a "call terminated" tone? What tone do you get when you dial
> an unobtainable number?

I don't know, but I suppose if I got an engaged tone, I wouldn't know if
it was unobtainable or engaged.

What's an example of an unobtainable number?

Back to uk.telecom | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Engaged tone Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-14 09:57 +0100
  Re: Engaged tone Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-14 12:14 +0100
    Re: Engaged tone JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-04-14 20:07 +0100
    Re: Engaged tone Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-04-15 11:59 +0100
  Re: Engaged tone Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-04-14 13:00 +0100
  Re: Engaged tone Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-14 13:22 +0100
    Re: Engaged tone Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-18 22:17 +0100
      Re: Engaged tone Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-18 22:32 +0100
        Re: Engaged tone Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-19 09:54 +0100
          Re: Engaged tone Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-19 14:11 +0100
            Re: Engaged tone David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-19 17:24 +0100
              Re: Engaged tone Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-19 21:56 +0100
                Re: Engaged tone David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-19 22:24 +0100
                Re: Engaged tone Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-19 23:29 +0100
                Re: Engaged tone Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-20 08:53 +0100
                Re: Engaged tone David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-20 09:23 +0100
                Re: Engaged tone David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-20 09:18 +0100
          Re: Engaged tone Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-19 15:33 +0100

csiph-web