Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > uk.telecom > #39414

Re: Engaged tone

Show all headers | View raw

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

> On 19/04/2026 21:56, Richmond wrote:
>> David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On 19/04/2026 14:11, Richmond wrote:
>>>> ___ _ ___ _
>>>>
>>> This is "equipment engaged", and is the tone equivalent of "all lines
>>> to xxxx are busy, please try again later".  Done correctly, one length
>>> is louder than the other.
>>>
>>>> __ __ __ __ __
>>> This is "subscriber engaged", where the phone is ringing or off hook.
>>>
>>> "Number unobtainable", which is what you are looking for, is a
>>> continuous tone, although normally replaced by a voice announcement.
>> 
>
> Aren't these SS7 call status tones
>
>> On my router there are two phone sockets and these have internal phone
>> numbers **11 and **12 , so if I phone **11 from phone 1 I get a tone
>> which is actually the equipment engaged tone above, but it must be
>> coming from my router I guess because such a call need not go outside
>> the router. Or maybe these tones are actually transmitted as error code
>> and are then always translated into tones by the VOIP receiver or
>> router?
>> 
> well of course the call status is transmitted as a status code. The
> tones are generated locally! If the call isn't set up so you haven't
> selected a codec so you can't send a tone. Not sure if this is the
> current protocol defs...
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261
>

You say 'of course' as if it is obvious, but it isn't obvious to
me. When I had an analogue line the tone would have been sent as a sound
over the line in the same way as a voice. So how do I know that if I
make a call to an analogue line the tone isn't created in the system
somewhere and then sent as a sound (though digital) in the same way as
voice?

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