Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > uk.telecom > #39408

Re: Engaged tone

Show key headers only | View raw

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 18/04/2026 22:32, Richmond wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So if you were given a phone number (making following a car accident
> and exchanging details with whoever gave you that number), and you
> phoned it and it was constantly engaged, you couldn't tell if it was
> genuinely engaged or, for example, an unobtainable fake number.
>
> I guess a few years ago you could call the BT operator to check, but
> how do you do it now? There are websites which claim to be able to
> check whether or not any number is real.
>
>> What's an example of an unobtainable number?
>
> Not sure for certain how to find one. I tried the Experian
> confirmation utility at <https://www.edq.com/phone-verification/> by
> testing it with +44 800000000 and it reported:
>
> "No coverage
>
> Unable to detect the live status for the telephone network."
>
> So I called 0800000000 and found it was a number for The Prudential!
>
> I decided to change tack and search on "UK telephone reserved
> codes". At
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialling_codes_in_the_United_Kingdom#Code_prefixes>,
> it states that phone numbers beginning 04 and 06 are reserved codes,
> but doesn't explain what that means. Just for confusion, at
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Structure>
> it says that 04 and 06 are "Not in use"!
>
> I tried 04123456789 from my mobile and got the engaged tone. I then
> tried 06123456789 and got the same thing. I don't use my mobile for
> many calls, and haven't to my knowledge called an unobtainable number
> before, although I've had an engaged tone calling numbers I know are
> ok. Looks like Voip calls and mobile calls treat unobtainable numbers
> in the same way. I wonder why; is it because they're digital? What
> about DV (non-Voip) calls?

I tried a number beginning with 01441 which should not exist as that
dialing code doesn't exist. I got a sound like this:

___ _ ___ _

Whereas when I called my own number I got:

__ __ __ __ __

So there is a difference.

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