Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > uk.telecom > #39412

Re: Engaged tone

From Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups uk.telecom
Subject Re: Engaged tone
Date 2026-04-19 21:56 +0100
Organization Frantic
Message-ID <82jyu21xfd.fsf@example.com> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <10s0sd8$31q5v$1@dont-email.me> <82cxzw9cp5.fsf@example.com> <10s257b$3qie5$1@dont-email.me> <82fr4rm6xh.fsf@example.com> <10s2vjj$36b8$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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?

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