Discussion:
Can one use an old rotary phone and a bellset, with ADSL?
(too old to reply)
Peter
2019-06-21 20:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi All,

Clearly this is not a common requirement!

I am asking for a friend of mine. He has this

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

He has installed ADSL and the BT guy disconnected the stuff he had.

I an very much into hardware (analog and digital) but have never
messed with PSTN etc stuff.

I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires so probably pulse
dialling is incompatible with ADSL.

He may have to get a rotary phone which does tone dialling; I am sure
they exist in today's hipster era :)

But what about the ringer?

His phones are connected via a microfilter, as they should be.

Very many thanks for any tips.

Peter
Woody
2019-06-21 20:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Hi All,
Clearly this is not a common requirement!
I am asking for a friend of mine. He has this
http://peter-ftp.co.uk/screenshots/20190621114795420.jpg
http://peter-ftp.co.uk/screenshots/20190621554805420.jpg
He has installed ADSL and the BT guy disconnected the stuff he had.
I an very much into hardware (analog and digital) but have never
messed with PSTN etc stuff.
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires so probably pulse
dialling is incompatible with ADSL.
He may have to get a rotary phone which does tone dialling; I am sure
they exist in today's hipster era :)
But what about the ringer?
His phones are connected via a microfilter, as they should be.
Very many thanks for any tips.
This was known as a Plan 4. In simple terms you could have a number of
sockets around the house with a jack plug as in the pictures. The phone
bell came out on two rings of the plug so that when you plugged it in
the bell was wired in series with any other bells on the circuit.
However there was also a separate stand-alone bell such that if you
unplugged all phones the bell box would come into circuit (and only
then) making it was impossible to put yourself out of service (which you
<are> allowed to do today.) The serial bell wiring went through the rest
switch of each phone so that if someone picked up a handset and dialled
the bells on theother phones on the circuit would not tinkle.

I don't see why pulse dialling should be incompatible with ADSL given
that the ADSL signal is a radio frequency signal. Worst case you would
need to put a small resistor in parallel I would have thought. Don't
worry someone (maybe Angus) will be along soon to correct me!
--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
MissRiaElaine
2019-06-21 23:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
I don't see why pulse dialling should be incompatible with ADSL given
that the ADSL signal is a radio frequency signal. Worst case you would
need to put a small resistor in parallel I would have thought. Don't
worry someone (maybe Angus) will be along soon to correct me!
You could always use one of these

https://www.dialgizmo.com/index.html

They're designed for VoIP and they say you shouldn't use them on direct
lines, but they do work, at least they did on my line when I tried it.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Mike Humphrey
2019-06-21 21:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires so probably pulse
dialling is incompatible with ADSL.
No, pulse dialling does work with ADSL. We've got a rotary dial phone at
the office on a line with ADSL, and it doesn't affect the ADSL when you
dial. Pulse dialling is the equivalent of hanging up briefly (you can
even dial using the hookswitch if you can time it right) so it shouldn't
have any effect really. Having said that, we don't actually use the dial
for making calls - in the modern age of 10-digit phone numbers it's
amazing how slow it is compared to a tone dialling phone!
Post by Peter
He may have to get a rotary phone which does tone dialling; I am sure
they exist in today's hipster era :)
Bizarrely, yes they do - see https://www.amazon.co.uk/GPO-Classic-Vintage-
Telephone-rotary-Black/dp/B003MACWSS/ for example (note the extra digits
on the dial!)
Post by Peter
But what about the ringer?
Yes, old style bell ringers still work. They're just a phone without the
dial and handset really. You can also get electronic ones, which can be
even louder.
Post by Peter
His phones are connected via a microfilter, as they should be.
Yes, everything that's not the broadband router needs to go through a
filter.

Of course, the phone and ringer he's got aren't wired for connecting up
to a BT plug. You can find instructions online for converting them, or
buy pre-converted ones. Bells are still readily available new, https://
www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Telephones_and_Accessories_Index/
Telephone_Sounders/index.html for example.


Mike
The Natural Philosopher
2019-06-22 07:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Humphrey
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires so probably pulse
dialling is incompatible with ADSL.
No, pulse dialling does work with ADSL. We've got a rotary dial phone at
the office on a line with ADSL, and it doesn't affect the ADSL when you
dial.
The point is that provided you have a microfilter in the game shorting
the line does NOT short out ADSL since the microfilter has a coil in it
that will happily short out DC and low frequencies but represents a
considerable impedance to the HF/RF that broadband uses.

If it DOES affect it you almost certainly have a recifying corroded
joint somewhere that is affecting RF performance modulated by DC current.

I have certainly had links that dropped when I took the phone off hook
or answered a call.
--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."
The Natural Philosopher
2019-06-22 08:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires
???. I dont think so.

AFAICR 'on hook' is the same as phone unplugged. I.e. there is no DC
current (or very very little*) drawn by the phone at all. The bell is
connnected via a capacitor only, so that it's pure AC that causes the
bell to ring

Lifting the handset - going 'off hook' - puts a *resistance* across the
line. Current is now being drawn, The exchange detects that and reacts
accordingly.

The line voltage also drops. Not sure what to...


The act of dialling doesn't SHORT the line. It BREAKS the line. Thats
why it's (also) called 'loop disconnect' dialling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_dialing

*some phones draw a little power from the exhange to run LCD displays
clocks and the like. IIRC BT have a spec as to how much is allowable...I
cant find exact numbers but it looks like you can draw upt to 5mA (25mW
at 50V) without the exchange thinking you want to make a call and
sending dial tone, Off hook detection seems to be from 8 ma up to 75mA.
The line length is significant in this.

However "The telephone company wants the DC resistance of your line to
be about 10 megOhms when there's no apparatus in use ("on hook," in
telephone company jargon); you can draw no more than 5 microamperes
while the phone is in that state (modern phones draw current for memory
storage purposes and last no redial). "

So to play nice you want to draw not a lot at all
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
Woody
2019-06-22 08:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires
???. I dont think so.
AFAICR 'on hook' is the same as phone unplugged. I.e. there is no DC
current (or very very little*) drawn by the phone at all. The bell is
connnected via a capacitor only, so that it's pure AC that causes the
bell to ring
Lifting the handset - going 'off hook' -  puts a *resistance* across the
line. Current is now being drawn, The exchange detects that and reacts
accordingly.
The line voltage also drops. Not sure what to...
The act of dialling doesn't SHORT the line. It BREAKS the line. Thats
why it's (also) called 'loop disconnect' dialling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_dialing
*some phones draw a little power from the exhange to run LCD displays
clocks and the like. IIRC BT have a spec as to how much is allowable...I
cant find exact numbers but it looks like you can draw upt to 5mA (25mW
at 50V) without the exchange thinking you want to make a call and
sending dial tone, Off hook detection seems to be from 8 ma up to 75mA.
The line length is significant in this.
However "The telephone company wants the DC resistance of your line to
be about 10 megOhms when there's no apparatus in use ("on hook," in
telephone company jargon); you can draw no more than 5 microamperes
while the phone is in that state (modern phones draw current for memory
storage purposes and last no redial). "
So to play nice you want to draw not a lot at all
In theory the line volts should drop to about 4.5 when the handset is
lifted, but as said it depends on how far the phone is from the serving
exchange.

With modern remote line testing, a standard BT NTE5 termination box has
a 470K resistor across the line so that an o/c can be detected.
Surprisingly even 5Km of telephone line only has a resistance of a few
hundred ohms which is relatively tiny.
--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
Graham.
2019-06-22 19:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires
???. I dont think so.
AFAICR 'on hook' is the same as phone unplugged. I.e. there is no DC
current (or very very little*) drawn by the phone at all. The bell is
connnected via a capacitor only, so that it's pure AC that causes the
bell to ring
Lifting the handset - going 'off hook' - puts a *resistance* across the
line. Current is now being drawn, The exchange detects that and reacts
accordingly.
The line voltage also drops. Not sure what to...
The act of dialling doesn't SHORT the line. It BREAKS the line. Thats
why it's (also) called 'loop disconnect' dialling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_dialing
*some phones draw a little power from the exhange to run LCD displays
clocks and the like. IIRC BT have a spec as to how much is allowable...I
cant find exact numbers but it looks like you can draw upt to 5mA (25mW
at 50V) without the exchange thinking you want to make a call and
sending dial tone, Off hook detection seems to be from 8 ma up to 75mA.
The line length is significant in this.
However "The telephone company wants the DC resistance of your line to
be about 10 megOhms when there's no apparatus in use ("on hook," in
telephone company jargon); you can draw no more than 5 microamperes
while the phone is in that state (modern phones draw current for memory
storage purposes and last no redial). "
So to play nice you want to draw not a lot at all
if we are talking about a traditional vintage rotary dial phone, then
the diplomatic response is that you are both partially right.

Yes, dial pulse contacts are normally closed, and breifly open n times
corrisponding to the digit you dial, but another "off normal" pair of
contacts close when the dial is moved from its rest position and place
a short across the phone so that the pulses are not distorted by
reactive elements in the instrument and to stop the clicks deafening
the user. A further pair of off-normal N/O contacts may well be
placed across the earpiece.
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%
The Natural Philosopher
2019-06-22 20:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires
???. I dont think so.
AFAICR 'on hook' is the same as phone unplugged. I.e. there is no DC
current (or very very little*) drawn by the phone at all. The bell is
connnected via a capacitor only, so that it's pure AC that causes the
bell to ring
Lifting the handset - going 'off hook' - puts a *resistance* across the
line. Current is now being drawn, The exchange detects that and reacts
accordingly.
The line voltage also drops. Not sure what to...
The act of dialling doesn't SHORT the line. It BREAKS the line. Thats
why it's (also) called 'loop disconnect' dialling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_dialing
*some phones draw a little power from the exhange to run LCD displays
clocks and the like. IIRC BT have a spec as to how much is allowable...I
cant find exact numbers but it looks like you can draw upt to 5mA (25mW
at 50V) without the exchange thinking you want to make a call and
sending dial tone, Off hook detection seems to be from 8 ma up to 75mA.
The line length is significant in this.
However "The telephone company wants the DC resistance of your line to
be about 10 megOhms when there's no apparatus in use ("on hook," in
telephone company jargon); you can draw no more than 5 microamperes
while the phone is in that state (modern phones draw current for memory
storage purposes and last no redial). "
So to play nice you want to draw not a lot at all
if we are talking about a traditional vintage rotary dial phone, then
the diplomatic response is that you are both partially right.
Yes, dial pulse contacts are normally closed, and breifly open n times
corrisponding to the digit you dial, but another "off normal" pair of
contacts close when the dial is moved from its rest position and place
a short across the phone so that the pulses are not distorted by
reactive elements in the instrument and to stop the clicks deafening
the user. A further pair of off-normal N/O contacts may well be
placed across the earpiece.
Howver they cannot 'short the line' or the pulse dial wouldnt be detectable
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin
Graham.
2019-06-22 20:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Graham.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Peter
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires
???. I dont think so.
AFAICR 'on hook' is the same as phone unplugged. I.e. there is no DC
current (or very very little*) drawn by the phone at all. The bell is
connnected via a capacitor only, so that it's pure AC that causes the
bell to ring
Lifting the handset - going 'off hook' - puts a *resistance* across the
line. Current is now being drawn, The exchange detects that and reacts
accordingly.
The line voltage also drops. Not sure what to...
The act of dialling doesn't SHORT the line. It BREAKS the line. Thats
why it's (also) called 'loop disconnect' dialling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_dialing
*some phones draw a little power from the exhange to run LCD displays
clocks and the like. IIRC BT have a spec as to how much is allowable...I
cant find exact numbers but it looks like you can draw upt to 5mA (25mW
at 50V) without the exchange thinking you want to make a call and
sending dial tone, Off hook detection seems to be from 8 ma up to 75mA.
The line length is significant in this.
However "The telephone company wants the DC resistance of your line to
be about 10 megOhms when there's no apparatus in use ("on hook," in
telephone company jargon); you can draw no more than 5 microamperes
while the phone is in that state (modern phones draw current for memory
storage purposes and last no redial). "
So to play nice you want to draw not a lot at all
if we are talking about a traditional vintage rotary dial phone, then
the diplomatic response is that you are both partially right.
Yes, dial pulse contacts are normally closed, and breifly open n times
corrisponding to the digit you dial, but another "off normal" pair of
contacts close when the dial is moved from its rest position and place
a short across the phone so that the pulses are not distorted by
reactive elements in the instrument and to stop the clicks deafening
the user. A further pair of off-normal N/O contacts may well be
placed across the earpiece.
Howver they cannot 'short the line' or the pulse dial wouldnt be detectable
I tried to make that clear by saying across the phone rather than
across the line.

The two switches are effectively in series across the line and short
the line when you turn the dial. When you release the dial ONE switch
pulses by opening n times and when the dial returns to rest the SECOND
switch opens restoring the line voltage to the rest of the instrument.

Is that clearer?
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%
NY
2019-06-22 21:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham.
Yes, dial pulse contacts are normally closed, and breifly open n times
corrisponding to the digit you dial, but another "off normal" pair of
contacts close when the dial is moved from its rest position and place
a short across the phone so that the pulses are not distorted by
reactive elements in the instrument and to stop the clicks deafening
the user. A further pair of off-normal N/O contacts may well be
placed across the earpiece.
When we were staying in a holiday cottage on Orkney, the owner had a replica
Bakelite phone (*) which she said we were free to use because she was on a
tariff that did not charge extra for outgoing calls.

It was a very strange experience because a) it used DTMF rather than pulse
dialling, b) it sent the DTMF immediately the dial was released from the
chosen digit, c) the dial returned much faster than normal because it didn't
need to send pulses at slow, governed speed (10 pulses per second?).

Somehow I was expecting it to use pulse dialling and to have the oh-so-slow
dial return that I was used to with dial phones. The provision of a
last-number-redial button was rather anachronistic, but also very welcome:
I'd forgotten about the "joys" of having to dial an engaged number from
scratch every time.


(*) A bit like
Loading Image...,
though with a tacky gold dial and gold receiver rest. And it was too light:
probably some modern hard plastic instead of proper Bakelite.
Graham.
2019-06-22 21:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Graham.
Yes, dial pulse contacts are normally closed, and breifly open n times
corrisponding to the digit you dial, but another "off normal" pair of
contacts close when the dial is moved from its rest position and place
a short across the phone so that the pulses are not distorted by
reactive elements in the instrument and to stop the clicks deafening
the user. A further pair of off-normal N/O contacts may well be
placed across the earpiece.
When we were staying in a holiday cottage on Orkney, the owner had a replica
Bakelite phone (*) which she said we were free to use because she was on a
tariff that did not charge extra for outgoing calls.
It was a very strange experience because a) it used DTMF rather than pulse
dialling, b) it sent the DTMF immediately the dial was released from the
chosen digit, c) the dial returned much faster than normal because it didn't
need to send pulses at slow, governed speed (10 pulses per second?).
Somehow I was expecting it to use pulse dialling and to have the oh-so-slow
dial return that I was used to with dial phones. The provision of a
I'd forgotten about the "joys" of having to dial an engaged number from
scratch every time.
(*) A bit like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:GPO_232_Telephone_without_bell_set_26.JPG,
probably some modern hard plastic instead of proper Bakelite.
I have a genuine GPO 232 and because my home phone system is not
compatible with pulse dialling I have fitted it with a home-made pulse
to tone converter.

The project was a nice introduction for me
in programming the little 8 pin ATtiny85 microcontroller, and the
finished item works almost the same as this commercially available
item.

https://www.rotatone.co.uk/
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%
Woody
2019-06-23 07:27:57 UTC
Permalink
As we are talking about rotary dial phones you might find amusement in
this video - it needs sound....


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
NY
2019-06-23 19:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
As we are talking about rotary dial phones you might find amusement in
this video - it needs sound....
http://youtu.be/1OADXNGnJok
Brilliant. Of course we're all old enough to know, and can't remember a time
when we *didn't* know. But we all had to be taught how to dial a number.

The lad on the right worked it out, but the one on the left first realised
that you have to lift the receiver off the hook before starting to dial.

After a frustrating start, when I'm sure the older couple behind the camera
were itching to tell them the answer, they worked it out for themselves.
Bravo!


Now it's time for a confession. I'm 56 but it was only a few years ago that
I learned that if you receive an incoming call, you can hang up and *then*
go to another extension to continue the call. I had been taught by my
parents (and maybe they had been taught by *theirs*) that you had to keep
the answering receiver off-hook while you shouted out to the other person,
and wait until they have picked up before you can replace your receiver, to
avoid dropping the call. You can imagine the little dance if you answer the
call on phone 1 and want to go to phone 2 to continue: run to 2 and pick up,
run back to 1 and replace, run back to 2 and carry on talking.

That's a case of phones having a feature that no-one had ever told me
about - so how would I have ever worked it out for myself, if I'd been told
"don't hang up or you'll drop the call".
Woody
2019-06-23 20:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Woody
As we are talking about rotary dial phones you might find amusement in
this video - it needs sound....
http://youtu.be/1OADXNGnJok
Brilliant. Of course we're all old enough to know, and can't remember a
time when we *didn't* know. But we all had to be taught how to dial a
number.
The lad on the right worked it out, but the one on the left first
realised that you have to lift the receiver off the hook before starting
to dial.
After a frustrating start, when I'm sure the older couple behind the
camera were itching to tell them the answer, they worked it out for
themselves. Bravo!
Now it's time for a confession. I'm 56 but it was only a few years ago
that I learned that if you receive an incoming call, you can hang up and
*then* go to another extension to continue the call. I had been taught
by my parents (and maybe they had been taught by *theirs*) that you had
to keep the answering receiver off-hook while you shouted out to the
other person, and wait until they have picked up before you can replace
your receiver, to avoid dropping the call. You can imagine the little
dance if you answer the call on phone 1 and want to go to phone 2 to
continue: run to 2 and pick up, run back to 1 and replace, run back to 2
and carry on talking.
That's a case of phones having a feature that no-one had ever told me
about - so how would I have ever worked it out for myself, if I'd been
told "don't hang up or you'll drop the call".
I think actually now the case. If the called person hangs up a timer
starts and cuts the call quite quickly thereafter. This was about
stopping scammers keeping a line open and playing a recording of the
dial tone so that when the person being scammed rang their bank they got
the scammers again but this time pretending to be the bank.
--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
MissRiaElaine
2019-06-23 22:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by NY
Post by Woody
As we are talking about rotary dial phones you might find amusement
in this video - it needs sound....
http://youtu.be/1OADXNGnJok
Brilliant. Of course we're all old enough to know, and can't remember
a time when we *didn't* know. But we all had to be taught how to dial
a number.
The lad on the right worked it out, but the one on the left first
realised that you have to lift the receiver off the hook before
starting to dial.
After a frustrating start, when I'm sure the older couple behind the
camera were itching to tell them the answer, they worked it out for
themselves. Bravo!
Now it's time for a confession. I'm 56 but it was only a few years ago
that I learned that if you receive an incoming call, you can hang up
and *then* go to another extension to continue the call. I had been
taught by my parents (and maybe they had been taught by *theirs*) that
you had to keep the answering receiver off-hook while you shouted out
to the other person, and wait until they have picked up before you can
replace your receiver, to avoid dropping the call. You can imagine the
little dance if you answer the call on phone 1 and want to go to phone
2 to continue: run to 2 and pick up, run back to 1 and replace, run
back to 2 and carry on talking.
That's a case of phones having a feature that no-one had ever told me
about - so how would I have ever worked it out for myself, if I'd been
told "don't hang up or you'll drop the call".
I think actually now the case. If the called person hangs up a timer
starts and cuts the call quite quickly thereafter. This was about
stopping scammers keeping a line open and playing a recording of the
dial tone so that when the person being scammed rang their bank they got
the scammers again but this time pretending to be the bank.
It was certainly the case with GPO Strowger exchanges, the policy was
that as the calling party was paying for the call, they controlled the
circuit. But internal calls on PABX's were generally first-party
release, as there were no charges involved.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Tim+
2019-06-23 21:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Woody
As we are talking about rotary dial phones you might find amusement in
this video - it needs sound....
http://youtu.be/1OADXNGnJok
Brilliant. Of course we're all old enough to know, and can't remember a time
when we *didn't* know. But we all had to be taught how to dial a number.
The lad on the right worked it out, but the one on the left first realised
that you have to lift the receiver off the hook before starting to dial.
After a frustrating start, when I'm sure the older couple behind the camera
were itching to tell them the answer, they worked it out for themselves.
Bravo!
Now it's time for a confession. I'm 56 but it was only a few years ago that
I learned that if you receive an incoming call, you can hang up and *then*
go to another extension to continue the call. I had been taught by my
parents (and maybe they had been taught by *theirs*) that you had to keep
the answering receiver off-hook while you shouted out to the other person,
and wait until they have picked up before you can replace your receiver, to
avoid dropping the call.
You’re so far behind the times you’ve actually come around to being correct
again.

The “widow” during which you could “hang up” and pick up another receiver
has since been closed due to scammers taking advantage of the feature.

I’m not sure how quickly the line clears but after hanging up but it’s a
lot less than it used to be. Not long enough to wander off and pick up
another phone.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
Graham.
2019-06-23 22:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Woody
As we are talking about rotary dial phones you might find amusement in
this video - it needs sound....
http://youtu.be/1OADXNGnJok
Brilliant. Of course we're all old enough to know, and can't remember a time
when we *didn't* know. But we all had to be taught how to dial a number.
The lad on the right worked it out, but the one on the left first realised
that you have to lift the receiver off the hook before starting to dial.
After a frustrating start, when I'm sure the older couple behind the camera
were itching to tell them the answer, they worked it out for themselves.
Bravo!
Now it's time for a confession. I'm 56 but it was only a few years ago that
I learned that if you receive an incoming call, you can hang up and *then*
go to another extension to continue the call. I had been taught by my
parents (and maybe they had been taught by *theirs*) that you had to keep
the answering receiver off-hook while you shouted out to the other person,
and wait until they have picked up before you can replace your receiver, to
avoid dropping the call.
You’re so far behind the times you’ve actually come around to being correct
again.
The “widow” during which you could “hang up” and pick up another receiver
has since been closed due to scammers taking advantage of the feature.
I’m not sure how quickly the line clears but after hanging up but it’s a
lot less than it used to be. Not long enough to wander off and pick up
another phone.
Tim
According to this post I made in 2014 the change was at least being
rolled out by then, and it was reduced to 10 seconds, so you'll have
to sprint like Usain Bolt.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.legal/A1Pyx-DeB1Y/913Ssx_VzIsJ
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%
Andy Burns
2019-06-24 11:52:46 UTC
Permalink
it was only a few years ago that I learned that if you receive an
incoming call, you can hang up and *then* go to another extension to
continue the call.
You probably have to unlearn that; to prevent various scams, BT now
support called party clearing after about 10 seconds on-hook, rather 3
minutes
NY
2019-06-24 14:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
it was only a few years ago that I learned that if you receive an
incoming call, you can hang up and *then* go to another extension to
continue the call.
You probably have to unlearn that; to prevent various scams, BT now
support called party clearing after about 10 seconds on-hook, rather 3
minutes.
It's a good thing that they have changed it. Having to do the little "dance"
to transfer a call to another phone is a small price to pay for preventing
the caller blocking the line.

It can be serious if the calling person collapses while on the phone and you
can't ring 999 to get an ambulance to them. This happened in the 1990s when
my grandma called me late at night; her voice was slurred (she never drank!)
and she wasn't making a lot of sense, and said something about not being
able to feel anything with one hand.

Sounded like the classic symptoms of a minor stroke (as indeed it turned out
to be). During the call, there was a thump and she stopped talking.

And thanks to the very long timeout, I wasn't able to dial 999 from my
phone. I eventually had to go next door and do it from there - this was in
the days before I had a mobile.

It took the ambulance operator a surprisingly long time to cotton on to the
idea that I was summoning an ambulance to a *different* address, nowhere
near where I was calling from. They seemed to be intent on getting all my
details (name, address) instead of taking my grandma's details since that
was where the ambulance was required. (*)

Fortunately by the time the ambulance arrived, she'd recovered a bit and had
had the foresight to unlock the front door in case I'd worked out that she
needed an ambulance. She recovered, but as with so many old people, the
shock seemed to affect her confidence and was no longer able to look after
herself so she had to go into a nursing home - where she lived for another
few years, and died of old age and general senility, rather than the acute
effects of the stroke.


(*) I have to say that almost every time I've phoned 999 to report crashed
cars etc, the operators have seemed fairly clueless. There was one occasion
when I saw, through my rear-view mirror, a crash happen on the opposite
carriageway of the motorway, so I rang 999 from my mobile (hands free) and
told them that the collision was on the northbound carriageway of the M1,
and that I'd just passed location sign "M1 A 123.4" (or whatever), so the
accident was about half a mile north of there, and I stressed "on the
opposite carriageway". They faffed around with "what's the postcode" (as if,
on a motorway!), what junction or service area had I just passed etc (no
idea - I hadn't been paying attention because it was nowhere near the start
or end of my journey on the motorway). I offered to stop and read the number
on the little 100-metre post or else on one of the motorway phones, but they
still wibbled on about "what's the postcode". I reported this to the
relevant police force, because it was evidently a training issue: the "M1 A
123.4" signs are there specifically for the public to report locations on a
motorway in an emergency, but this operator didn't know what to do with that
information. I hope the emergency services were actually summoned and sent
to the right place.
nobody
2019-06-23 05:56:00 UTC
Permalink
I have a genuine 1940's black Bakelite phone.
Apart from altering the connection wiring on the terminal block, it is
totally original and works fine on my DSL line. Previously, I had ADSL
and it worked fine on that as well.

I love its real bell ringing for an incoming call, as we can hear it all
around the house, whereas the modern phone beside it (which we use for
all day-to-day use) only makes a pathetic little electronic noise!
Post by Peter
Hi All,
Clearly this is not a common requirement!
I am asking for a friend of mine. He has this
http://peter-ftp.co.uk/screenshots/20190621114795420.jpg
http://peter-ftp.co.uk/screenshots/20190621554805420.jpg
He has installed ADSL and the BT guy disconnected the stuff he had.
I an very much into hardware (analog and digital) but have never
messed with PSTN etc stuff.
I know BT send 50V DC up the wires to power the phone, and that pulse
dialling is implemented by shorting out the 2 wires so probably pulse
dialling is incompatible with ADSL.
He may have to get a rotary phone which does tone dialling; I am sure
they exist in today's hipster era :)
But what about the ringer?
His phones are connected via a microfilter, as they should be.
Very many thanks for any tips.
Peter
MB
2019-06-29 23:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by nobody
I have a genuine 1940's black Bakelite phone.
Apart from altering the connection wiring on the terminal block, it is
totally original and works fine on my DSL line. Previously, I had ADSL
and it worked fine on that as well.
I love its real bell ringing for an incoming call, as we can hear it all
around the house, whereas the modern phone beside it (which we use for
all day-to-day use) only makes a pathetic little electronic noise!
You can't beat a real bell!

When I used to be 24/7 call for work, I always plugged in an old 760?
phone overnight. I always woke immediately it rang! I have slept
through the pager going off or a modern phone "ringing", half conscious
and trying to decide it was the phone. Similarly I often used to wake
in the middle of the night convinced the pager had gone off.
The Natural Philosopher
2019-06-30 08:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Post by nobody
I have a genuine 1940's black Bakelite phone.
Apart from altering the connection wiring on the terminal block, it is
totally original and works fine on my DSL line. Previously, I had ADSL
and it worked fine on that as well.
I love its real bell ringing for an incoming call, as we can hear it
all around the house, whereas the modern phone beside it (which we use
for all day-to-day use) only makes a pathetic little electronic noise!
You can't beat a real bell!
When I used to be 24/7 call for work, I always plugged in an old 760?
phone overnight.  I always woke immediately it rang!  I have slept
through the pager going off or a modern phone "ringing", half conscious
and trying to decide it was the phone.  Similarly I often used to wake
in the middle of the night convinced the pager had gone off.
I have a PABX that rings ALL the phones round the house on an incoming
call - or indeed when one of the three doorphones is pressed.
People think I am mad to use such old technology, but it works.

DECT doesn't. Too much foil backed plastreboard in the house.

Same with WiFi. Ethernet works. Wifi is very patchy.
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell
Bob Eager
2019-06-30 09:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by MB
Post by nobody
I have a genuine 1940's black Bakelite phone.
Apart from altering the connection wiring on the terminal block, it is
totally original and works fine on my DSL line. Previously, I had ADSL
and it worked fine on that as well.
I love its real bell ringing for an incoming call, as we can hear it
all around the house, whereas the modern phone beside it (which we use
for all day-to-day use) only makes a pathetic little electronic noise!
You can't beat a real bell!
When I used to be 24/7 call for work, I always plugged in an old 760?
phone overnight.  I always woke immediately it rang!  I have slept
through the pager going off or a modern phone "ringing", half conscious
and trying to decide it was the phone.  Similarly I often used to wake
in the middle of the night convinced the pager had gone off.
I have a PABX that rings ALL the phones round the house on an incoming
call - or indeed when one of the three doorphones is pressed.
People think I am mad to use such old technology, but it works.
Similar here, but with exceptions. Sons' phones ring for a while in their
rooms, then the caller is told 'we are trying the rest of the house' (we
all have dedicated numbers). Our bedroom phone can be 'hushed' (with
respect to the door) for a selected period, when sons are expecting late
night takeaway delivery.

And they are all IP phones so they piggy back on the Ethernet.
MissRiaElaine
2019-06-30 14:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eager
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by MB
Post by nobody
I have a genuine 1940's black Bakelite phone.
Apart from altering the connection wiring on the terminal block, it is
totally original and works fine on my DSL line. Previously, I had ADSL
and it worked fine on that as well.
I love its real bell ringing for an incoming call, as we can hear it
all around the house, whereas the modern phone beside it (which we use
for all day-to-day use) only makes a pathetic little electronic noise!
You can't beat a real bell!
When I used to be 24/7 call for work, I always plugged in an old 760?
phone overnight.  I always woke immediately it rang!  I have slept
through the pager going off or a modern phone "ringing", half conscious
and trying to decide it was the phone.  Similarly I often used to wake
in the middle of the night convinced the pager had gone off.
I have a PABX that rings ALL the phones round the house on an incoming
call - or indeed when one of the three doorphones is pressed.
People think I am mad to use such old technology, but it works.
Similar here, but with exceptions. Sons' phones ring for a while in their
rooms, then the caller is told 'we are trying the rest of the house' (we
all have dedicated numbers). Our bedroom phone can be 'hushed' (with
respect to the door) for a selected period, when sons are expecting late
night takeaway delivery.
And they are all IP phones so they piggy back on the Ethernet.
Most of ours are IP phones but we have a small PBX that connects a
couple of extra VoIP numbers on a PAP2 ATA that sits in the rack
cabinet. 'Ordinary' phones plug in to that to give intercom around the
place.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Bob Eager
2019-06-30 19:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Bob Eager
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by MB
Post by nobody
I have a genuine 1940's black Bakelite phone.
Apart from altering the connection wiring on the terminal block, it
is totally original and works fine on my DSL line. Previously, I had
ADSL and it worked fine on that as well.
I love its real bell ringing for an incoming call, as we can hear it
all around the house, whereas the modern phone beside it (which we
use for all day-to-day use) only makes a pathetic little electronic
noise!
You can't beat a real bell!
When I used to be 24/7 call for work, I always plugged in an old 760?
phone overnight.  I always woke immediately it rang!  I have slept
through the pager going off or a modern phone "ringing", half
conscious and trying to decide it was the phone.  Similarly I often
used to wake in the middle of the night convinced the pager had gone
off.
I have a PABX that rings ALL the phones round the house on an incoming
call - or indeed when one of the three doorphones is pressed.
People think I am mad to use such old technology, but it works.
Similar here, but with exceptions. Sons' phones ring for a while in
their rooms, then the caller is told 'we are trying the rest of the
house' (we all have dedicated numbers). Our bedroom phone can be
'hushed' (with respect to the door) for a selected period, when sons
are expecting late night takeaway delivery.
And they are all IP phones so they piggy back on the Ethernet.
Most of ours are IP phones but we have a small PBX that connects a
couple of extra VoIP numbers on a PAP2 ATA that sits in the rack
cabinet. 'Ordinary' phones plug in to that to give intercom around the
place.
The IP phones are all on an Asterisk PABX, so we already have intercom
and lots of other facilities. We did have an SPA3102 to give access to
the actual phone line, but that's VDSL only now, no voice. The SPA3102 is
retained for ringing the bell in the garden.

The house is also fully wired for Ethernet (total of 27 sockets I think),
and also for phone (now disused).
MissRiaElaine
2019-06-30 14:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
I have a PABX that rings ALL the phones round the house on an incoming
call - or indeed when one of the three doorphones is pressed.
People think I am mad to use such old technology, but it works.
DECT doesn't. Too much foil backed plastreboard in the house.
Same with WiFi. Ethernet works. Wifi is very patchy.
We've cabled up our place with full structured CAT6 cabling. RJ45
sockets everywhere (well except in the loo, some places are
sacrosanct..!) Computers, phones or anything else needing Ethernet can
be plugged in anywhere. There's a small PBX next to the 19" rack cabinet
(not enough room in it, too much other stuff..!) and we can plug
"traditional" phones in via BT to RJ45 dongles as well as IP phones.

Wifi is crap. It only gets used here to download books to the Kindle or
maybe connect a laptop should we need to use one away from its (cabled)
docking station.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
NY
2019-06-30 16:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Wifi is crap. It only gets used here to download books to the Kindle or
maybe connect a laptop should we need to use one away from its (cabled)
docking station.
Our new house (new to us, parts built in the 1850s) is L-shaped. The best
place for the router, as regards phone line and closeness to my PCs, is at
one end of the L. Getting internet to the rest of the house is proving to be
a hassle. My wife likes to work in the bedroom or the conservatory, in
addition to her study, using her Android phone or Apple iPad.

2.4 GHz wifi reaches part of the way along the opposite leg of L, but 5 GHz
barely gets out of the room where the router lives.

My first thought was to run Cat5 up into the roof space of the single-storey
part of the house and along to an access point to cover the far end of the
house, which would mean two networks (SSIDs) which mobile devices (laptops,
phones, tablets) would have to switch between.

I've already tried a Powerline extender but that barely gets a network
signal over mains beyond a couple of rooms, and even in that position it
still doesn't properly cover the far end of the house by wifi.

I'm wondering about a mesh network, but I am concerned that these seem to
*replace* the router rather than simply extending the wifi signal from one
of the router's Ethernet ports; you seem to need to run the router in
modem-only mode so it feeds WAN (without any NAT firewall) to the master
unit of the mesh, which the does the NAT firewall, hopefully with IP address
reservation and port-forwarding/mapping (*), from which slave units connect
by 5 GHz (not 2,4 GHz) - so I'd need a large number of slave units pass the
signal one hop at a time along the length of the house. There is also some
debate as to whether meshes require all the slaves to be able to contact the
master, rather than a daisy-chain of master-to-slave1, slave1-to-slave2,
slave2-to-slave3 etc.

One possibility is a combination of mesh and Ethernet: still use the mesh
devices but have them communicate with each other by Cat5 rather than 5 GHz
wifi.


(*) So we can access security cameras from outside the house, and so we can
give those cameras and the printer *fixed* IP addresses. OK, I could use
static IP addresses for the latter, but I much prefer to use DHCP address
reservation to achieve fixed addresses because it is failsafe if the devices
ever get moved to a different network or to a router whose subnet is
different to the static one that has been configured.
Tim+
2019-07-01 19:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
I'm wondering about a mesh network, but I am concerned that these seem to
*replace* the router rather than simply extending the wifi signal from one
of the router's Ethernet ports; you seem to need to run the router in
modem-only mode so it feeds WAN (without any NAT firewall) to the master
unit of the mesh, which the does the NAT firewall, hopefully with IP address
reservation and port-forwarding/mapping (*), from which slave units connect
by 5 GHz (not 2,4 GHz) - so I'd need a large number of slave units pass the
signal one hop at a time along the length of the house. There is also some
debate as to whether meshes require all the slaves to be able to contact the
master, rather than a daisy-chain of master-to-slave1, slave1-to-slave2,
slave2-to-slave3 etc.
As I’ve pointed out with the BT mesh system, it DOES daisy-chain.

Why not just buy one, try it out and if it doesn’t work, return it? By far
the best Wi-Fi system we’ve ever had. Three nodes covers our 5 bedroom
house very well.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
NY
2019-07-02 09:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim+
Post by NY
I'm wondering about a mesh network, but I am concerned that these seem to
*replace* the router rather than simply extending the wifi signal from one
of the router's Ethernet ports; you seem to need to run the router in
modem-only mode so it feeds WAN (without any NAT firewall) to the master
unit of the mesh, which the does the NAT firewall, hopefully with IP address
reservation and port-forwarding/mapping (*), from which slave units connect
by 5 GHz (not 2,4 GHz) - so I'd need a large number of slave units pass the
signal one hop at a time along the length of the house. There is also some
debate as to whether meshes require all the slaves to be able to contact the
master, rather than a daisy-chain of master-to-slave1, slave1-to-slave2,
slave2-to-slave3 etc.
As I’ve pointed out with the BT mesh system, it DOES daisy-chain.
Yes, it sounds as if *ideally* they want all the slave units to have sight
of the master, but daisy-chaining, either by wifi or Ethernet, is possible.
They assume that the master mesh unit will be placed centrally, rather than
at one end of a long thin house, and that internal walls / floors will be
thin.
Post by Tim+
Why not just buy one, try it out and if it doesn’t work, return it? By far
the best Wi-Fi system we’ve ever had. Three nodes covers our 5 bedroom
house very well.
This is what I've decided to do. Going for the Linksys Velop system with
three nodes and the option to buy additional ones if three doesn't cover the
whole length of the house. Linksys are very vague about what changes, if
any, you need to make to the original modem/router (since the Velop doesn't
include an ADSL/VDSL modem) to make it output WAN rather than LAN on its
Ethernet outputs so the Velop gets fed with WAN (ie no network address
translation, so the Velop can do port forwarding). Alternatively I could use
the router as normal and put the Velop in bridge mode so it does no NAT and
the router does the address reservation and port forwarding as at present.

Getting hard and fast pre-sales information is very difficult: everything is
done by an Android app which "just works". I tend to look at user manuals
before I buy, but the Linksys one is rather vague, especially about what you
need to change on the router.

In our house, the problem will be thick internal and external walls within
the original 1850s house and between there and the 1990s extension. Using
InSSIDer on my phone, the 5 GHz signal barely gets from one room to
another - and it is 5 GHz rather than 2.4 GHz that the Velop uses for
node-to-node communications.
Tim+
2019-07-02 13:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Tim+
Post by NY
I'm wondering about a mesh network, but I am concerned that these seem to
*replace* the router rather than simply extending the wifi signal from one
of the router's Ethernet ports; you seem to need to run the router in
modem-only mode so it feeds WAN (without any NAT firewall) to the master
unit of the mesh, which the does the NAT firewall, hopefully with IP address
reservation and port-forwarding/mapping (*), from which slave units connect
by 5 GHz (not 2,4 GHz) - so I'd need a large number of slave units pass the
signal one hop at a time along the length of the house. There is also some
debate as to whether meshes require all the slaves to be able to contact the
master, rather than a daisy-chain of master-to-slave1, slave1-to-slave2,
slave2-to-slave3 etc.
As I’ve pointed out with the BT mesh system, it DOES daisy-chain.
Yes, it sounds as if *ideally* they want all the slave units to have sight
of the master, but daisy-chaining, either by wifi or Ethernet, is possible.
Well mine are daisy chained.
Post by NY
They assume that the master mesh unit will be placed centrally, rather than
at one end of a long thin house, and that internal walls / floors will be
thin.
Post by Tim+
Why not just buy one, try it out and if it doesn’t work, return it? By far
the best Wi-Fi system we’ve ever had. Three nodes covers our 5 bedroom
house very well.
This is what I've decided to do. Going for the Linksys Velop system with
three nodes and the option to buy additional ones if three doesn't cover the
whole length of the house.
Good luck. I have no idea whether the Linksys system daisy chains. Given
that you’ve had three recommendations from owners of the BT mesh system, It
seems an odd decision.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
Loading...