Skip to main content

Phoney Phun

I had interesting time last week trying to get my phone line back.

I received a phone call which was irritatingly dead. But for once there was a caller ID number, so I called them back. At least I tried to. But I couldn't dial out because the line was blocked. Their autodialler had called me up but it hadn't released the line. Not everyone knows this, but it's the caller that 'owns' the line. If you hang up on someone who calls you and they don't hang up too, the line is still held. So no matter what I did at my end - unplugging the phone, whatever - I couldn't get my line back.

I called the caller ID number on another line. A recorded message told me it was research call from a respectable market research company I've dealt with in the past. if I wanted to confirm they were legit I could call the Market Research Society. But it gave no way to contact them. So I called the MRS, who gave me the market research organization's number.

Cue rambling conversation with receptionist there who didn't know, for instance, that you can't hang up on a number if the dialler doesn't release the line. Eventually, after several sequences of them muttering to their IT people, 35 minutes later the line was freed up. Apparently this was a result of a frantic check around their call centre, checking all the lines.

It just goes to show - autodiallers are dangerous things in the wrong hands.

Comments

  1. What you're describing is technically often called "calling party hold". A long time ago, it used to be absolute, but already decades ago, when still using analog relay exchanges, the abuse capabilities were noticed. Thus, there is a timeout, length typically depending on your local regulations.

    Thus, I expect your line was released not because you called and got some IT people; more likely it was just a timeout in your local landline telephone exchange.

    With GSM phones, you have much less this kind of problems, even if the signalling protocols carry a lot of legacy from the bad old days of loop starts and B answer time outs and switch hook flashes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I did wonder if it was just a time out, but they claimed they had found the offending dialler.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope