I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.

For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I had
two landline numbers, so ported both of them.

However the two copper pairs still exist, and on plugging in a 'phone to
each in turn I discover that there is dial tone on both. I can dial a
number but after about 6 digits I get the "unobtainable" tone.

However dialling 17070 gives the standard BT line test message - and
tells me the number of the line.

Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not the
number that either had before porting to VoIP.

I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it appears
to have been used to make spam calls.

Can anybody explain this, please?

--
Graham J

On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
> I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.
>
> For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I
> had two landline numbers, so ported both of them.
>
> However the two copper pairs still exist, and on plugging in a 'phone
> to each in turn I discover that there is dial tone on both.  I can
> dial a number but after about 6 digits I get the "unobtainable" tone.
>
> However dialling 17070 gives the standard BT line test message - and
> tells me the number of the line.
>
> Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not the
> number that either had before porting to VoIP.
>
> I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it
> appears to have been used to make spam calls.
>
> Can anybody explain this, please?
>
>
I've noticed with a couple of friends who are now on 'digital voice'
products different experiences.

One has nothing on their line, no 50 volts, not dial or any other form
of tone.

The other has the same thing you describe, a 'phantom' number and still
tone.

Perhaps there's a difference with exchange architecture.

On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
> I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.
>
> For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I had
> two landline numbers, so ported both of them.
>

The Home Highway service which I had was allocated 3 numbers.

2 for the analogue ports and a 3rd number for the digital

They were all together in a group. xxx185, 187 and 190 - 185 being the
original (and current) number.

I believe the intention was that a number of ISDN extensions could be
hung off the end of the digital port, in theory providing a load more
numbers - something like xxx190 001 up to xxx190 999.

Obviously only 2 of them could be in use for speech at any one time.

The huge cost of ISDN phones (or "terminals") may have brought an end to
this, along with the insane complexity of programming the phones.

I imagine a lot of people just did the same as me, and hung an ISDN
router on the end of the digital port.

--
random signature text inserted here

On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
> I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.
>
> For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I had
> two landline numbers, so ported both of them.
>
> However the two copper pairs still exist, and on plugging in a 'phone to
> each in turn I discover that there is dial tone on both.  I can dial a
> number but after about 6 digits I get the "unobtainable" tone.
>
> However dialling 17070 gives the standard BT line test message - and
> tells me the number of the line.
>
> Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not the
> number that either had before porting to VoIP.
>
> I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it appears
> to have been used to make spam calls.
>
> Can anybody explain this, please?

JOOI, does the exchange area code match your own, or is it entirely
different and remote from you?

I have no knowledge to go on, but I'm guessing along the lines of ...

1) BT/OR put unused lines onto a catchall number, perhaps one specific
to each area code, perhaps even one nationwide.

.... then ...

2) Spammer(s) realise(s) this would be a good means of spamming.

I gave up my landline a few years ago now, but, intrigued by your
account, just now I connected a phone to it, but it's dead, no dial tone.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 06/06/2023 13:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
>> I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.
>>
>> For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I
>> had two landline numbers, so ported both of them.
>>
>> However the two copper pairs still exist, and on plugging in a 'phone
>> to each in turn I discover that there is dial tone on both.  I can
>> dial a number but after about 6 digits I get the "unobtainable" tone.
>>
>> However dialling 17070 gives the standard BT line test message - and
>> tells me the number of the line.
>>
>> Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not the
>> number that either had before porting to VoIP.
>>
>> I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it
>> appears to have been used to make spam calls.
>>
>> Can anybody explain this, please?
>
> JOOI, does the exchange area code match your own, or is it entirely
> different and remote from you?

The phantom number that Openreach/BT supply is something that they've
been doing with ceased lines for years (back to the last century) It's
not a new idea.
Yes, it will have the area's local STD code.

I was told, it's to maintain a dial tone/50 volts on the line (to ease
pair ID), of course they will need to drop that idea in the near future,
It's also to allow 999 etc calls to still be made from that line, and to
'advertise' (to a new owner/tenant ) that there is working physical
line. I expect you can also dial 150 from it ?

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not the
> number that either had before porting to VoIP.
>
> I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it appears
> to have been used to make spam calls.

Why do you say that? According to:

https://who-calls.me.uk/phone/01953718104

01953718104 is a landline and located in Wymondham (UK).

This number has been searched 3 times.

Calls started on 2 June 2023.

This number was searched from Somerton.

This phone block 195371 is operated by BT.

One search was me, one search was you, maybe one search was somebody else
from the group? Do you geolocate to Somerton by any chance?

There are no reports on that site from people called by that number, which
is usually what I'd expect if it's been used by a spammer.

If I search that site for 01953 999999 (a bogus number, because it would
connect to emergency services when called as a local number), I get:

01953999999 is a landline and located in Wymondham (UK).

This number has been searched 2 times.

Calls started on 6 June 2023.

and it seems pretty unlikely that anyone has searched for that number, and
even less likely it's been used as a source of spam calls (as it doesn't
resolve to a routeable number). So I would guess the 'searched N times' is
either fake or inflated.

Interestingly, first of all edited the URL to go to:
https://who-calls.me.uk/phone/01953999999

and I got a 404 error saying the page didn't exist. But then I typed the
number in their search box, and now the page does exist. So they appear to
be creating them on the fly when people search for them.

Theo

On 06/06/2023 13:45, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2023 13:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
>>>
>>> Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not the
>>> number that either had before porting to VoIP.
>>>
>>> I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it
>>> appears to have been used to make spam calls.
>>>
>>> Can anybody explain this, please?
>>
>> JOOI, does the exchange area code match your own, or is it entirely
>> different and remote from you?
>
> The phantom number that Openreach/BT supply is something that they've
> been doing with ceased lines for years (back to the last century) It's
> not a new idea.
> Yes, it will have the area's local STD code.
>
> I was told, it's to maintain a dial tone/50 volts on the line (to ease
> pair ID), of course they will need to drop that idea in the near future,
> It's also to allow 999 etc calls to still be made from that line, and to
> 'advertise' (to a new owner/tenant ) that there is working physical
> line. I expect you can also dial 150 from it ?

Thanks for the explanation. What you were told makes sense. However,
my line seems absolutely dead, but that doesn't exactly surprise me -
the local wiring is in a shambolic state, long stretches of it lying on
the surface where regularly it is damaged by verge trimming, etc, so
most probably there is a shortage of good pairs in it, and mine may well
have been commandeered for someone else.

As far as the spam claim goes, while noting Theo's post casting doubt on
it, as presumably it would be a different number for each STD code and
therefore only likely to be discovered accidentally, perhaps that
particular number was originally that of someone who got TOSed, or else
some unscrupulous person in that locality worked out a way of abusing
the system.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 11:00:55 UTC+1, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
> > I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.
> >
> > For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I had
> > two landline numbers, so ported both of them.
> >
> The Home Highway service which I had was allocated 3 numbers.
>
> 2 for the analogue ports and a 3rd number for the digital
>
> They were all together in a group. xxx185, 187 and 190 - 185 being the
> original (and current) number.
>
> I believe the intention was that a number of ISDN extensions could be
> hung off the end of the digital port, in theory providing a load more
> numbers - something like xxx190 001 up to xxx190 999.
>
> Obviously only 2 of them could be in use for speech at any one time.
>
> The huge cost of ISDN phones (or "terminals") may have brought an end to
> this, along with the insane complexity of programming the phones.
>
> I imagine a lot of people just did the same as me, and hung an ISDN
> router on the end of the digital port.
>
>
>
> --
> random signature text inserted here

Home Highway and Business Highway differed slightly.

I migrated a business lie provided by my employer to line 1, my business number to port 2 and my fax number to call sign on port 2, plus 2 MSN's. The phone numbers provided the equivalent of a DDI block on xxx xxx1-4.
Eventually BT forced migration to ADSL and ****ed up the numbers and did this again when I retired and migrated them from business to residential. I dropped the 2 MSN's and successively migrated two of the numbers to Voipfone, although I gave up the fax number some years ago.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 13:33:44 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/06/2023 10:24, Graham J wrote:
> > I now have FTTP, and have ported my phone lines to VoIP.
> >
> > For historical reasons dating back to the days of BT Home Highway I
> > had two landline numbers, so ported both of them.
> >
> > However the two copper pairs still exist, and on plugging in a
> > 'phone to each in turn I discover that there is dial tone on both.
> > I can dial a number but after about 6 digits I get the
> > "unobtainable" tone.
> >
> > However dialling 17070 gives the standard BT line test message -
> > and tells me the number of the line.
> >
> > Curiously, both lines report the same number - 01953 718104 - not
> > the number that either had before porting to VoIP.
> >
> > I check this number on https://who-calls.me.uk/ and find that it
> > appears to have been used to make spam calls.
> >
> > Can anybody explain this, please?
>
> JOOI, does the exchange area code match your own, or is it entirely
> different and remote from you?
>
> I have no knowledge to go on, but I'm guessing along the lines of ...
>
> 1) BT/OR put unused lines onto a catchall number, perhaps one
> specific to each area code, perhaps even one nationwide.
>
> ... then ...
>
> 2) Spammer(s) realise(s) this would be a good means of spamming.
>
> I gave up my landline a few years ago now, but, intrigued by your
> account, just now I connected a phone to it, but it's dead, no dial
> tone.
>

I had the Zen landline in a holiday flat disconnected last year, and
when I was last there, I lifted the handset, and got a dial-tone. But
there was no response to any tones generated by pushing buttons, it's
kind of sleeping.

--
Davey.