Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 May 10

= May 10 =

Phone billing question
I'm aware that, at least in the UK, phone charges apply to connections, not to the time spent ringing another phone. Someone once told me that they used to charge for ringing. Was there a time and/or place where and when this was true?--Leon (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? A phone bill covers two things - line rental and calls. Some calls are included in the line rental - evening and weekend calls, often, or local calls. And mobile phones often come with a general allowance of calls. But beyond those, calls are charged for. That's how it works in the UK, at least. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say other things weren't charged for as well! And yes, I am aware of phone contracts.--Leon (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC) The OP is saying that a call is only charged beginning from once a a call is picked up (whether by a person, answering machine, fax machine or whatever) and a successful connection is made, not while the other device is still ringing (or whatever else happens) which AFAIK is generally true in the UK nowadays as in most countries. Therefore if the call is charged by time, then the time begins from then not from anytime before. (Similarly if you have a certain number of free minutes for phone calls, your free minutes will deducted by timing the call from when it's picked up.) If the call is charged at a flat rate then you will only be charged if the call is picked up and not under other conditions like if the line rings but the call is never picked up, or the line is busy or whatever. Even if the call is uncharged, if you have some sort of itemised billing which still shows such free calls, the duration of the call will generally be from when it is picked up. In some complicated scenarios, you may of course be charged before or what appears before, like if the call is picked up but then an internal system rings another phone. You will of course often have a monthly free for a line although prepaid mobile phone systems often simply require regular topups within a certain time period to keep the number active, but none of this seems particularly relevant to the OPs question. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - I completely misunderstood the question. I read 'connection' as 'connection from the user to the exchange', and 'ringing' as 'calling'. Please ignore my confused response. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One circumstance under which you will be charged for a completed call, even if your phone only rings, but no person picks up, is when you call an institution with its own internal switchboard. Your connection has been completed by your company to the local switchboard, which itself rings "internally" for some time until you get a person, or go to fax or voicemail.  This was an issue with dialup internet when people would get billed for failed connections.  The connection had been made, but it then failed at the server. -Medeis
 * I have nothing like a reliable source to cite, but I read years ago that telephone users in the Netherlands were charged as soon as the called phone started ringing. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible to set the system up that way. In many local Bell areas in the US 1FR service is or was available which unlimited calls within a portion of your are code for a flat rate, with 1-5 area codes per state.  As second lines, beepers, and cells proliferated, more area codes were created.  1MR service was also available covering often one or more are codes (for example 212 and 718 which covered the entirety of NYC was a single message rate area.  This was usually around $.09 a connection.  This caused a huge uproar when dialup service became available.  On emight get five "ringing" connections that had actually connected the ISP server, then failed.  Then after a half-hour connection you'd get bumped off, and have to make five calls for another successful connection.  This meant people who made five calls a day for a $12 bill on calls (plus other fees) were now getting billed $100 a month for forty calls a day, which they believed had never been answered. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like long distance calls (and even local payphone calls) used to be relatively more expensive than cel phone calls or texts are now.  There was no charge when the call was not answered. Many years ago in the US, before celphones, some folks would convey information via the number of rings before hangup.  Like "When we get back home, I'll call and let it ring twice before hanging up."    I considered back then how a real cheapskate could use a "ringing code telegraph" over the phone system, with, say 1 ring and hangup for "e," 2 for "t," 3 for "a" etc matching approximate letter frequencies, with an automated dialler and an automated interpreter. I expect there were strict rules against such misuse of the system and some equipment which would flag excessive call and hangups for investigation.  If a contractor was working in a home pre-celphones,  the "contractor code" was for the caller to let it ring twice and hang up. Then the contractor would answer the next call, knowing (at least assuming) it was from some associate. Edison (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's of course the collect call from Ms Ithaca Starving which would get by an operator, be denied by one's parents, and result in a check in the mail. When they switched to automated collect calls, there were even more options like Trentonat Fyetwenny, to specify when and where to be picked up from the train station. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The trick of signaling with a specific number of ‘rings’ worked reliably only if both subscribers were on one switch (exchange). A rotating shaft at each exchange had contact sets for the various signals such as “that line is busy” and “that line is ringing” as well as for actuating the bell in the called phone. But those mechanisms could not be synchronized between exchanges, so the caller might hear three full “rings” while the called phone rang only two full times and one very brief tinkle. I was never able to explain this highly technical matter to the satisfaction of my wife or my mother-in-law. I suppose it may be different now with electronic switches. John C Kay (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, User:John C Kay, the "problem" still exists, even down to different phone sets in a house which may not ring on the same cycle or register caller ID info at the same time. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reiterating what Medeis said above, that kind of problem was gotten around by placing person-to-person collect calls in which the intended message was encoded in the name of the person they were asking for, like if they said "Mary Jones" it was their code for "please send money" or whatever, and the recipient would say "Mary's not here", and they would disconnect with no charge to either party. AT&T or someone like that once ran an ad both lampooning and tut-tutting that practice, showing a guy calling his parent's phone person-to-person and asking for someone named "Wehadababyitsaboy". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to John's problem of callers not understanding how phones work, I once had a customer call me to insist that she didn't want people to be able to hang up on her. After a few fruitless minutes of trying to figure out her actual problem, and to explain why she might be getting such calls, I finally asked her, "Okay, well, do you want us to stop people from being able to hang up on you before they call you?  Or after they call you?"  She responded, "But that doesn't make sense!"  So I answered, "Now you see my difficulty here." μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of all the anecdotes, conjecture and personal opinion here, the OP should be aware of factual events, including this recent news story where people who heard the "engaged" tone in the UK were actually charged. Probably best for those attempting to make answers here to stick to current fact rather than fall back on vague and ancient stories of a bygone era. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, User:Baseball Bugs, that was hilarious. It's actually a Geico commercial. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Geico? How odd. But since then, thanks to competitive pressure from cellphones and VOIP, the pricing for long distance land-line toll-calling has leveled out, and such (fraudulent) workarounds are much less necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This was rather recent, after the bankruptcies of AT&T and MCI. The problem with collect calls specifically is that they are hard to collect on, hence the high rates. The really weird part is not that, but that the lizard is English. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only that, his accent changed from what it was initially. And here's the ad I referred to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bomb Dispsoal
Do police forces in the UK typically offer bomb disposal as a specialty for officers to go into, or is this left to the military? I am in particular interested in knowing the answer specifically for the Metropolitan Police Service in London. Thanks. 2.99.75.33 (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, they don't have a "bomb" disposal unit, but a Metropolitan Police Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. Guernsey calls them bombs. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In Britain only the Army and UN offer bomb disposal careers. The ability to type "Disposal" might help an applicant's chances. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As InedibleHulk notes above, the Metropolitan Police have their own Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit which covers both the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police District. This dates from "The Troubles" when there were often several "suspicious packages" to be investigated every day, some of which turned out to be real. However, as this job description for a Met Police Explosive Ordnance Disposal Officer states, they only recruit those who have "completed a two-year tour in Great Britain with an operational EOD unit. Experience as an Ammunition Technician or Ammunition Technical Officer in the Royal Logistics Corps (RLC) is essential". Alansplodge (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All three services (Navy, Army, Air Force) carry out bomb disposal in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ObPersonal: quite recently in the UK friends of mine clearing another, deceased, friend's house discovered various items and materials of a shooty/splodey nature. On the first discovery, the Police attended and themselves removed the ammunition; on the second, the Police called in an Army unit to remove the plastic explosive, on the third, the Police called the Army back, who declared the mortar shells were a job for the Navy, who duly arrived. I'm not sure what would have called upon RAF expertise, but thankfully none was found. We now regard our dead friend's "tall tales" hinting at clandestine activities (and the occasional odd and cryptic phone calls for him at Work, which itself was Defense-related) in a different light! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, perhaps the Met prefer that all their people have had the same training. Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)