Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[4candles]

Perusing kitz's 'Breach of Copyright' thread, I noticed the paragraph -

You are NOT allowed to replace any old style master sockets with an NTE5 socket yourself, and this should only be performed by a BT Openreach engineer. Failure to obey these rules may result in prosecution and/or a fine by BT.

As a potential serial criminal, I would be interested in whether this is really the case, or just something that BT would like us to believe.

Anyone (yes, I'm looking at you Mr Sheep  ) know the facts?

[Black Sheep]

"As a potential serial criminal ...... " pmsl. 

I'm afraid I don't have any 'Hard and fast' documentation I can post up, regarding this issue. My own personal take on it is to treat it with a pinch of salt, although kitz will have had to post up the company line at that time in history.

Most new-builds these days will see a variety of 'Builder-run' internal wiring and an array of brushed-steel type faceplates already fitted when we turn up to connect the premises to our network.
There are even master sockets incorporated into faceplates that have 'Banked' services. The same faceplate will generally incorporate a TV aerial point, 240v socket outlet and a telephone point, so it's impossible for us to install our own NTE5 demarcation point, unless we re-wire the telephony service. Obviously, this is met with looks of horror. 

So, as I said at the start ....... treat it with a pinch of salt. The engineers would only raise a TRC (Timescale Related Charge) if the master socket you have installed is causing a fault.   

[gt94sss2]

Perusing kitz's 'Breach of Copyright' thread, I noticed the paragraph -

You are NOT allowed to replace any old style master sockets with an NTE5 socket yourself, and this should only be performed by a BT Openreach engineer. Failure to obey these rules may result in prosecution and/or a fine by BT.

As a potential serial criminal, I would be interested in whether this is really the case, or just something that BT would like us to believe.

Its been a long time since I have looked into this but it is against the law to mess around with the BT master sockets - from memory its considered interfering with the PSTN.

Now, in practise, I can't say how often Openreach will take action though they may charge a end-user to rectify/fix a problem BUT there have been instances in the past where someone messing around with a master socket has inadvertently managed to damage BT's network - at that point the heavens open up from a very high height..

[Black Sheep]

One doesn't need to simply mess with the master socket to cause mayhem, and possible serious injury to unassuming OR engineers.
More than a few times over the decades, we've had instances whereby the EU has run a mains cable under a carpet and got it, and the telephone extension cable caught on the carpet gripper ....... subsequently chucking 240v along our network back to the MDF.

We used to also frequently get the 'Ghost 999' calls, although haven't seen or heard of one for quite a while now ?? This is where the extension wiring in the house has an 'Earth contact' (Insulation rubbed away, again, usually under the carpet where it's walked on), and it would 'Tap' the emergency services 911 (never 999 ??).
One of the older BT guys on here would probably be able to give a reason why it would 'Tap' this number out ..... Loop/Dis dialling or something similar ?? Not my forte I'm afraid.

So, although you are absolutely correct about the licit stance with master sockets, one can do as much damage without even touching said item. 

[licquorice]

That's why the emergency number was 999 and not 111 in the early days. Open wires shorting could easily tap 3 times with longer break between the shorts to emulate loop disconnect dialling. Much harder to make 9 quick shorts - break 9 quick shorts - break 9 quick shorts. With the old pre-payment phone boxes, the dial was not operative unless money had been placed in the coin box (it was returned if no reply). To make free calls you could tap the receiver rest to emulate dial pulses. Low numbers were easy to judge but 8's and 9's were harder. 

[Black Sheep]

Thank you, Licq. 

I remember as a kid tapping the switch hooks on my parents phone to try and set up a call ...... but this was more for mischief as we never had anyone to call back then. 

[licquorice]

I got quite adept at it as a schoolboy. Living out in the sticks, I often needed the parents to pick me up from the bus stop a couple of miles away if I missed the one bus into the village. It was fairly easy to tap 364 from the phonebox without putting any money in.

[Black Sheep]

Ha ha ....... I don't think you'll be on 'Crimewatch' this month, but I'll keep a look-out, just in case. 

[burakkucat]

I was unaware that the American 911 was mapped to the UK 999. 

I know, due to "meddling by Europe"^*, that 112 is mapped to 999.


^* Don't get b*cat started . . . 

[Black Sheep]

The Cat strikes again ...... you've jogged my memory and it was indeed classed as a '112 fault' that we would pick up. 

[licquorice]

Ah, 112 makes much more sense, far easier to tap out with intermittent shorts.

[Black Sheep]

Yup ...... it all comes together now, 

[burakkucat]

The Cat strikes again ...... you've jogged my memory and it was indeed classed as a '112 fault' that we would pick up. 

 

[renluop]

Wasn't there also something called "back dialling" or making a connection somehow with a not completely inserted coin?

Confession I lived in Essex once and my girl friend (now SWMBO) worked in Warwickshire. Her exchange was not yet on STD, so the calls I made via the operator were quite expensive. I found I could dial into a near major exchange that was enabled and use the local code from there to the girl friend's. It made long distance courtship a lot cheaper.

Someone told me later it was theft from GPO of a small quantity of electricity.

[licquorice]

Also in the days of 'Local' calls it was possible to sometimes make what would be classified as a trunk call via a series of linked local calls by dialling the code for one exchange followed by the local code to another exchange. This was only possible if the exchange in question had a secondary route out as well as the route back to the parent exchange. In theory it shouldn't have been possible as the VMB (vertical marking bank) on the incoming group selectors from the parent should have had a strap to prevent an 8 (the usual code for a second route out, 9 being the parent) being dialled but a lot of exchanges didn't have the strap. The only downside was the circuits were un-amplified so could be quite faint when concatenating them.