Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!problem!compus!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bagate!dsinc!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: djcl@contact.uucp (woody)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook
Message-ID: <15406@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 90 04:22:59 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 24
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 881, Message 4 of 10


Each year, the Thunder Bay (Ontario, Canada) telephone directory
contains the following curious notice with the latest 90-91 directory
being no exception:

"THE WRONG WAY TO 'FOIL BURGLARS'"

"Leaving the telephone off the hook may alert burglars that you're not
home. A continual busy signal is a give-away. Lights activated or
turned on and off by a timer are better ways to discourage break-ins."

Now let's see if this comes through straight ... a "continual" busy
signal (whatever that means) will indicate to someone that you're not
home, as opposed to an unanswered series of rings on just one dial...
does the average robber really think that a busy signal would indicate
that someone is not home as opposed to having a conversation (or one
in a series)? Is there a Deep Concept of logic at work here, or did I
stumble onto something quite laughable?

Needless to say, there are good technical reasons to discourage people
from leaving their phones in an off-hook state, although one presumes
that new electronic exchanges will counteract some of the problems of
the past.  However, there are more straightforward ways of getting
that message across than the one above.