Talk:Push-button telephone

The last section has several grammatical flaws, strange spacing between sentences, and a condescending view towards rotary phone users. I would be much obliged if this section were to be brought up to a standard high than what a 7th grader would normally be held to.--Grimakis (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a copyedit of the article specifically because of the type of problems you mentioned, however the primary contributor, who seems to imagine they own the article, reverted without discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC - encylopedic tone
Please indicate which of these versions is more encyclopedic. -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This version is more encyclopedic in content and words. Encyclopedias don't use contractions and phrases like "it's probably been a while since you heard." Take what is good from the second version and reconcile them. MiRroar (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the revisions in question are:
 * 1 by Jeffro77 at 00:13, 14 February 2010
 * 2 by Sweetpoet at 00:24, 14 February 2010

Version [1] is more encyclopedic, although I did not examine all of [2] to decide whether any of the extra material it contains should be retained in the article. One clear example is:
 * [1] In the 1950s, AT&T conducted extensive studies, and concluded...
 * [2] In the 1950's, AT&T conducted many careful and extensive studies, and then came to the conclusion...

"1950s" is correct; we don't say "many careful" (unless quoting); [1] is better. A general comment: the &amp;nbsp; in [2] are misguided. A belief about typewriters introduced the "two spaces" rule, but it has never applied in publishing (typesetting or rendered html). Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Version 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two spaces between sentences make their separation clearer. Just like breaking things into paragraphs.  It makes it easier to read with a negligible sacrifice of space.  Therefore it is better.  Why would you do things a certain way simply because you think it's "right" even though the other way is clearly better?  That's retarded.  Ya, html compresses whitespace, but the aim of that wasn't to eliminate the double space between sentences, it was to make writting html easier. losing the double-space between sentences is just an unfortunate side effect.  It has pretty much always been applied in publishing.  that's why you're taught to do it in grade school in the first place.  because it's proper grammar.  i don't understand why that is so difficult for so many people to grasp.  i don't understand why people have sush a superficial fetish for "novelty" and adopting "modern" "trends" that are essentially the unsliced version of sliced bread.  "Unsliced bread!  The best thing since... well... sliced bread!"  Great.  I'll stick with my sliced bread, thank you.  Kevin Baastalk 19:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two spaces (so-called 'French spacing' though it isn't a French standard) may make separation better for you, but it is not "clearly better", and is contrary to style guides everywhere. Two spaces after a full stop (period) is a convention typically used for typewritten materials in monospace fonts, which is probably where it was learned in school. There is little clarity gained from an extra space when used with proportional fonts. In any case, the three-or-more spaces that were employed in this article are certainly unneeded.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved RFC comment: The first version is clearly more encyclopedic in style. The second version has more material, but I don't think any of it is worth saving. E.g., "Now in 2010, if a person owns and still uses a rotary telephone, rather than a standard push-button, that person is considered odd, stubborn, backwards, or at best, very eccentric, regardless of his or her age." Just keep it as it was. I think this RFC can be closed. Cool Hand Luke 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. And the second version really said that (and a whole bunch more). "Now in 2010, if a person owns and still uses a rotary telephone, rather than a standard push-button, that person is considered odd, stubborn, backwards, or at best, very eccentric, regardless of his or her age."???? That's bull. [|Retro00064|&#9742;talk|&#x270D;contribs|] 02:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical switches and unexplained removal of content
Tone dial was introduced with one version of the Number One Crossbar Switching System, per that article. Anything older (mechanical switches such as the Strowger, rotary or panel exchanges) would not recognize the DTMF tones at all. This meant that a subscriber wanting to add tone to existing telephone service in 1963 (when it was introduced) would have to be moved to the shiny new crossbar switch, adding cost and possibly requiring a change of telephone number.

Irrelevant now (as any exchange which can pass caller ID is digital) but a likely factor in the initial slow adoption of pushbutton telephones. I see that one user has removed this info from the article repeatedly, without explanation. I'm reverting this. If the unexplained deletions of content continue, I shall report this as WP:VANDALism. K7L (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You accuse me of removing content without explanation, which was wrong in the first place, and you add content with this explanation that has nothing to do with the false statements I removed. I reorganized your new content more coherently into the TT and DP sections. Kbrose (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * DTMF might have been introduced in 1963, but that didn't mean that any subscriber, located anywhere, could get it just by paying extra to be switched to another exchange which supported DTMF. He could get it only if it was available on one of the switches serving his area, which for most places meant that he had no choice at all, since multiple switch options tended to exist only in some of the larger cities.  If an exchange some miles away had been converted to accept DTMF, then he could pay to have what was known as a "foreign exchange" line installed, i.e. a line run all the way out to that distant exchange.  But FX lines (as they were called) at that time were very expensive, and certainly not something that the residential or small business owner could have even considered worthwhile.


 * And DTMF converters WERE added to some SxS switches in the U.S. in later years. They simply accepted the DTMF digits from a TouchTone phone and converted them into dial pulses to operate the switches.  Thus any overall saving in time compared to rotary dialing was minimal (limited only to the reduction of inter-digit time which would result through automated pulsing out of the stored number versus manual dialing).  146.90.92.209 (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the definition of "some of the larger cities"? Over 10000 phones? A modern DMS-100 has 5ESS-like capabilities and a hundred thousand lines, but the old switches were smaller so even small-city offices contained multiple exchange switches. Certainly, forgetaboutit for subscribers on community dial offices or rural party lines; a town of a few thousand people only have one exchange prefix "to choose from". On the other hand, a city of 50000 isn't going to fit on one 10000-line switch, so "see if the other switch has tone dial" became plausible.
 * FX lines were used mostly by businesses in suburbs of large cities to get downtown numbers; in 1989 Bell Canada quoted my firm C$200/month for a Toronto number to a (now +1-905-625-) location on Dixie Road in Mississauga. The 625 exchange physically sat on the Toronto side of the line but had the restricted suburban calling area because Bell gave +1-416-620 to Etobicoke subscribers and 625 to Cooksville subscribers on the same switch. There are also "foreign office" lines within a city if the city has multiple switches. K7L (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the info on the tone-to-pulse converter, although the earliest I can be certain these existed is 1974. I've flagged the claim "Some exchanges no longer support pulse-dialing[unreliable source?][6]" as questionable; the cited source is a personal website which contradicts itself: "And rotary phones won't even work on many phone companies' lines any more" vs. "Unlike many of the wonderful long-lost things we grew up with, dial-up phones can still be used with most phone companies. They have maintained backward compatibility so that you can dig out your mother's avacado green bedside phone, affix the proper plug, and use it to dial out on the same wires that might be providing you with high-speed DSL service. It's nice when an occasional thing doesn't change."
 * I see no reason why a 5ESS or DMS-100 wouldn't accept dial pulses. It's voice over IP and private branch exchange installations where this is breaking (and the latter is not held to any standard internally, so stations which only work on that one system are required on some PBXes). K7L (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PBXes and ATAs without Pulse Dialling?
The article claims that there were PBXes and ATAs which didn't allow pulse dialling. I need to question whether this is true. Even though rotary phones have become rare, there are still quite a few people who haven't switched their push-button phone to tone dialling, so the phone will dial by pulse. I've even seen people who used pulse dialling with their DECT phones. And it works. I've never seen any PBX or ATA not supporting it. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)