Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring envelope.)
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring envelope.)
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring envelope.)
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring envelope.)
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides, it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring envelope.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I've never really "got" sport or physical exercise. The only muscle I've
ever
enjoyed exercising is the one between my ears. - Beryl Hales, Radio Times 24-30 March 2012
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
Automatic telephone exchanges have had the double ring since the 1930s
but if the 'phone was an extension it might have had an inverter ringer operated by holding down a button on the planset, which would give one
long ring.
Some small internal manual telephone exchanges in the 1960s still had hand-cranked ringing generators which gave a single long ring. They are easily identified because the frequency tended to drop towards the end
of the cranking period as the user prepared to stop.
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring
envelope.)
Most likely because of some ignorant youth in the production team who
has been brought up on American 'movies' and mobile 'phones and has
never heard a British landline ringing pattern. ...Just pressed a
button on a computer sound effect that said "telephone ring".
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
On Sun 16/01/2022 20:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much care
taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides, it's so
British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring envelope.)
You will sometimes see an American phone with its 'odd' soundjng bell in episodes of Endeavour.
Its either lack of attention to detail by the set crew and/or designer, or corner cutting.
In article <rV26SXXQvH5hFwjB@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
might be if it was connected to a private exchange
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring
envelope.)
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
If you recall we had the stupid system where phones had red triangles if
not approved here, and a green disc when they were, it was seldom a problem though, since my guess was that the UK makers were trying to just preserve their monopoly.
Most likely because of some ignorant youth in the production team who
has been brought up on American 'movies' and mobile 'phones and has
never heard a British landline ringing pattern. ...Just pressed a
button on a computer sound effect that said "telephone ring".
American phones also ring very off key to British ears. Of course it all depends on how the exchange is designed and how the phone is made back
then. I believe nowadays, phones with real bells cannot be used directly
on current exchanges as the Ren is too high and pulse dialling is no
longer allowed, so there used to be little boxes that were mains powered
to do the conversion if you really wanted your old bakelite phone to still work. Not sure why you would want it myself but it takes all sorts, I suppose.
If you recall we had the stupid system where phones had red triangles if
not approved here, and a green disc when they were, it was seldom a problem >though, since my guess was that the UK makers were trying to just preserve >their monopoly.
Brian
(*) I never understood the origin of that weird phrase "camp on". It sounds like a trip with a tent or else Julian and Sandy;-) "Ringback" is a much more intuitive description.
(*) I never understood the origin of that weird phrase "camp on". It
sounds like a trip with a tent or else Julian and Sandy ;-) "Ringback"
is a much more intuitive description.
Brian Gaff (Sofa) <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
I believe nowadays, phones with real bells cannot be used directly on
current exchanges as the Ren is too high and pulse dialling is no longer
allowed,
Pulse dialling still works as long as you dial the whole number straight
off. If you get "Press 1 for X, Press 2 for Y", the translator will
have dropped out and you won't be able to use pulse dialling at that
point in the call.
Maximum REN is still 4 as far as I am aware and a standard telephone
bell has a REN of 1.
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
Automatic telephone exchanges have had the double ring since the 1930s
but if the 'phone was an extension it might have had an inverter ringer >operated by holding down a button on the planset, which would give one
long ring.
Some small internal manual telephone exchanges in the 1960s still had >hand-cranked ringing generators which gave a single long ring. They are >easily identified because the frequency tended to drop towards the end
of the cranking period as the user prepared to stop.
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring
envelope.)
Most likely because of some ignorant youth in the production team who
has been brought up on American 'movies' and mobile 'phones and has
never heard a British landline ringing pattern. ...Just pressed a
button on a computer sound effect that said "telephone ring".
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 20:27:39 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
Automatic telephone exchanges have had the double ring since the 1930s
but if the 'phone was an extension it might have had an inverter ringer >operated by holding down a button on the planset, which would give one
long ring.
That's what I thought - a long, long time before STD.
However, I thought the first automatic telephone exchange (Epsom) was
in 1912 (Holborn 1927). Are you saying there was a period before the
double ring was introduced?
I believe nowadays, phones with real bells cannot be used directly on
current exchanges as the Ren is too high and pulse dialling is no longer allowed,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 20:27:39 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I >> wrong?
Automatic telephone exchanges have had the double ring since the 1930s >but if the 'phone was an extension it might have had an inverter ringer >operated by holding down a button on the planset, which would give one >long ring.
That's what I thought - a long, long time before STD.
The double ring was long time before STD (but the inverter-powered
ringer was more recent).
However, I thought the first automatic telephone exchange (Epsom) was
in 1912 (Holborn 1927). Are you saying there was a period before the double ring was introduced?
No. I'm just saying that I know the double ring dates back at least as
far as the 1930's, it might go back further than that. My recollection
is that it is all explained in the definitve book on telephones by
Herbert & Proctor.
In article <1plxdao.4ipusd1px78lcN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 20:27:39 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I >> wrong?
Automatic telephone exchanges have had the double ring since the 1930s >but if the 'phone was an extension it might have had an inverter ringer >operated by holding down a button on the planset, which would give one >long ring.
That's what I thought - a long, long time before STD.
The double ring was long time before STD (but the inverter-powered
ringer was more recent).
However, I thought the first automatic telephone exchange (Epsom) was
in 1912 (Holborn 1927). Are you saying there was a period before the double ring was introduced?
No. I'm just saying that I know the double ring dates back at least as
far as the 1930's, it might go back further than that. My recollection
is that it is all explained in the definitve book on telephones by
Herbert & Proctor.
I thought the 'book' was by Atkinson, but perhaps that was just the systems
American phones also ring very off key to British ears. Of courseit all
depends on how the exchange is designed and how the phone is madeback then.
Brian Gaff (Sofa) <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
I believe nowadays, phones with real bells cannot be used directly on current exchanges as the Ren is too high and pulse dialling is no longer allowed,
Pulse dialling still works as long as you dial the whole number straight
off. If you get "Press 1 for X, Press 2 for Y", the translator will
have dropped out and you won't be able to use pulse dialling at that
point in the call.
Maximum REN is still 4 as far as I am aware and a standard telephone
bell has a REN of 1.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:32:13 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" ><briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
American phones also ring very off key to British ears. Of courseit all
depends on how the exchange is designed and how the phone is madeback then.
That's because the two bells in (old) US phones are a different
pitch. The UK ones are/were the same pitch.
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Not really UTB, but still ...
Watching Call the Midwife.
I think it's set in the sixties.
Telephones - one long ring?
I thought UK telephones had the ring-ring since well before that. Am I
wrong?
Automatic telephone exchanges have had the double ring since the 1930s
but if the 'phone was an extension it might have had an inverter ringer >operated by holding down a button on the planset, which would give one
long ring.
(I can't see it's a misguided aim at overseas sales: there's so much
care taken with other aspects to be chronologically correct. Besides,
it's so British, that foreign purchasers would go for the British ring
envelope.)
Most likely because of some ignorant youth in the production team who
has been brought up on American 'movies' and mobile 'phones and has
never heard a British landline ringing pattern. ...Just pressed a
button on a computer sound effect that said "telephone ring".
On the subject someone else mentioned: pulse dialling and bells still work
on most (all?) landline exchanges; I've even used the "bang out the number
on the rest" for fun occasionally, though with today's 11-digit numbers,
it's easy to make a mistake. (Of course, once you get through to a system that says "dial 1 if you're being shelled by the Serbians, dial 2 if
you're being shelled by ...", it doesn't work, as those systems only recognise touch-tones. [A point I've tried to get across to the electricity-supply industry: touch-tone 'phones may not work when the
power's off, though I know some do.])
I _presume_ support for pulse-dialling 'phones is one of the things we'll lose when POTS ends in three years or so: I can't see them implementing it
in the circuitry behind the plug-your-'phone-into-your-router "solution" we'll be offered.
In article <almarsoft.5018345912681756395@news.plus.net>,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:32:13 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" >><briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
American phones also ring very off key to British ears. Of courseit all
depends on how the exchange is designed and how the phone is madeback then.
That's because the two bells in (old) US phones are a different
pitch. The UK ones are/were the same pitch.
Incorrect, at least for the 706L. I just flipped one over,
"tinged" the bells individually, a lower (C) and higher (G)
tone (so a 5th apart).
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:lQYpz0ppJd5hFwDl@255soft.uk...[]
I _presume_ support for pulse-dialling 'phones is one of the things we'll
lose when POTS ends in three years or so: I can't see them implementing it >> in the circuitry behind the plug-your-'phone-into-your-router "solution"
we'll be offered.
I wonder if there may be "grandfather rights" which *require* PD to be >implemented in VOIP adaptors, for people who still have old rotary phones.
I repair people's PC and and solve their internet problems, and I was called >to a very unusual house - to get to the computer I had to clamber over a
very old dark-oak loom that completely filled the living room. This was
about 15 years ago. They wanted to connect their computer to the internet. >Where's your phone socket? I was met with a look of incomprehension. Their >only phone was a Bakelite pre-706 model - the sort with a little drawer >underneath as a phone-number list, with fabric-wrapped cord connecting to
the handset and the GPO lozenge box.
I suggested that they contact BT to see if there was a way that they could >get a BT plug put on the phone, to go with the BT socket that they'd need to >get BT Openreach to fit. I warned them that they might find that BT wanted >the phone back to go in their museum, and that even if they kept the phone, >it might be expensive to get it converted. I don't know whether BT are as >fussy about approved phones as they were in the days of green circles >(approved) and red triangles (not approved). I wonder if BT OR are prepared >to keep the lozenge box and its wiring to the phone, and intercept the--
wiring between there and the pole to put in a modern BT master socket with >the phone on a a filtered faceplate.
That's because the two bells in (old) US phones are a different
pitch. The UK ones are/were the same pitch.
Incorrect, at least for the 706L. I just flipped one over,
"tinged" the bells individually, a lower (C) and higher (G)
tone (so a 5th apart).
I think the difference is that GPO/BT phones used two bells that were a >musical interval apart (C and G) whereas US ones chose bells which were not
a simple interval apart and so created a dischord - presumably deliberately >to make it as audible as possible against background sound, especially
music.
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:lQYpz0ppJd5hFwDl@255soft.uk...
On the subject someone else mentioned: pulse dialling and bells still
work
on most (all?) landline exchanges; I've even used the "bang out the
number
on the rest" for fun occasionally, though with today's 11-digit numbers,
it's easy to make a mistake. (Of course, once you get through to a system
that says "dial 1 if you're being shelled by the Serbians, dial 2 if
you're being shelled by ...", it doesn't work, as those systems only
recognise touch-tones. [A point I've tried to get across to the
electricity-supply industry: touch-tone 'phones may not work when the
power's off, though I know some do.])
My standby phone is new enough to have a keypad but old enough that it is switchable between pulse and tone dialling. I leave it on tone, but I was glad I knew where the changeover switch was when my exchange developed a fault that prevented some digits being dialled (probably all those which
used a certain tone in the DTMF) and one of the digits was used in the BT fault-reporting phone number :-( Pulse dialling to the rescue.
I _presume_ support for pulse-dialling 'phones is one of the things we'll
lose when POTS ends in three years or so: I can't see them
implementing it
in the circuitry behind the plug-your-'phone-into-your-router "solution"
we'll be offered.
I wonder if there may be "grandfather rights" which *require* PD to be implemented in VOIP adaptors, for people who still have old rotary phones.
I repair people's PC and and solve their internet problems, and I was
called
to a very unusual house - to get to the computer I had to clamber over a
very old dark-oak loom that completely filled the living room. This was
about 15 years ago. They wanted to connect their computer to the internet. Where's your phone socket? I was met with a look of incomprehension. Their only phone was a Bakelite pre-706 model - the sort with a little drawer underneath as a phone-number list, with fabric-wrapped cord connecting to
the handset and the GPO lozenge box.
I suggested that they contact BT to see if there was a way that they could get a BT plug put on the phone, to go with the BT socket that they'd
need to
get BT Openreach to fit. I warned them that they might find that BT wanted the phone back to go in their museum, and that even if they kept the phone, it might be expensive to get it converted. I don't know whether BT are as fussy about approved phones as they were in the days of green circles (approved) and red triangles (not approved). I wonder if BT OR are prepared to keep the lozenge box and its wiring to the phone, and intercept the
wiring between there and the pole to put in a modern BT master socket with the phone on a a filtered faceplate.
What is more worrying is are they still paying rental for that phone at getting on for 60 years???
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:lQYpz0ppJd5hFwDl@255soft.uk...still work
On the subject someone else mentioned: pulse dialling and bells
the numberon most (all?) landline exchanges; I've even used the "bang out
numbers,on the rest" for fun occasionally, though with today's 11-digit
a systemit's easy to make a mistake. (Of course, once you get through to
ifthat says "dial 1 if you're being shelled by the Serbians, dial 2
onlyyou're being shelled by ...", it doesn't work, as those systems
therecognise touch-tones. [A point I've tried to get across to the electricity-supply industry: touch-tone 'phones may not work when
power's off, though I know some do.])
I've had several touch-tone phones and none of them needed a mains connection. You must be thinking of answerphones or cordless base units.
(If it's switched to pulse you should be able to switch it to tone by pressing *. BT used to tell you to press * twice for their menuing system. Once to switch and once to tell them you have.)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:57:36 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:[]
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:lQYpz0ppJd5hFwDl@255soft.uk...
therecognise touch-tones. [A point I've tried to get across to the
electricity-supply industry: touch-tone 'phones may not work when
power's off, though I know some do.])
I've had several touch-tone phones and none of them needed a mains >connection. You must be thinking of answerphones or cordless base units.
(If it's switched to pulse you should be able to switch it to tone by >pressing *. BT used to tell you to press * twice for their menuing
system. Once to switch and once to tell them you have.)
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:almarsoft.2566142641720616565@news.plus.net...mains
I've had several touch-tone phones and none of them needed a
units.connection. You must be thinking of answerphones or cordless base
tone by(If it's switched to pulse you should be able to switch it to
menuing system.pressing *. BT used to tell you to press * twice for their
*their ownOnce to switch and once to tell them you have.)
How standard is it that phones respond to pressing * by switching
internal electronics* from DTMF to pulse (and presumably backagain). The
type of dialling used is a function of the phone, not theline/exchange that
it is connected to. Unless some exchanges need to be told that youhave
switched your phone between dialling modes and can't respondequally well to
either being sent.
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:30:03 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:[]
How standard is it that phones respond to pressing * by switching*their own
internal electronics* from DTMF to pulse (and presumably backagain). The
type of dialling used is a function of the phone, not theline/exchange that
it is connected to. Unless some exchanges need to be told that youhave
switched your phone between dialling modes and can't respondequally well to
either being sent.
Well BT must think it's standard. Of course it's only for the current
call I assume. You have to find a switch on the underside to change it >persistently.
On Tue 18/01/2022 18:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:[]
(I know US DTMF tones are different, though I don't know if different >>enough that a US 'phone wont work here - I think it is that different.)
Where did you get that idea John, given that DTMF is an international >'standard' invented by the Merkins? The only difference is that they
may have phones with access to the fourth row (A-D) which most do not.
To appease some users, BT made a push-button version of the 706/746
models but they still pulse dialled. The change was just a plate with
the buttons on it that replaced the dial!
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 14:12:16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:57:36 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:[]
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:lQYpz0ppJd5hFwDl@255soft.uk...
therecognise touch-tones. [A point I've tried to get across to the
electricity-supply industry: touch-tone 'phones may not work when
power's off, though I know some do.])
I've had several touch-tone phones and none of them needed a mains
connection. You must be thinking of answerphones or cordless base units.
Well, I was talking in shorthand. Yes, most (all I think) line-powered touch-tone 'phones don't need power; I just meant that when there's a
power cut, people may need to dig out an old 'phone (mainly because
their cordless one doesn't work), and sometimes that will be pulse-only
(see below), though probably rare.
I'd never heard of that wrinkle; interesting. (The only ones I've ever
(If it's switched to pulse you should be able to switch it to tone by
pressing *. BT used to tell you to press * twice for their menuing
system. Once to switch and once to tell them you have.)
come across with both forms of dialling have had a physical switch on
them.)
I do have a very early pushbutton one that still _only_ does pulse
dialling! Must have been one of the very early type-approved ones. (I
think it still has its little piece of card with the green circle on
tied round the cord.) Was there a period after privatisation - or, at
least, after the introduction of sockets (can't remember if that was
before or after privatisation) - when DTMF wasn't officially approved?
(I know US DTMF tones are different, though I don't know if different
enough that a US 'phone wont work here - I think it is that different.)
I just meant that when there's a
power cut, people may need to dig out an old 'phone (mainly because
their cordless one doesn't work),
On Tue 18/01/2022 18:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 14:12:16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:57:36 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:[]
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:lQYpz0ppJd5hFwDl@255soft.uk...
therecognise touch-tones. [A point I've tried to get across to the
electricity-supply industry: touch-tone 'phones may not work when
power's off, though I know some do.])
I've had several touch-tone phones and none of them needed a mains
connection. You must be thinking of answerphones or cordless base units.
Well, I was talking in shorthand. Yes, most (all I think) line-powered touch-tone 'phones don't need power; I just meant that when there's a
power cut, people may need to dig out an old 'phone (mainly because
their cordless one doesn't work), and sometimes that will be pulse-only (see below), though probably rare.
I'd never heard of that wrinkle; interesting. (The only ones I've ever
(If it's switched to pulse you should be able to switch it to tone by
pressing *. BT used to tell you to press * twice for their menuing
system. Once to switch and once to tell them you have.)
come across with both forms of dialling have had a physical switch on them.)
I do have a very early pushbutton one that still _only_ does pulse dialling! Must have been one of the very early type-approved ones. (I
think it still has its little piece of card with the green circle on
tied round the cord.) Was there a period after privatisation - or, at least, after the introduction of sockets (can't remember if that was
before or after privatisation) - when DTMF wasn't officially approved?
(I know US DTMF tones are different, though I don't know if different enough that a US 'phone wont work here - I think it is that different.)
Where did you get that idea John, given that DTMF is an international 'standard' invented by the Merkins?
To appease some users, BT made a push-button version of the 706/746 models but they still pulse dialled. The change was just a plate with the buttons
on it that replaced the dial!
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:30:03 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in messagemains
news:almarsoft.2566142641720616565@news.plus.net...
I've had several touch-tone phones and none of them needed a
units.connection. You must be thinking of answerphones or cordless base
tone by
(If it's switched to pulse you should be able to switch it to
menuing system.pressing *. BT used to tell you to press * twice for their
Once to switch and once to tell them you have.)
How standard is it that phones respond to pressing * by switching*their own
internal electronics* from DTMF to pulse (and presumably backagain). The
type of dialling used is a function of the phone, not theline/exchange that
it is connected to. Unless some exchanges need to be told that youhave
switched your phone between dialling modes and can't respondequally well to
either being sent.
Well BT must think it's standard. Of course it's only for the current call
I assume. You have to find a switch on the underside to change it persistently.
I do have a very early pushbutton one that still _only_ does pulse
dialling! Must have been one of the very early type-approved ones. (I
think it still has its little piece of card with the green circle on tied round the cord.) Was there a period after privatisation - or, at least,
after the introduction of sockets (can't remember if that was before or
after privatisation) - when DTMF wasn't officially approved? (I know US
DTMF tones are different, though I don't know if different enough that a
US 'phone wont work here - I think it is that different.)
And presumably only goes _to_ DTMF, since * has no meaning in pulse
dialling
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:almarsoft.8935565890204993174@news.plus.net...current call
Well BT must think it's standard. Of course it's only for the
isI assume. You have to find a switch on the underside to change it persistently.
So you're saying that the "DTMF/pulse" slide-switch on some phones
actually redundant and the phone has been hard-coded so pressingthe * key
changes the behaviour of the phone (not the exchange) between thetwo modes
of dialling.
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:19:04 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.8935565890204993174@news.plus.net...
current callWell BT must think it's standard. Of course it's only for the
I assume. You have to find a switch on the underside to change it
persistently.
So you're saying that the "DTMF/pulse" slide-switch on some phonesis
actually redundant and the phone has been hard-coded so pressingthe * key
changes the behaviour of the phone (not the exchange) between thetwo modes
of dialling.
No, the * just works for the current call for people who haven't switched their phone over.
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message news:ss3fcf$o14$1@dont-email.me... >>
I noticed the single-ring issue with Call the Midwife several years ago. I >> remember asking on uk.telecom about it, in case there were some exchanges
that used single ring - or manual rings by the operator. The example I saw >> was a payphone (I think it was in the midwives' office) so highly unlikely >> to be via a switchboard.
Single ring was standard in the very early days of UK telephony. It[]
survived for a number of decades on some small rural exchanges,
eg. the UAX5 (not that the BBC would know - more likely it featured
due to laziness).
I noticed the single-ring issue with Call the Midwife several years ago. I remember asking on uk.telecom about it, in case there were some exchanges that used single ring - or manual rings by the operator. The example I saw was a payphone (I think it was in the midwives' office) so highly unlikely to be via a switchboard.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >news:almarsoft.1535948788443218897@news.plus.net...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:19:04 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >>>news:almarsoft.8935565890204993174@news.plus.net...current call
Well BT must think it's standard. Of course it's only for the
isI assume. You have to find a switch on the underside to change it
persistently.
So you're saying that the "DTMF/pulse" slide-switch on some phones
actually redundant and the phone has been hard-coded so pressingthe * key
changes the behaviour of the phone (not the exchange) between thetwo modes
of dialling.
No, the * just works for the current call for people who haven't
switched their phone over.
So you lift the receiver to make a call, press * and then any digits
that you type will be sent as pulse rather than DTMF, with the default >resetting to DTMF when that call is ended? I wonder if my DTMF/pulse
phone does that? And does * reverse the DTMF/pulse slide switch for one
call (ie if the phone is set to pulse at the slide switch, will it give
me DTMF for the next call if I precede the dialled digits with *)?
I've got to try this because it sounds remarkable. No, it doesn't work
with my BT Viscount phone. The slide switch is set to DTMF. I press *
and hear a tone. I then press another digit and hear its tone (not a
number of pulses).
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:ss929a$sen$1@dont-email.me...
I've got to try this because it sounds remarkable. No, it doesn't
work with my BT Viscount phone. The slide switch is set to DTMF. I
press * and hear a tone. I then press another digit and hear its tone
(not a number of pulses).
And conversely with the slide in pulse, I still get pulse after
dialling an initial *.
I've got to try this because it sounds remarkable. No, it doesn't work
with my BT Viscount phone. The slide switch is set to DTMF. I press * and hear a tone. I then press another digit and hear its tone (not a number of pulses).
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message news:ss3fcf$o14$1@dont-email.me...
I noticed the single-ring issue with Call the Midwife several years ago. I remember asking on uk.telecom about it, in case there were some exchanges that used single ring - or manual rings by the operator. The example I saw was a payphone (I think it was in the midwives' office) so highly unlikely to be via a switchboard.
Single ring was standard in the very early days of UK telephony. It
survived for a number of decades on some small rural exchanges,
eg. the UAX5 (not that the BBC would know - more likely it featured
due to laziness).
A 1971 recording here:
https://youtu.be/rYa9DPgWSk8?t=339
The BBC, as a whole, probaly did; the minion who produced the sound effect obviously didn't.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:59ad4c37abcharles@candehope.me.uk...
The BBC, as a whole, probaly did; the minion who produced the sound
effect
obviously didn't.
I suppose we should all be "terribly grateful" that the dubbing mixer
didn't dub the Nokia tune or any of the other ringtones onto the
pictures of a GPO706 ringing ;-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 06:22:40 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,810 |
| Posted today: | 1 |