Talk:Telephone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russian telephones

Why? Phones are no different in Russia then they are in Europe or North America. Why should one area deserve more attention or be given special attention?

Nothing is mentioned about the evolution of Telephony and telecom in the (former) USSR and now in Russia and independent Republics. It seems to me that everything can not be generalized, over there is also technological revolution and it is certainly different that the American and other European systems.

Agreed, but a link to "History of the telephone in the former USSR" or something is rational. Adding it to THIS page is not. This page needs to be a nexsus of a cluster of pages about telephony. Rick Boatright 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Split page?

Maybe this page should be split into sub-pages?

Proposed page-split:

Would those two things shorten the page enough to get it to reasonable? Or is it better to leave this long version all here? Rick Boatright 15:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell -centrism

It's typical American to say that Graham Bell is considered the Inventor of the telephone. Cause in other parts of the world he is not.

Meucci invented the telephone but it was Bell who was first to patent the idea. I read somewhere that the US Congress acknowledged that Meucci infact was its inventor.

Not exactly. The resolution was more vague than that. There is a separate article about inventing the telephone. Gray and Bell are in this article for starting the industry, rather than for inventing the telephone. Jim.henderson 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Chinese telephones

The source about the chinese invention should have been publicated in Peking Gazette from 1878, but it has not been revealed yet. So if you have access to that paper, i.e. live in China or something, (if it still exists), please have a look at it. An other source is 25th august, 1878, Journal Télégraphique.

Antonio Meucci recognized as official inventor of telephone

I see in both this article and the Alexander Graham Bell article that supposedly, in September 2001, Antonio Meucci was recognized by Congress ad the inventor of the telephone, being that he created the device in 1849. However, I have searched on this topic and have been unable to find any article on an official government site that states this. I was able to find a supposed document from the House and Representatives on a site, but it had no link to any original source from a government site. I also searched extensively on Antonio Meucci, Alexander Graham Bell and Telephone on both the US Copyright Office website and the US Patent Office website. I was only able to find a patent for the telephone which stated the patent holder as being Alexander Graham. If someone could point me to an article on an actual government site, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I don't think that should be mentioned on Wikipedia in any article.

Antonio Meucci

June 11, 2002, the United States Congress passes Resolution 269, recognizing Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone. (http://www.garibaldimeuccimuseum.org/congress.html)


  • There were many 19th century mechanical telephones such as that patented by Nathan Stubblefield which worked like the "tin can telephone" used by kids. The sound vibrations strike a diaphragm are conveyed over the string or wire, and are audible at the other end when the string or wire vibrates the diaphragm there. When carefully constructed, these can function over a great distance, even over pulleys for direction change, like the bell pulls used to signal servants' quarters from bedrooms or dining rooms in 18th and 19th century homes. Meucci could have talked to his wife from another part of the house via a speaking tube, such as was commonly used in apartment buildings between the lobby and the apartment, or in a ship between the bridge and engine room, or by using a mechanical telephone. That is a more parsimonious explanation of how he spoke to his sick wife upstairs from the basement, if in fact he did so, than that he anticipated the many years of research it took decades later to develop the Bell instrument. Edison 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Meucci created and patented a telephone five years before Graham-Bell patented his. Meucci sued Graham-Bell but died as the case was still going on and the credit for the invention was given to Graham-Bell.

Meucci never patented the telephone and did not apply for a patent on the telephone. In December 1871 Meucci filed a caveat for "Sound Telegraphs" which does not mention electromagnetic instruments or voice controlled electrical currents as in Bell's patent. A caveat was like a provisional patent application that described the invention for the Patent Office examiner and expired after one year unless it was renewed by paying a renewal fee. A caveat could be converted into a patent application by filing claims and paying another fee. Meucci renewed his caveat in 1872, 1873, and 1874, but did not renew it in 1875. According to Zenas Wilber, the patent examiner who handled both Meucci's caveat and Bell's patent application, "had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could have been issued to Bell." Meanwhile, Meucci was being granted respectable patents 168,273 (1875) and 183,062 (1876) for a method of testing purity of milk and a hygrometer for measuring relative humidity. Hence, Meucci protestations of poverty do not hold up. What probably happened was Meucci's issued patents may have been financed by an investor who paid the lawyers and Patent Office fees to acquire Meucci's patents, but refused to pay for a telephone patent, just as Samuel S. White was financing Elisha Gray's patents but refused to pay for a telephone patent. By 1875 Meucci did not see any prospect of getting someone to finance a telephone patent, and so he abandoned his caveat at just the wrong time. Because Meucci's caveat was still unpublished, it was not "prior art" and hence did not interfere with Bell's patent. Greensburger 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

With all due respect, aside from a resolution of the US house which merely states that Meucci's "work in the ivention of the telephone should be acknowledged" it is Bell who is still widely credited with the invention of the telephone at least in the English speaking world. The passage of one non-binding resolution of one half of one branch of one government (that is the House (not the whole congress) of the United States) does not justify this article stating that Bell is not the inventor of the telephone. Moreover, the House resolution only states that his work be acknowledge, he is not explicitly credited with the invention of the device. - Jord 17:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that most of the people think that is bell the inventor of the telephone doesn't mean anything, the telephone's invention affair has been discussed for a long time.
The fact that only a branch of the governement has voted can be considered pure patriotism.
The worst thing is that accordingly with official biography of Meucci the invention has been stolen by Bell and it's not Bell that dicovered the telephone later.
The decision of the house of US governement is to admit on the base of a huge quantity of historical evidences how the things really went.
In Italy it's already known to be Meucci the inventor and other countries simply have no interest in the case.
In case of no replies I'm going to change the incipit of the article in a more NPOV way.

--Zimbricchio 8 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

For Ghu's sake... the article lists a HUGE BUNCH of people who worked on Phones. _NO ONE_ "invented the telephone." It was a multi-year collaberative effort involving a LOT of people on several continents. Bell, arguably, brought all that together (most notably Gray's liquid microphone) and create a PHONE COMPANY... but the thought that Bell and Watson invented the telephone "de novo" is just silly. The legal record is quite clear albeit complex, the historical record, because these Bozo's kept making their claims in NEWSPAPERS is very very very confused and clouded since people would make all SORTS of claims that weren't real in the papers. Bottom line, no one person invented the telephone. lots of people, Reis, Meucci, Bell, Grey, Edison, Hughs, Boursel, Varley _all_ contributed to that invention. What's really interesting, ofcourse, isn't the invention of the telephone, it's Bell's putting it all together and creating a successful telephone COMPANY. batteries, switches, operators, instruments, the rental thing, the patents... Hell of a thing. Rick Boatright 8 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)


Is the problem here a misunderstanding of the term telephone. In its actually definition of a device that converts sound into a form that can be transmitted long distances, and thus was clearly not invented by Bell. But the term telephone is represented in popular culture as something that allows you to speak to someone a long distance away and have a conversation. Bell was the first person to build a device to do that wasn't he? Ajmayhew 07:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how long is "a long distance". All of the early telephone inventors had a problem finding an efficient transmitter (microphone) and an efficient receiver. Supporters of Reis argue that Reis was the first and he had witnesses who could hear and understand transmitted human speech. But Reis thought his microphone interrupted the current like a buzzer and that discredited him and his witnesses. Bell finally suceeded in transmitting clear speech on March 10, 1876 in his famous "Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." message, but Bell used the liquid transmitter invented a few weeks earlier by Elisha Gray and Bell used an electromagnetic receiver described in one of Gray's earlier patents. The Bell Telephone Company almost went bankrupt because Bell lacked an efficient microphone. Edison invented the carbon microphone, and three other inventors Francis Blake, Emile Berliner, and Henry Hunnings, whose patents were bought by Bell, developed an improved version that saved the Bell company from extinction. The best one can say about Bell was he was the first to be granted a patent that claimed the essentials of a practical telephone. Some of that was his lawyer's doing. The actual invention of the first practical telephone using a carbon granules microphone and an iron diaphragm electromagnetic receiver was the work of several others. Greensburger 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

January 2006,

Sure a lot of people created the telephone, but after Meucci! Do you want to see one of the telephones created by Meucci? Try going to Tuscany, Italy, at the theater called TEATRO LA PERGOLA. You can find a telephone created before 1833. Meucci, from 1849 started to create and produce over 30 different models of telephones, even a telephone to use under the sea. How old was Bell the thief in 1849? and the others? If you cannot find something on the subject is due because you speak english only. Try reading http://www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/meucci.html

In 19th century patent litigation, it was common for those who wished to cash in on someone else's invention to make similar devices to the successful invention and claim they were old, when in fact they had merely tinkered unsuccessfully. They would even bring in family members and old neighbors to swear they saw the device in operation decades before. Claiming that there is an 1849 telephone in a theater in Tuscany would be more convincing if it was described in credible sources, and if there were some publications from around 1849 mentioning its successful operation. Nationalistic pride is not a substitute for proof in the form of verifiable sources. Lots of mid-18th century experimenters built things that made noise, but no one before Bell understood that intelligible speech required a contunuously variable electical current to mirror the acoustic waveform of the speech, thus they built "make and break" transmitters. Edison 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thief and Liar

What do you mean with "credible sources"? If you don't believe go there and see with your own eyes. In Tuscany the telephone exists. Or go to Cuba. Isn't LaCorte a reliable source? Did you read John LaCorte? The president of the American IHS said: <<We can only credit Mr. Bell with commercializing the invention of Meucci. In the tradition of fair play and honesty, let Meucci have the honor to be recognized as the "Father of the Telephone" in the encyclopedia. Let Mr. Bell have the money.>> And about the US House of Representatives with the House Resolution # 269, 107th, did you read it? "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to honor the life and achievements of 19th Century Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work in the invention of the telephone. Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic; Whereas, upon immigrating to New York, Meucci continued to work with ceaseless vigor on a project he had begun in Havana, Cuba, an invention he later called the `teletrofono', involving electronic communications; Whereas Meucci set up a rudimentary communications link in his Staten Island home that connected the basement with the first floor, and later, when his wife began to suffer from crippling arthritis, he created a permanent link between his lab and his wife's second floor bedroom; Whereas, having exhausted most of his life's savings in pursuing his work, Meucci was unable to commercialize his invention, though he demonstrated his invention in 1860 and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper; Whereas Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community; Whereas Meucci was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay his way through the patent application process, and thus had to settle for a caveat, a one year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871; Whereas Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models, and Meucci, who at this point was living on public assistance, was unable to renew the caveat after 1874; Whereas in March 1876, Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored, was granted a patent and was thereafter credited with inventing the telephone; Whereas on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial; Whereas Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent; and Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged." Isn't it a credible source? Have you ever studied/read the life of Meucci? http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/us_bell.htm Italy, Cuba and USA. In three different nations Meucci tested and showed his different devices, starting from 1833-4 (Bell didn't exist) to 1861 (Bell is only 14 years old!). As you can see, "Nationalistic pride" stop you and people like you to accept the truth. Bell was a liar and thief. He invented nothing. Jack 23:00, 26 January 200 (UTC)

Terri Pall vs. George H. Sweigert for credit for invention of cordless phone.

Does anyone have a US Patent Number from 1965 for Teri Pall's invention of the cordless phone? There was another inventor, George H. Sweigert, that filed in May of 1966 and received a patent in June 1969 that I found. The patent is listed in the patent section. I have had this question up about trying to find Teri Pahl's patent now for about a year with no one responding to it. The section of cordless phone crediting Teri Pahl has been added since but with no citation.

the following:

====Teri Pall====
"At a time when most people unthinkingly make phone calls from their cell phones wherever they happen to be, few know that the first cordless phone was invented by a jazz musician named Teri Pall. She invented the cordless phone in 1965 but could not market her invention as it had only a two mile range. Although she sold her rights to the cordless phone, Teri Pall is recognized as having revolutionized cordless communications." [1]

was a direct quote from the link included, and thus a probable copyvio. Also, since it was in the middle of the 1870's stuff, if we WANTED to include it it would go further down the page under Cordless Phones in the 60's....Rick Boatright 02:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Cordless phones that only go to the front yard sell pretty well. There must be other reasons her invention failed.--Gbleem 12:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

Is phone really a Greek word? www.danon.co.uk

Yup. It comes from the Greek words Tele, meaning distant, and phonos, meaning voice. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 06:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

overdue cleanup

Added cleanup tag at top. THis article is a mess. I've moved the invention of the telephone stuff to the pre-existing link Invention of the telephone. I move the Tesla stuff, which was about radio, to the appropriate radio pages. I put in a short exerpt from Timeline in place of the long history thing. At a minimum, this article needs a description of how a telephone WORKS...... See Telegraph for an example of what this article needs to become. Next in plan... move the huge lists of stuff to "list" pages. Rick Boatright 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Revert Linkspam???

User Mendel did a massive revert of many editors work, reverting all the way back to the Revision as of 18:55, 29 March 2005, calling it linkspam.

I re-verted that.... Rick Boatright 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I already explained on my talk page, it was not intentional. Don't worry, mistakes happen -- that's why there's a page history. — mendel ☎ 16:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Echo

I quote from the book "Understanding Telephone Electronics" by John L Fike Ph.D, PE. Adj Professor of Electrical Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Staff Consultant , Texas Instruments Learning Center. and George .E. Friend, Consultant, Telecommunications, Dallas, Texas and Staff Consultant, Texas Instruments Learning Center. Chapter 1, page 15.

"The amount of echo delay depends upon the distance from the transmitter to the point of reflection. The effect of the delay on the talker may be barely noticable to very irritating, to downright confusing. Echo also affects the listener on the far end but to a lesser degree. Echos are caused by mismatches in transmission line impedances which usually occur at the hybrid interface between a two wire line and a 4 wire transmission system. The effect of echo is reduced by inserting a loss in the lines." (Italics and bolding all mine). I rest my case, but an admission of error and an apology from Omegatron would be nice.Light current

Not that I want to insert myself into the middle of an argument, but I don't see where Omegatron has made any recent edits to either the Telephone article page or this talk page. Can you give us some context for what's being discussed here?
Atlant 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo request

With all those pictures, would it be possible also to have one of a phone with a round dial? For most of their history, that was the way telephones were built, but kids today have never seen one. Also, there ought to be a date attached to each photo. The legend "telephone" is pretty unhelpful; "telphone, 19xx" would tell us something. --Doric Loon 06:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC) --Johnhardcastle 11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)that would be nice

Request for clarification

What is telephony? Why am I redirected here from telephony? 66.215.181.211 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Eric 

Telephony should probably be mentioned with a link to the dictionary. --Gbleem 12:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

I noticed while searching through List of HTML decimal character references that ☎ is a redirect to Telephone. While I don't suppose it does any harm, is there any use to this redirect? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's just humour. There are a fair amount of humourous redirects laying around Wikipedia and it's certainly not likley to cause much harm.
Atlant 14:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question, it does have some uses. I saw this symbol being used in someone's signature as a link to their talk page. I wasn't sure what the symbol was supposed to represent, as it looked a lot like a gem or a loaf of bread. So I posted it in the URL and pressed "enter," but there wasn't a page about it (I didn't figure there would be.) nor a redirect. To find out what it was, I had to post it on Microsoft Word and enlarge it to a size 72 font. This redirect saves overly curious people the trouble of having to open up MS Word, post the symbol there, highlight it, and then enlarge it. It is kind of humorous, too. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also ☏. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Handset/headset jack? =

I came here looking for it. i will keep loking and if i find someinfo i will post an article about it here, but if it never get created, someone can fill this up. I'm talking about the jack that connects the wired telefone to the headset, the one that looks like a rj11 but with 4 spaces all filled with 4 connectors (probably fase/neutral for speaker and mic)

A lot of folks refer to this as an RJ11 handset plug, but I suspect (along with you?) that's not technically correct. A few folks call it an RJ09 but RJH is another term; neither seems to appear in the USOCs; Wiki's Registered jack article discusses this.
Atlant 14:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a calling/communication by telephone article?

I'm looking for an article covering international calling habits. Can someone give me a hint where to look for it? --Gneer 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sharing telephone lines

Is there a wiki page about line sharing (as featured in the movie Pillow Talk)? Apparently this used to be common at least until the 1960s. —Tobias Bergemann 11:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See Party line#Telephony. And if that isn't already linked from the Telephone article here, could you please be bold and find a place to make reference to that?
Atlant 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

contradiction timewarp

"1861 Reis manages to transfer voice"

Later it says

"1875 Alexander Graham Bell first transmits voice."

"first" implies a timewarp here. One might take away the word "first", or make it clear what the difference is.DanielDemaret 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reis' phone was designed to do make and break transmission, so that the tone quality and volume were not transmitted, only the frequency, that is, pitch. Yet one could recognize it was a voice, and perhaps make out the word being said. Yet it was not considered "articulate speech" and many different words or phonemes might be indistinguishable. Butu to cloud the issue, Berliners phone was like Reis' transmitter would be isf it were adjusted so the metal contacts were loosely touching, so that the resistance decreased and increased with sound vibrations. Berliner improved on Reis design/. The Edison improved further by using carbon contact instead of metal to metal. Berliner's or Reis' would not stay in adjustment and only worked sporadically, but Edisons was louder and worked more consistently with better articulation. Blake improved on Berliner by adding carbon (after Edison). Incremental improvements continued.Edison 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Micky Mouse phones

I think there needs to be a section on Micky Mouse phones. What do you think? It might make it a bit more interesting!

Salutation

Is it true that Bell proposed that the standard salutation when answering a phone be "Ahoy-hoy"? --71.98.12.111 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was he just recommended "Ahoy." The Simpsons Mr. Burns says "Ahoy-hoy" when answering the phone, likely a reference to Bell's recommendation. AnthonyMartin 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Then who came up with answering the phone with "HELLO"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.58.243.54 (talk • contribs).

sorry

sorry for acidently putting something i wanted to type on the disscusion page on the wrong page, but im new to using discustion pages(and sorry for my bad spelling but i only have 2 munutes left), but the pictures for 2 (or so) of the older phones are quite bad (bad angles)(im talking about the first picture in particular)(and i cant change them myself because everything i do turns out to be a disaster) --Yet-another-user 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Edison's telephone patents

The patent application Edison filed on April 27, 1777 did not include an induction coil and did not use the word "carbon". It did use the words "plumbago and equivalent material". Plumbago is graphite which is a form of carbon, but not the amorphous carbon that was successfully used a year later. I removed the references to induction coil and added patent references. Greensburger 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

History

We need a proper article at History of telephone.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced Chuck Norris with 'Antonio Meucci demonstrates a device later called a telephone' under 'Early Development' as the Timeline shows. I hate Chuck Norris nowadays, i never found him that great anyway.User:Desolationwilliams 17th November 06 16:45pm GMT


THIS IS THE REAL HISTORY ABOUT TELEPHONE.

Storia [modifica]

La paternità dell'invenzione del telefono fu attribuita al fiorentino Antonio Meucci che nel 1871 dimostrò il funzionamento del suo apparecchio che chiamò telettrofono, anche se il primato spetta ad un valdostano, Innocenzo Manzetti, che riuscì a realizzare un apparecchio elettrico in grado di comunicare a distanza già negli anni cinquanta dell'Ottocento, ma senza riuscire a sviluppare ulteriormente il progetto. Manzetti battezzò la sua invenzione, basata sull'induzione elettromagnetica, "télégraphe parlant". Innocenzo Manzetti, come riportano numerose testimonianze dell'epoca (giornali italiani e internazionali che parlarono della dimostrazione pubblica del 10 luglio 1865) [1], riuscì a realizzare un apparecchio elettrico in grado di comunicare a distanza utilizzando il principio di induzione magnetica mentre il primo dispositivo di Meucci consisteva in due fili attorcigliati e stretti tra i denti. Meucci, avuta notizia dai giornali, scrisse a Manzetti parlando di idee simili. Manzetti morì a 52 anni nel 1877, tutti i suoi prodotti scientifici (bussole, barometri, termometri ed il prototipo del "téléphone") vennero ceduti dalla moglie Maria Rosa Anzola, con atto notarile del 7 febbraio 1880, a due viaggiatori americani: Max Meyer, uomo d'affari, e Horace H. Eldred che si scoprì essere direttore dei telegrafi di New York. Nel 1860 Philipp Reis presentò una macchina per la trasmissione elettronica di suoni musicali tramite una barretta vibrante sotto l'influenza di un campo elettromagnetico. Questo dispositivo non era comunque in grado di trasmettere la voce. Elisha Gray lo inventò indipendentemente e ne diede dimostrazione nel 1876, ma due ore prima di presentare la richiesta di brevetto, Alexander Graham Bell presentò la sua (anche se il progetto da lui proposto non funzionava). Come risultato, soprattutto negli Stati Uniti e Canada, Alexander Graham Bell viene accreditato dell'invenzione. Nel 1871 Meucci aveva presentato un brevetto provvisorio, da rinnovarsi annualmente al costo di 10 dollari, ma aveva potuto rinnovarlo solo fino al 1873, non potendosi permettere la cifra di 200 dollari per il brevetto definitivo. L'11 giugno 2002 il Congresso degli Stati Uniti ha riconosciuto, storicamente, ad Antonio Meucci la paternità del telefono. Le prime implementazioni del telefono erano basate sul trasporto del suono attraverso l'aria, piuttosto che tramite segnali elettrici generati dalla voce. Secondo una lettera pubblicata sulla Gazzetta di Pechino, nel 968, l'inventore cinese Kung-Foo-Whing inventò il thumtsein, che probabilmente trasportava la voce attraverso dei tubi. Anche i primi esperimenti di Meucci ed altri usavano questo sistema. Anche in Europa nell'alto medioevo, ma anche prima in epoca romana e nell'antica Grecia, esistevano sistemi analoghi. La prima introduzione pratica del telefono in Italia ebbe luogo a Milano il 30 dicembre 1877 quando fu attivata la linea tra due apparecchi costruiti dai fratelli Gerosa che metteva in contatto una caserma dei pompieri con la stazione della tramvia di Porta Venezia. La successiva linea univa le stazioni ferroviarie di Varese e Gallarate. Nel 1879 tutti gli uffici del telegrafo di Roma furono uniti alla linea telefonica che dall'anno precedente univa Roma a Tivoli. Il primo vero servizio telefonico ebbe però inizio nel 1881 con l'attivazione della linea al signor Giovanni Uberti (il quale ebbe il numero 1) di Roma. Entro la fine dell'anno gli abbonati erano già 900.

Vandalism?

Please explain the entry under "Early history": Was there an inventor named Chuck Norris and the article simply contains a link to the actor of the same name? -> we need disambig page

Or is this simple vandalism? Tierlieb 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? Wahkeenah 12:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That was just vandalism.
Atlant 12:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Power

You would think that the article would explain why an ordinary house telephone can be used during a general power outage. Is it interesting to know the source of your telephone's electric power?Lestrade 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade64.12.116.10 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

This is your chance to be bold!
By the way, for a long time, my house phone didn't work during power failures, apparently because my local phone company didn't realize that the batteries had died in their SLC-96 neighborhood concentrator, and the dang thing was only runnable when the line (mains) power was available. :-)
Atlant 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Two "See also" sections

There are two "See also" sections in this article. Shouldn't they be merged? JIP | Talk 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did the merge and pointed to "History of telephone" disambiguation page which is a collection of see alsos. The history buffs and the current technology buffs are mostly different people and so it is better to keep most of the history stuff off the main Telephone page, except for the brief History section. Greensburger 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

These links were deleted from the Telephone article:

Omitting external links with advertising, I think the following two should be restored because they contain interesting historical information and links to pictures and other information on early telephone equipment:

Greensburger 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite them as references at the appropriate point in the article? Wikipedia isn't a directory, and having an external links section with a few resources (even good ones) is an open invitation for people to add their favorite linkspam. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's a handset?

Someone asked me today for the correct words for the various parts of an ordinary 20th Century desk telephone, having found no satisfaction in the Wikipedia article. That's what this article needs. Too much space here is about deep questions of invention and early development, and not enough about what is a telephone and what are its parts. History is wonderful; most of it however belongs in history articles rather than one that will be first found by the curious, ignorant majority who don't know whether "receiver" is the correct name for that thing shaped like a dogbone or dumbbell that they hold in their hand. 162.83.210.180 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

2, 3 or 4 elementary elements?

I figure, for the purposes of this article, the system has two elements: 1) Telephone 2) Connection Of course the ways these connections are made are wild and wonderful, but for this article they are all one element. This is, after all, an article about the telephone. Other articles are about patents, corporate skullduggery, time slot switching, paper vs plastic insulation and other important topics, but this one shouldn't go chasing wild and wonderful beasts across the county line and into someone else's article. There's plenty to say about the telephone itself, that isn't being said here. Jim.henderson 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chopping out history

An anonymous editor today chopped away almost all historical sections. This was a basically good idea gone wrong by clumsy overdoing. I intend to chop more delicately in the next few hours, leaving a few items in the timeline that are relevant not to credit, but to the form of the telephone. "Who invented" is a matter best left to articles that already exist on that topic. Later on, I hope add more information about early telephones, such as power, transmitter type, ringing, 1 vs 2 vs 4 wire connections, telegraph keys built into the telephone set, separate ring boxes, etc. Jim.henderson 20:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Early commercial instruments

Ta-ta for now. Please feel free to trim, expand, correct, link or otherwise improve the new section. Jim.henderson 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

Is this 1933 Popular Science clip [2] just stating unsubstantiated claims, or was there really a telephone in use before the Civil War? AnthonyMartin 05:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in invention of the telephone non electric telephones were in use for centuries before electric ones. Jim.henderson 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy phones

I've looked all over the Internet and I can find very little information about "courtesy phones". I think it should be mentioned here somewhere. I'm still not completely sure what a courtesy phone is. --Max 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And what is a "white courtesy phone"? --Max 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely correct; it is an absence nearly as grievous as the one noted in the following section, and easier to repair. I just now created the courtesy phone article and hope others will expand, correct and improve it. Jim.henderson 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How a Telephone Works

I believe this article needs a good, solid explanation of how a telephone works. Complete with a diagram or two. I was researching how telephones work (for a school project) and was astounded that Wikipedia didn't have this in its main page on telephones. My old set of encyclopedias is better in this respect! Though if there is a page that includes a nice explanation of how telephones work, I'd love for someone to connect me. :) Jedi Shadow 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I can't help with a picture, but it seems proper to put together a text on the talk page and transfer it when it's ready. At that time it will be wise also to curtail the description of the two parts of the phone system. Jim.henderson 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Inside the telephone

The telephone handles two kinds of information: signals and voice. The signaling equipment consists of a bell to alert the user of incoming calls, and a dial to enter the phone number for outgoing calls. A calling party wishing to speak to another telephone will pick up the handset. The switchhook puts a resistance short across the wires, causing current to flow. The telephone exchange detects the current, attaches a digit receiver, and sends dial tone to indicate readiness. The user pushes the number buttons, which are connected to a tone generator in the phone, which generates DTMF tones. The exchange connects the line to the desired line and alerts that line.

When a phone is inactive, that is on hook, its bell, beeper or other alerting device is connected across the line. When someone calls this phone, the telephone exchange applies a high voltage pulsating signal, which causes the sound mechanism to ring, beep or otherwise alert the called party. When that user picks up the handset, the switchhook disconnects the bell and puts a resistance short on the line, confirming that the phone has been answered. Both lines being off hook, the signaling job is complete. The parties are connected together, and may converse.

The voice part of the telephone consists of a transmitter (often called microphone) and a receiver. The transmitter is basically a variable resistor, whose resistance varies in response to the acoustic pressure waves produced by the voice. The resulting variations in electric current are transmitted along the telephone line to the other phone, where they are fed into the coil of the receiver, which is a miniature speaker. The varying electric field in the coil causes it to move back and forth, reproducing the acoustic pressure waves of the transmitter. Thus, it speaks.

Oof, at a glance it appears complete. Anyone care to criticise and correct my spelling, level of vocabulary, technical knowledge, principles of organization, anything? Please? Nicer to do it here than wait until it appears in the article. Jim.henderson 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"The hookswitch puts a short across the wires" ? That suggests less than a tenth ohm. Why not give the standard number of ohms or a range? "The transmitter is basically a variable resistor" ? That's what it was until phones with transistor amplifiers replaced the old carbon mics. Greensburger 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All right; I seem to recall that it was 300 ohms, but don't know whether that was standard even in the Bell System, much less around the world, so I just corrected "hookswitch" to "switchhook" and added the term "resistance short". I don't know how many different kinds of transmitter are in use now, and am undecided whether to qualify the Edison microphone with some term like "until the late 20th century" or replace it with a less precise, more general yet clear description. I'll get some sleep on it and maybe wake to see that someone has proposed the perfect phrase. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. Oh! Is there no switchhook article? Jim.henderson 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, nobody rewrote it for me, so here's a second draft and I hope it's not getting too long. Jim.henderson 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The telephone handles two kinds of information: signals and voice, at different times on the same twisted pair of wires. The signaling equipment consists of a bell to alert the user of incoming calls, and a dial to enter the phone number for outgoing calls. A calling party wishing to speak to another telephone will pick up the handset, thus operating the switchhook, which puts the telephone into active state or off hook with a resistance short across the wires, causing current to flow. The telephone exchange detects the DC current, attaches a digit receiver, and sends dial tone to indicate readiness. The user pushes the number buttons, which are connected to a tone generator insde the dial, which generates DTMF tones. The exchange connects the line to the desired line and alerts that line.

When a phone is inactive, that is on hook, its bell, beeper or other alerting device is connected across the line through a capacitor. The inactive phone does not short the line, thus the exchange knows it is on hook and only the bell is electrically connected. When someone calls this phone, the telephone exchange applies a high voltage pulsating AC signal, which causes the sound mechanism to ring, beep or otherwise alert the called party. When that user picks up the handset, the switchhook disconnects the bell, connects the voice parts of the telephone, and puts a resistance short on the line, confirming that the phone has been answered and is active. Both lines being off hook, the signaling job is complete. The parties are connected together, and may converse using the voice parts of their telephones.

The voice parts of the telephone consist of a transmitter (often called microphone) and a receiver. The transmitter, powered from the line, puts out an electric current which varies in response to the acoustic pressure waves produced by the voice. The resulting variations in electric current are transmitted along the telephone line to the other phone, where they are fed into the coil of the receiver, which is a miniature loudspeaker. The varying electric current in the coil causes it to move back and forth, reproducing the acoustic pressure waves of the transmitter. Thus, it speaks.

When one or both of the parties "hang up", that is on hook, no DC current flows in one or both lines and that signals to the exchange switch to disconnect both lines. Greensburger 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, it's looking pretty much complete to me. Tomorrow, if it still looks good, I'll use it to replace the "Telephone" section of the "Telephone" article (which is a dumb section name anyway). Please, as I said, give advice or simply improve this draft. And maybe there should also be a "Switchhook" article. Jim.henderson 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Forensically Victorious ?

What on earth does 'forensically' victorious mean in respect of the patents? Rob Burbidge 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Forensic: Relating to, or characteristic of, or used in, courts of justice or public debate". "Victor: One who vanquishes an enemy". Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, 1963. Put it together and it designates the winning side of court cases. The linked Invention of the telephone article goes into more detail on the forensic victories, and I see no reason to describe those events at greater length in the present one. Jim.henderson 11:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Images? too much?

Does anyone else find the large ammount of images a little bit excessive? This image in particular seems completely unnecessary... -b 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. this one also seems unnecessary. Matteo (talk @) 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, that one's even worst. Unless someone objects soon, I don't see any problem with removing at least those two. I hate the stack at the top of the page though. -b 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

how o generate phone sounds?

i'm not asking this for illegal purposes - but it would be good to be able to reproduce the sounds that you hear on a telephone like the dial tone and the numbers you punch and the clicks of picking up and hanging up in a VST plugin or whatever that you can put into a musical sequencer program. those would be helpful sound effects to have since recorded phone conversations (which probably aren't genuine) are often put onto albums and things, for example Reanimation (album) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.164.253 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

History

Although there is disagreement about if Bell "invented" the phone, don't you think we should have a blurb about his phone company, which became AT&T. I think its interesting how his company can still be linked to today. Posted something about this, but it was removed??? --Mike

There's a "see also" link to Bell system, which does look like a better place for such history. Dicklyon 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

Following its removal and revert, I blanked the trivia section because everything in it was trivial and unsourced. Footnotes to wikipedia are not sources (see WP:V and WP:RS). And we aren't supposed to have trivia sections. So please, if you want any of these points back, find a source and put them into a reasonable place in the article, such as a new section or subsection not called "trivia" if they don't fit elsewhere. Dicklyon 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

*Telephone newspaper

why is there no mention of granville t. woods ?

In 1884, Woods started his own company with his brother Lyates. They called it the Woods Railway Telegraph Co., and it made electrical telephone and telegraph equipment for the railway industry. An improved boiler furnace was one of their first inventions. American Bell Telephone bought another invention called "telegraphony," which allowed telegraph stations to send both voice messages and ordinary telegraph messages over the same wire.

In 1887 Woods invented the Synchronous Multiplex Railway Telegraph, a major breakthrough which greatly reduced railway accidents by allowing dispatchers to communicate with moving trains. This was the first time train operators had been able to give and receive information about their location that could be immediately passed on to other moving trains. This invention saved countless lives.

Sometimes inventors sue each other, each claiming that they had invented an item first. Thomas Edison sued Granville Woods twice and lost in court both times when Woods proved that his inventions were original and had been created independently of any influence from Edison's devices. After that the Edison Company made Woods a handsome offer for employment with their company, but Woods declined, preferring to remain independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.157.11 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting fellow, but better suited to a biographical article than to this skimpy history of the telephone. This article quite reasonably doesn't attempt to list every historically significant but tangentially related invention; if it did then it would need sentences for telautograph, phantom working, and other developments that had significance in their own time but eventually reached a dead end. Heck, for good reasons this article doesn't even mention Milo G. Kellogg, whose divided multiple telephone switchboard is much more in the main stream of development that led to the modern PSTN. Perhaps Woods belongs more in a railway signalling article. Jim.henderson 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

telephone to phone. Wikipedia:Use common names. The device is nearly always referred to as a "phone". Voortle 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not necessarily true. Phone is actually quite ambiguous (considering that it is a DAB page) and telephone isn't exactly obscure. Reginmund 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
When people hear "phone" they nearly always think of telephones rather than anything else. The current page phone should be moved to phone (disambiguation). Voortle 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, that is not true. Please see the DAB page; I think you will find out why. Reginmund 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia:Use common names#Do not overdo it. phone leads to a disambiguation page. "Phone" is common but is a more an idiomatic shortening of the word "Telephone" and possibly an American regionalism. "Telephone" is a well understood term that is not ambiguous. --NrDg 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Telephone is the proper term for the device. Phone may be a widely (bordering on universally used nickname, but as an encyclopedic term, phone has several other established meanings as you can see by the link. Leaving Telephone as one disambiguation term from Phone is completely appropriate. ArakunemTalk 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The nickname can point to this article. --Wtshymanski 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At most, Phone (disambiguation) should merge into the current Phonetics Phone. Jim.henderson 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Greensburger 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the cat template for Requested Move, since the consensus seems clear on this after 5 weeks listed. ArakunemTalk 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern Day phone

By that I don't mean phones like the iPhoneor cell phones. I mean your basic wired phone or home phone. You know that the thing that causes the phone to disconnect when you hang up? On the top left? If you hit it multiple times, it'll dial 911? Someone should put that in there. --HPJoker Leave me a message 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That thing is called a "hook switch" because it still has an electrical switch and the old "candlestick" phone had a hook connected to the switch. Greensburger (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Basic principle" needs work

This section (and possibly others) needs work by someone familiar with electrical and electronic circuits.

For example: "... thus operating the switch hook, which puts the telephone into [an] active state or off hook with a resistance short across the wires, causing current to flow."

"Resistance short" - a phrase I've never come across in the over 40 years I've studied and worked with electrical, electronic and audio systems - is practically an oxymoron, since "short" (as in "short circuit") is used to describe a circuit of extremely low resistance. In general, a short is established when one conductor of an electrical source is connected to its reciprocal or complementary conductor with no intervening resistive or reactive components. (Electrical transmission and distribution systems typically use the earth as a conductor in addition to wire and cable. Hence a system conductor such as a wire contacting the earth, or a tree or other low resistance pathway to "ground", usually constitutes a short circuit.)

What we want here is something like: "... puts the telephone into an active state or 'off hook' by closing the circuit, allowing current to flow through the wires or "line" as well as through the transmitter (microphone) and receiver (speaker) of the telephone." (Unless "resistance short" is a common term in describing telephone circuitry, in which case it should be defined within the article.)

And a lot more changes.

Cheers! Rico402 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

A landline telephone handles two types of information: signals and voice, at different times on the same twisted pair of wires, the telephone line. The signaling equipment consists of a bell or other alerting device to alert the user of incoming calls, and a dial to enter the phone number for outgoing calls. A calling party wishing to speak to another telephone will pick up the handset, thus operating a button switch or "switchhook", which puts the telephone into active state or off hook by connecting the transmitter (microphone) and other voice circuitry across the line. This voice circuitry has a low resistance (less than 300 ohms) which causes DC current to flow through the line. The telephone exchange detects this DC current, attaches a digit receiver circuit, and sends a dial tone to indicate readiness. The calling party pushes the number buttons, which are connected to a tone generator inside the phone, that generates DTMF tones which are sent to the exchange. The exchange connects the calling line to the desired called line and sends a ringing signal on the called line.

When a landline phone is inactive (on hook), its bell, beeper, flasher or other alerting device is connected across the line through a capacitor. The capacitor prevents DC current from flowing through the line and thus the telephone exchange knows it is on hook and only the bell is electrically connected. When someone calls this phone, the telephone exchange applies a pulsating ringing signal (less than 30 volts AC) on the line, which causes the alerting device to ring, beep, or otherwise alert the called party. When that user picks up the handset, the switchhook disconnects the bell and connects the microphone and other voice circuitry of the telephone across the called line. This voice circuitry likewise has a low resistance which causes DC current to flow through the called line, thus confirming that the phone has been answered and is active. Both lines being off hook, the signaling is complete. The parties are connected together and may converse as long as both phones remain off hook. Greensburger (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Better for sure... But how about, "Most landline telephones are designed to manage both audio signals (dial tone and other sounds) and alerting signals (bell, beeper, etc.) over the same balanced line usually consisting of a twisted pair of insulated copper wires."

But why?

  • "Most landline telephones..." Well, anything's possible.
  • Technically, both audio and ringer currents are electrical "signals".
  • "at different times" unnecessary and inaccurate; a "call waiting" signal is an "alerting" signal transmitted while the phone is "active".
  • We should perhaps convey that twisted pair cable is used to form a balanced line, minimizing electromagnetic interference and crosstalk (See Common-mode rejection ratio), and it doesn't hurt to mention what they're "usually" made of. (And there may still be some pairs of bare wires out there, running from pole to pole on glass insulators attached to wooden crossarms.)

Also, the following appears inaccurate: "ringing signal (less than 30 volts AC)". Ringer voltages I've measured have always been over 100 VAC. In fact, I once got "rapped" (shocked) pretty good when the ringer signal was activated on a phone line I was working on.

To satisfy my curiosity, I measured the voltages on my own phone line:

  • The "inactive" voltages were 52 VDC and 114 VAC (I suspect for the DSL modem, although it was disconnected; current was too low to "feel" between my fingers);
  • The ringer voltage was 162 VAC with no additional DC component; and
  • The dial tone and pre-recorded audio voltages were both 9.4 VDC and 20 VAC.

Make of these whatever you will. If I get ambitious I may take some current readings. (I don't have an Amprobe so I'll have to place the meter probes in series with phone line, which will be a pain; meter rated 200 mA max, hope that's sufficient.)

Should probably read "which configures the telephone into an active state or 'off hook' by placing the audio circuit across the line. The audio circuit has a low resistance...".

Closing the switchhook reconfigures the phone's circuit as seen by the exchange, audio signals are not limited to "voice" and the "microphone" is a part of the audio circuit; although it might be helpful to put "(microphone, speaker, etc.)" after "audio circuit".

Maybe, "Both lines being off hook, the signal path is complete." (Technically more accurate.) And change redundant "parties are connected together" to just "parties are connected".

I'm sure I'll have more later. :-)

Nice work,

Rico402 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why "landline telephones"? To distinguish over cellphones and VOIP. Many people today do not use landline phones and to them a telephone is a cellphone.

Yes, ringing signal more than 100 VAC. I knew 30 VAC was too low, but I couldn't remember what it was. I figured you would correct it.

"The audio circuit has a low resistance..." is ok, although the earphone was not connected across the line but rather was on the secondary winding of the anti-sidetone coil and now is driven by an IC. Greensburger (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My asking, "But why?" was a rhetorical question as to why I had suggested the changes, which I attempted to answer in the list immediately below. But I can see how it may have been confusing. For example, I suggested adding "most" before "landline telephones" because the discussion that follows may apply to most but not all landline phones. Given the variety of devices that may terminate a landline, anything - or nearly anything - is possible.

With that explanation, maybe if you go back it'll make more sense. Hope that clears that up.

Regarding the placement of the earphone (earpiece, speaker; I think it's proper technical name is still "receiver") in the circuit, I would suggest for simplicity's sake to lump the microphone ("transmitter"), speaker and related components into a single "audio circuit" with a low DC resistance. (I say "DC resistance" because of the "impedance" across the line which would be factor in AC current flow. I think it keeps it accurate without confusing the masses and (overly) offending the experts. (And then there's the whole "ringer frequency" issue, especially as it had applied to "party lines" - think I'm correct on this; not sure. Save that for later.)

From my ancient 1975 New Age Encyclopedia (original copyright 1962): "Lifting the receiver from the hook or the handset from the cradle puts the transmitter in the line circuit, with the receiver connected in parallel on the condenser side and with an induction coil in series." (Vol. 18, p.5) A simple schematic is included. (I could hardly find anything re old fashion telephony in any newer texts.)

"[I]nduction coil" sounds redundant to me, but I don't generally don't call capacitors "condensers" either. ("Condenser microphones" being an exception; old conventions die hard.) My guess is that this is a very old circuit design, and I didn't even know old phones had an "anti-sidetone coil", which I'm guessing is a step-down transformer to reduce sidetone voltage, perhaps introduced when more efficient microphones became available.

My knowledge of what's actually "under the hood" is pretty basic, especially as regards to newer "electronic" phones, whereas thankfully you seem to have that area pretty well covered.

So I don't doubt you description of the receiver circuit, but technically, the entire "telephone set" (or more than one set, or a "system") terminates the line and is seen by the circuitry at the local exchange as a "resistive" load with respect to DC, but a "reactive" load with respect to AC.

Btw, we should probably explain, or at least mention, "pulse" make-and-break dialing, which the existing article curiously leaves out while discussing essentially antiquated technology. You probably have a better grip on this as well. (I used to amuse my friends, or maybe it was just myself, by dialing a phone simply by tapping out the numbers on the cradle switch. And it still works! he-he-he... :-)

When I have time I'll try to work up a draft incorporating our contributions that you can critique. I'd also like to cite references, but I'll probably have to find time to hit the library. (Unless say, AT&T's Web site has a comprehensive article; I'll look into that.)

Nice to communicate with someone who knows what he's talking about.

P.S. For clarity and readability, if you enter a string of about 4 dashes (hyphens) before your posts, Wiki's software will inset a line separating postings. (An asterisk or "star" adds "bullets" to paragraphs; a colon indents a paragraph. I'm just lately figuring this stuff out.)

Regards,

Rico402 (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers to those who edited this section - much more informative and accurate. However, I thought some additional info was needed, so I added "plain old telephone service (POTS)" at the top, and bits about "data communication" and "call waiting"; and expanded "pulse dialing". I also thought the use of the word "voice" was too limiting, so I changed it to "audio". I've executed some other edits for clarity and style which I hope you'll find satisfactory.

Regards,

Rico402 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Very clearly worded. Greensburger (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adjustment to POTS & EMI references; added "(48 volts, nominal)", link to "AC", and paragraph re trunk lines, fiber-optic cable, digital technology and satellite technology.

Not quite satisfied with the added paragraph or the one following (re communication between exchanges and over long distances; feel free to make adjustments/corrections as appropriate.

Rico402 (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Induction coil

This question isn't one of basic principle; it is a refinement. See Model 202 telephone as well as the "Early commercial instruments" section of the current article, though we ought to discuss more explicitly later in this article that the induction coil in middle 20th century phones combines the function of an impedance matching transformer for the carbon microphone with that of a hybrid transformer. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind I changed the subject heading.

Anyway, I agree that the multiple role of the induction coil should be discussed. In fact, I would argue that this article should include more technical information (and more accurate technical info; working on that), and a schematic or at least a circuit diagram to aid the reader.

But I'm curious as to why the transformers in a telephone (or "telephone set") are referred to as "induction coils". I'm guessing the term originally applied to coils with multiple windings used for inducing currents in secondary windings, maybe coined by Faraday before "transformer" was coined by whoever, and is retained by convention, and that the term was later co-opted for what had been called the Ruhmkorff or "spark" coil (see induction coil).

Also, in telephony does the term "induction coil" also apply to coils with single windings?

Regards,

Rico402 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC) User Hulerhoop

A quick search through my pile of early telephone patents shows the term "induction-coil" in several patents:

Elisha Gray's (pre-telephone) patent 166,096 dated July 27, 1875 (application dated January 19, 1875) for transmitting musical tones, shows electric buzzers that produce tones and make-and-break currents in "induction-coil B that has the usual primary and secondary circuits" and "produce in the secondary circuit of the induction-coil a series of induced currents" in the telegraph line. "An ordinary electro-magnet is provided at the receiving end of the line... which reproduces the tone by being thrown into vibration."

Edison's patent 203,013 for a "speaking telegraph" filed December 13, 1877 shows "an induction-coil, consisting of one bar of iron and two coils m1 and m2, the latter being placed in the main line... m1 is the primary inductive magnet of very low resistance, placed in a local circuit".

Edison's patent 203,016 for a "speaking telephone" dated April 30, 1878 shows a carbon transmitter/microphone in series with "the primary circuit of the induction-coil D wound on the outside of the secondary coil E... for transmitting and receiving telephonically." "The carbon heretofore employed in connection with a [carbon] diaphragm is not adapted to use in the primary circuit of an induction-coil, because its resistance is too great, and the necessary rise and fall of tension [voltage] is not produced." Edison rejected a high resistance carbon transmitter "being in the main-line circuit" as described in his earlier patent application filed July 20, 1877.

It appears that as early as 1877, induction-coils were used for impedance matching, even though Edison did not call it that in these patents. Greensburger (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So given that these patents all reference "primary" and "secondary" windings, it's a safe bet that in this context "induction coil" refers to what we call "transformers" in the modern lexicon, and not to single winding iron core coils. (Induction being the operative word, as in its simplest form, the primary induces a current in the secondary.)

Thanks,

Rico402 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhh

When has the Nokia N-95 become a IP-based Wi-Fi telephone its just a HDSPA quad-band mobile/cell phone! Geoman888 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pulse dial

I note that the article describes only tone dial telephones. I have several pulse-dial phones which still worked on our local exchange (rural UK) last time I tried them. Has tone-dial now completely replaced pulse-dial throughout the world, or are there still countries or regions where pulse-dial is still used? Dbfirs 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(answering my own question) - The answers are all in Wikipedia under pulse dialing. I'll add a link. Dbfirs 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The exchanges in my corner of Pennsylvania (USA) still accept pulse diling, and I'd be very surprised if it were otherwise in much of the rest of the US. It seems to me that adding a pulse-detecting chip to a subscribers circuit at the exchange would be inconsequential cost-wise. Rico402 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Practically all accept dial pulses, and very few have a pulse detecting chip. Instead the computer merely scans the supervisory scan point and counts the changes. Same scan point that detects a dial tone request, in the more usual case of a line card, or the scan point that detects a call abandonment. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Inside the telephone

As the original author of this section under its earlier name, I of course don't own it and anyway have been running off in the direction of photography instead of paying attention here. I notice the name was changed and the section much expanded. Neither of these is necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps some of the parts that venture outside of the telephone's case should be trimmed and linked more, or else the section subdivided before further expansion, or both. Just suggesting; beautiful weather has been driving me outdoors and the resulting photos make me too busy to do much writing myself. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

is this article semi-protected?

cause i don't see a lock icon on top right, and yet, i cannot edit...216.80.119.92 (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Philipp Reiss

On 26. Oktober 1861 philipp reiss showed a working telefone to the physics society in frankfurt... Why isn't that in the early developments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.72.46 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC) i am new can anybody help me about how to use it???---riju

This article is biased and represents the history unfaithfully

The American Congress recognized Antonio Meucci as the first and only inventor of the telephone, and clarified that Graham Bell merely stole the invention through bribery, taking advantage of the fact that Meucci did not have the funds to file for and defend a patent.

The article fails to represent the above officially recognized facts and as such is biased and unfaithful.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Telephone/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The contributions of Philipp Reis are missing in the list of historical developments.

Last edited at 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(57) Incorrect voltage

It currently says (on the protected article page) that the ring signal voltage was "generally over 100 volts AC". That's wrong. It's 90 in North America and 60-90 volts in Europe (e.g. 90 in the UK and 60 in Germany). 95.88.145.118 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the change you suggested. Greensburger (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussions that are currently archived

The following is a listing of prior discussions for this article that are currently archived (accessible via the Archives 1 link found at the top of this page). Please copy and paste relevant issues as needed from the archives onto this page to avoid endless loops of prior discussions. HarryZilber (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(58) Unicode

I think that the unicode numbers for the symbols ℡(U+2121)☎(U+260E)☏(U+260F)✆(U+2706) should be included. I can't add them due to the lock, could someone add them for me? The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[ed note: user:the sanest mad hatter inserted the the unicodes adjacent to the telephone symbols in the last line of the lede on 14 August 2009, and also struck out his discussion point above, to signify it is no longer an active item. The strikeout tags have been removed for legibility in order to continue the discussion, below.-HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) ]

While the telephone symbols themselves are significant and should remain in the article, they're not notable enough to be part of the lede, i.m.h.o. I propose to start a new subsection such as International identification symbols and move them there. Comments? -HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the current list of 4 symbols is enough for it's own section.The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -four symbols and their codes are way too little! I should have suggested a section with broader scope, such as 'International identification and markings....' etc.... Perhaps it can be combined with telephone company logos, which would be tricky due to the copyright issues involved. -HarryZilber (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(59) IP Telephones

I'm a VoIP technician and IP telephones have more than just two main disadvantages. Other major disadvantages that I encounter regularly are 1) drop outs due to loss of Internet connectivity, 2) lower reliability due to greater complexity, 3) loss of connectivity even when the Internet connection is active due to a residential grade router not performing NAT properly, or otherwise blocking ports/not maintaining the VoIP connection even when the firewall is bypassed, 4) packet loss or packet delays (which causes discarded packets), which causes dropped or distorted audio (depending on the codec). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.67.199 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that I am also a VOIP engineer, and have work as a telco technician as well. All of the limitations of VOIP service listed in this article apply equally to traditional service as well (note the suspicious mention of emergency service being powered by the phone companies "Battery" immediately after mentioning that VOIP systems fail without battery backup). I would also note that all of the problems listed for VOIP systems by the poster above are also experienced by telco customers. Using bad/worn cable and cheap phones on telco will cause service outages, call quality/reliability problems, and a host of other issues. The quality of service depends on the quality of the technical staff behind the service regardless of the technology. This article, unfortunately, borders on biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.34.137 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(61) Ringing current

Editor DAGwyn changed "90 volts AC to "pulses with about 90 volts amplitude", with the comment: "Current is not measured in volts! Also improved description of ringing pulses; "AC" was misleading."

This is not an amperes versus volts issue. It is common usage to refer to voltage of alternating current (abreviated VAC) as in "110 VAC" or "220 VAC". "Pulses" suggests asymmetric square waves which is misleading. Capacitors in the central exchange building and in the phones would shift any asymmetric pulses to alternate above and below zero just like ordinary symmetrical AC. Greensburger (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(64) Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

(63) Gender neutral pronouns

What is the preffered method for gender neutral pronouns? "his/her" just seems awkward. Would it be better to use "his or her", or to reword the sentence. (referring to SJH541's edit on 20:20, 25 July 2010).

The sentence in question is: "In order to initiate a telephone call, a conversation with another telephone, the user enters the other telephone's number into a numeric keypad on his/her phone."

Would "In order to initiate a telephone call, a conversation with another telephone, the user uses the telephone's numeric keypad to enter another's telephone number." be better The Sanest Mad Hatter (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(65) Number please

"All telephones have...a keypad (or in older phones a telephone dial) to enter the telephone number of the telephone being called." This would be news to Alexander Graham Bell, all the telephone subscribers before Almon Strowger's invention, and all those who thought they were using telephones before the Bell system finally adopted automatic telephony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.83.246 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That error is now fixed. Greensburger (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(62) Edit request from Renatoarmandola, 30 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the Telephone page, I think it would be appropriate to add, after the first paragraph of the History chapter, "Having said this, it is fair to add that in 2002 the U. S. House of Representatives passed a resolution recognizing Meucci's accomplishment and which stated that "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." as stated in the Meucci Wikipedia page.

Sources: ^ House Resolution 269, dated 11 June 2002, written and sponsored by Rep. Vito Fossella. ^ Antonio Meucci and the invention of the telephone, Mary Bellis

Renatoarmandola (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Meucci is already mentioned in the article. Including speculative claims by politicians of what might have happened seems like undue weight for this figure. Celestra (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Further rejection response: Sorry, but also a further 'no' to Renatoarmando. For more information on the flawed House Of Representatives resolution, please refer to the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article, which provides a number of details on the several errors in the document. The above request to revise the historical record of the telephone's development mirrors several previous failed attempts at discrediting or smearing Alexander Graham Bell, and elevating Meucci in priority to the invention of the electrical, not acoustical, telephone. Meucci's documented contributions to electrical telephony are all post-1874, which is exactly why he lost his legal challenge to Bell's patent. The suggester can also review the numerous discussions of priority on the Alexander Graham Bell talk page, as well as earlier discussions on this talk page as well. HarryZilber (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the real fact is that actually in Enghlish Wikipedia web page about telephone is still missing that in 2002 – Antonio Meucci is acknowledged as the first inventor of the telephone by the United States Congress. and I am really wondering why..... Cristiana, Rome, Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.226.5 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(67) Edit request from Fabienik, 3 January 2011 - 11.june.2002: Italian Meucci was recognized the true inventor of telephone by USA Congress Resolution 269

{{edit semi-protected}}

June 11, 2002, the United States Congress passes Resolution 269, recognizing Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone. (http://www.garibaldimeuccimuseum.org/congress.html)

Fabienik (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Disagree with the request: refer to the Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell article which reviewed HRes 269 in detail, and discredited the notion that Bell didn't invent the electromagnetic telephone. HarryZilber (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the request, and I also disagree with the wording that was added yesterday for several reasons. First, the resolution states only: Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged. That is not the same as "Paternity of the invention is attributed by U.S. Congress". The resolution was a "sense of the house" resolution that has no binding in any law. It is essentially an honorary resolution that says that Meucci did much pioneering work in the invention of the telephone, which the article already stated. Not to mention that is was only the House of Representatives that passed this, and not the Congress as a whole.
Secondly: So the US House passed a resolution acknowledging his work. So what? I'm an American, but putting that sentence as the lead-off in the History section comes across as very US-Centric and rather arrogant and presumptuous. I notice that the Canadian resolution is not mentioned. These may warrant a mention further down the page, but not where it is now. The History paragraph should be reverted back to the last version by Greensburger. ArakunemTalk 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree per above. Dgtsyb (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Alpha Quadrant talk 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Well, it's kind of already been done (see last 3 edits in the article). I've not reverted that as I'm hoping the 2 editors involved will come here to discuss once their timezone rolls around again. ArakunemTalk 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(66) Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Telephone → Phone — Per WP:common name. phone: 47,100, 2,480,000 telephone: 38,000, 1,830,000. I had to use Google news and Google scholar because anything over 100,000 search results makes Google books screw up.Marcus Qwertyus 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Popular usage is often reported over correctness, from Wikipedia:Search engine test#General biases. Sources like the New York Times frequently use both. I don't see the need to mess with this article, so based on nom's Google hits argument, I oppose the move. --Pnm (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is about the old-fashioned wirephone and uses the old-fashioned term for it. The abbreviated term "phone" is being taken over in popular usage by the modern mobile phone, which is not the subject of this article. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Telephone is the proper and encyclopedic name for the device. This does not rise to the level of WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. Caffeine vs. 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione) in my opinion. Phone is a colloquialism, as the DAB page even states, and I don't think anyone would think twice about what Telephone is referring to. Plus, I concur with all the arguments from the last time this was suggested (#46 in the list at the top of this page). ArakunemTalk 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the arguments against. Dgtsyb (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proper word is "telephone". "Phone" is slang. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Absolutely not! 'Phone is an abbreviation and article names should not be abbreviated.--Ykraps (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Colloquialism. This is an encyclopedia and encyclopedic terms rather than colloquialisms should be used for article titles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

(69) An important change to the wording is needed

Under the heading of "Detailed Operation" near the bottom There is a sentence that reads:

At the same time the DC voltage comming through the line drives a current ......

Voltages do not go "through" a line. Voltages are developed "across" a line. Only current can go through a line. Please change this line to read:

At the same time the DC voltage developed across the line generates a current .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboydano (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(71) Edit request from Ascanio75, 2 October 2011

  • On June 11 2002, the United State House of Representatives declared that the telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci, an Italian-American. The House declared that Alexander Graham Bell's patent for the telephone was based on "fraud and misrepresentation."

Ascanio75 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The House of Rep. resolution about Meucci was based on fraud and misrepresentation. The accusation against Bell was rejected by the courts. The House Resolution is not a reliable source for the facts. For an analysis of the US House Resolution, see: Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. Greensburger (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered for discussion. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(72) Philipp Reis (2)

As already mentioned in the discussion archives it was Philipp Reis who actually invented the modern telephone - and who invented the very name of it. Thus it came from German to the other languages, not from English (recalling it was a Greek-based neologism). The article here doesn't even mention all this. MUST be corrected! 217.94.224.93 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong article; this one is already long enough. Checked the linked Invention of the telephone article. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(73) Edit request from 29 October 2011

If Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Alexander G. Bell. So Meucci is the real inventor of the thelephone.

Ascanio75 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That may be true, but that is not what happened. Additionally, the article does explain that many people have been credited with the invention of the telephone, and this is documented in many reliable sources. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This quote is usually misunderstood. No patent could have issued to Bell during the 3-months suspension that the Examiner would have imposed to give Meucci time to prove that he was first to invent what Bell claimed. But then Meucci would fail to prove that his invention was what Bell claimed or Bell would have modified his claims slightly to not read on Meucci's caveat. Then Bell's patent would have been issued. Greensburger (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Like many italians I was sure that Meucci was the inventor. Not more. After reading the biography of Innocenzo Manzetti of Aosta (Italy) and his accomplishments, I think that he had the implemented the first working speaking telegraph. Call it telephone and the only difference would be the copyright on a word. The year, 1865, in which these idea was on the major newspapers, is earlier enough that both Bell and Meucci could have know about it. There is the "Le Petit journal" dated 1865/11/22 n.1026 ( http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k589123j.image.r=Manzetti.f3.langEN ) where, on the lower right we read: "Manzetti transmet directement la parole parle fil telegraphique ordinaire' avec un appareil plus simple que celui qui sert aujourd'hui pour les depeches desormais deux negociants pouront en quelques instants, traiter leurs affaires de Londres a Calcutta, s'informer reciproquement de leurs speculations, les proposer et les combiner." These words where on the news on 22 Novembre 1865, and could be the description of a modern telephone made by the one who never saw one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.85.240.153 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is biased and represents the history unfaithfully

The American Congress recognized Antonio Meucci as the first and only inventor of the telephone, and clarified that Graham Bell merely stole the invention through bribery, taking advantage of the fact that Meucci did not have the funds to file for and defend a patent.

The article fails to represent the above officially recognized facts and as such is biased and unfaithful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.67 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly provide the official citation. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
From who? from your own deputy? Look yourself! What do you need to provide a correct representation of the history? a "official citation" from a lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.116.226.107 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what evidence you have found for the alleged official recognition. Is it an official secret? Jim.henderson (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased in favour of Bell, and look like hostage of someone working at Bell Labs or AT&T. (The ridicolus "disavantage of IP telephony" is one ogf the best technical nonsense I've ever read) The history of the telephone is clearly the history of someone that got a patent after stoling an idea, winning a process simply because he founds a nationalist court that -by its one principle- never would have been accepted an non-american citizen to win.

It tooks years of controversy, but as stated above "The American Congress recognized Antonio Meucci as the first and only inventor of the telephone, and clarified that Graham Bell merely stole the invention through bribery, taking advantage of the fact that Meucci did not have the funds to file for and defend a patent". Something that who is keeping this page in hostage don't want to report, pretending I don't know what other "proves" or accusing whoever is reporting this fact to misinterpret I don't know what things.

There is noting to interpret up there: it is just simple plain English. Ah yes ... American are not English anymore! They understand English only when they like it!. And redirecting the problem to other Canadian sentences (like somebody else did previously in this discussion) is ridiculous: all facts happened in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.117.154.129 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you quoting yourself, or are you quoting a WP:Reliable source? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
please read [[3]], where it is clearly stated:
"Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been
issued to Bell: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
2 resentatives that the life and achievements of Antonio
3 Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention
4 of the telephone should be acknowledged."
If you prefer, you can also read [[4]] (do you think Stanford university enough reliable?) or
[[5]] (the congress library is enough reliable?)
I found your pretending in asking me to provide sources that are official simply absurd. a Google research can find that document in seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.117.154.129 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(60) What is a telephone number to a telephone?

"Each telephone in the world has a unique identifying number called its telephone number." Someone tried to oversimplify telephone number addressing and produced an incorrect statement. While I do not know how several other countries handle it, US residential customers have some service endpoint (customer interconnect endpoint? customer network interface?) Obviously numbers are not paired with particular phone units as we can have multiple phone users over the same 2-way call... And this is not to take into consideration premises with multiple phone numbers at their network interface, multiple-pair lines (ex: T1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.91.131 (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the entire history of phone lines and numbers, from party lines and the old color/number system right on up through direct dialing to the eventual introduction of mandatory area-code dialing, appears to be entirely missing from the article. If it's in a separate article, there should at least be a brief synopsis here with a main article link. --Jonadab, 2013 Feb 1 —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

If a user wants to move the image of a contemporary desk phone to the lede to replace the iPhone, or finds an equivalent image of a contemporary payphone and would like to post it there, an argument can be made. But arguing that an image of a +70 year old model is more relevant than the single most popular contemporary phone simply does not hold. There is an entire history of the evolution of the phone for users to refer to where they may find an image that says "telephone" to them.Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Since more than three quarters of this article is about the history of the phone, I don't see having a historical image near the top of the article as a problem. There is a picture of an iPhone further down, closer to where the article starts talking about more contemporary aspects of the topic. Additionally, the "+70 year old model" looks very similar to many more recent phones, including some contemporary ones, and that style (desk phones) are iconic of phones in general. (I mean the word "iconic" quite literally: computer VOIP/SIP software for instance frequently features desk-phone imagery in its toolbar icons, and most fonts that have glyphs for the "picture of a phone" codepoints make at least two of them look like desk phones.) --Jonadab, 2013 Feb 01 —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reis: first ever spoken words by telephone

German inventor Reis spoke the worldwide first words "Das Pferd frißt keinen Gurkensalat". 188.96.181.140 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Being bold, I removed the tag and reorganized the article along with telephony and digital telephony. This article should remain focused on the telephone apparatus, not extend into the general aspects of telephony, in which case a lot of other articles could become subject to merger. It's cleaner and leaves room to improve each on its own merits. Of course each of these could be cleaned up or improved with further effort. Kbrose (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of "iPhone"

Why is this page locked? I'd suggest writing iPhone instead of Iphone in the caption of the picture, as this is its correct spelling --82.50.24.72 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why the page is locked but iPhone is now spelled correctly. ~KvnG 20:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2013

On June, 11, 2002, the United States Congress acknowledged Italian immigrant Antonio Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone (Ref: H.RES.269 -- Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic; (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)) 75.177.130.138 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

we don't use primary sources like this--too tainted with politics. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not done: What Rjensen said. A Congressional resolution is not a historical source. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

While "Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell." is GOD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.172.140 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone

This document substantiates the belief that Bell copied Meucci's invention. It is difficult to give to Bell the paternity of the invention.

http://www.chezbasilio.org/immagini/meucci-bell.pdf --Magnagr (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The sentence from the congressional Resolution: "If Meucci had been able to pay thE $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." is misleading. If Meucci had paid the $10 to renew his caveat after 1874, no patent could have issued to Bell in March 1876. Instead, the examiner would have suspended Bell's application and given Meucci 3 months to file a patent application based on his caveat and provide additional evidence that Meucci had either built his invention using the "undulatory current" feature, or had witnessed writings describing such a feature before Bell. If Meucci's claims still conflicted with Bell's claims and Meucci could prove that he had the "undulatory current" feature before Bell (although lacking in the caveat), then the examiner would have suggested to Bell how to narrow his claims to not read on Meucci's invention. This would be easy for Bell to do by adding the word "magnetic" to his claims 1, 3, and 5. Since Meucci's device as described in his caveat was not electromagnetic, Bell would have been granted a patent every bit as good as the patent Bell did get. So the whole issue of Meucci's caveat is moot. Bell had the electromagnetic telephone before Meucci. Greensburger (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether the telephone had one inventor or two, five or twenty, and how many of these are "real" and how many not "real", is a perennial favorite topic for frivolous minds. Anyone who might be serious about the topic could discuss it in Talk:Invention of the telephone. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Captain John Taylor's telephone of 1844

Add citation and references to Taylor's "the telephone" of 1844, it was a device for communicating with sailing vessels using compressed air to make musical notes, but the citation trumps the reference that existed saying Reis coined the term. My edit might be a little sloppy and the apparent coining of the term by Taylor or someone referring to his device could perhaps be added in elsewhere, eg in the timeline. I did some other minor edits to try and emphasise that this wasn't a telephone as we understand it and that Reis's still appears to be the first sound-to-electrical-impulse device referred to as a telephone. Apologies if this has been considered before but couldn't find it in Talk or page's history: it was the specific "coined the term" error I felt needed correcting, happy to edit and downplay. Perhaps something more like "Whilst earlier used for a ship's communication device<ref ...</ref Reis was the first to use telephone to refer to the type of communication device one would recognise as such."? Pbhj (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It just doesn't belong in this article as anything more than a footnote. It's not the same concept. The word might be the same, but it's just a homonym. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed it a bit but you're right, the term isn't the thing. Reis used the term for something near what Bell made. Bell, in turn, used another term, and various other claimants used the same or different terms. The whole question of terminology can easily move into the History section. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This does make the introduction very confusing. This isn't that relevant to this page, certainly not worthy of being in the introduction. Maybe in the history section. Suspender guy (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(56) Meucci was the inventor, not Bell - or was it Reis? or Bourseul? or Gray? Maybe Edison?

On 11 June 2002, the US Congress has recognized, historically, to Antonio Meucci paternity of the telephone, thanks to the studies of Italian quoted Eng. Catania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EENOKEe (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Original inventor of telecommunication and telephone was Professor Jagdish Chandra Basu from BHARAT (INDIA).

Prove it with pre-1875 evidence from a reliable source. Greensburger (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The very word "priority" cheats all but one person of credit.-. For great inventions are always the gift of many people, not just one.
Meucci was the inventor, not Bell. This fact has even been recognized by the US Congress [by 81.32.234.155]
Prove it. All of the published evidence were reconstructions in the 1880s by lawyers for use in trials. Show us evidence prior to 1775. Meucci filed a caveat in December of 1871 describing his invention. This caveat is transcribed in the article Antonio Meucci. Nowhere does his caveat mention devices for converting sound to electrical waves and electrical waves to sound. There is no mention of an electromagnet, even though morse telegraphs use electromagnets. There is no mention of coils of wire or permanent magnets or magnetism. Nowhere does he mention a battery or other source of electrical power. There is no mention of a diaphragm. Meucci did not describe an electromagnetic telephone in his caveat. Greensburger (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"This fact has even been recognized by the US Congress [by 81.32.234.155]". Absolutely wrong, as has been pointed out in numerous past discussions (please read them in archived discussion #5 and in several discussions on the Talk:Alexander Graham Bell webpage) —the U.S. Congress did no such thing. Read the exact wording of the congressional resolution, and criticisms of it, in Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys please do check this "http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1098.htm"

Ask who really invented the telephone, and you may get the name of a German, Philipp Reis, not Alexander Graham Bell. The common wisdom is that Reis's telephone was only marginal, while Bell's phone really worked

Reis was a 26-year-old science teacher when he began work on the telephone in 1860. His essential idea came from a paper by a French investigator named Bourseul. In 1854 In 1854 Bourseul had explained how to transmit speech electrically. He wrote:

Speak against one diaphragm and let each vibration "make or break" the electric contact. The electric pulsations thereby produced will set the other diaphragm working, and [it then reproduces] the transmitted sound.

Only one part of Bourseul's idea was shaky. To send sound, the first diaphragm shouldn't make or break contact. It should vary the flow of electricity to the second diaphragm continuously. Reis used Bourseul's term, "make or break," but his diaphragm actually drove a thin rod to varying depths in an electric coil. He didn't make and or break the current. He varied it continuously.

Bell faced the same problem when he began work on his telephone a decade later. First, he used a diaphragm-driven needle, entering a water/acid solution, to create a continuously variable resistance and a smoothly varying electrical current. Bell got that idea from another American inventor, Elisha Gray. [by Ss123321ss]

Reis used a rod in an electric coil as a receiver, not a transmitter. Reis' transmitter (microphone) was a diaphragm-driven needle pressing on an electric contact at varying pressures.
When Bell tested Elisha Gray's water transmitter invention using a needle in water/acid solution, Bell was testing Gray's invention not developing a product. Bell never used the water transmitter idea again. Inventors often test each other's inventions. That is quite different than making and selling products containing such inventions. Greensburger (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Idiots, bell stole Meuccis patent, therefore he is no more than a common thief. Meucci was the true inventor of the telephone. My reference is the BBC television show Qi season 1 episode 11, time code: 25 min 10 sec - 25 min 47 sec. [by 85.226.5.137]

Meucci never applied for a patent for the telephone and therefore there was no patent for Bell to steal. Meucci's caveat does not describe an electromagnetic telephone and most importantly Meucci abandoned his caveat. He therefore gave up any rights he may have had to any non-electromagnetic telephone invention. If you abandon your TV by putting it out for the garbage collector and John puts it in his truck and takes it to his home, he did not steal the TV - you gave it to him or anybody who happens to drive by. But since Meucci's caveat shows he did not invent the electromagnetic telephone, the issue of stealing something Meucci did not invent is moot. Greensburger (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

87.14.212.150 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry if I make mistake in using this Wikipedia tools, it's my first time. I want to underline the inutily of this discussion about the technical nature of Bell phone or Meucci phone or Reis'one since there is the definitive sentence of House of Representative US in June 11, 2002 where it is recognized that "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." The resolution's sponsor described it as "a message that rings loud and clear recognizing the true inventor of the telephone, Antonio Meucci."

« H. Res. 269

In the House of Representatives, U.S., June 11, 2002. Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic; Whereas, upon immigrating to New York, Meucci continued to work with ceaseless vigor on a project he had begun in Havana, Cuba, an invention he later called the 'teletrofono', involving electronic communications; Whereas Meucci set up a rudimentary communications link in his Staten Island home that connected the basement with the first floor, and later, when his wife began to suffer from crippling arthritis, he created a permanent link between his lab and his wife's second floor bedroom; Whereas, having exhausted most of his life's savings in pursuing his work, Meucci was unable to commercialize his invention, though he demonstrated his invention in 1860 and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper; Whereas Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community; Whereas Meucci was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay his way through the patent application process, and thus had to settle for a caveat, a one year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871; Whereas Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models, and Meucci, who at this point was living on public assistance, was unable to renew the caveat after 1874; Whereas in March 1876, Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored, was granted a patent and was thereafter credited with inventing the telephone; Whereas on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial; Whereas Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent; and Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged. Attest: Clerk. » I think that this sentence should be at least cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.212.150 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for my bad english. One month ago I saw on television a reporter asked the American people on the street "who was Antonio Meucci?", someone said italian cook, another stylist, actor ecc. I'm Italian and I'm tired of listening this story. I don't know if Bell stole the invention, but is shure that Meucci was the true inventor of the telephone. why still not clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.132.142.20 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have to go by what we know and can verify. We know that Bell was granted the patent. Any speculation about what might have happened *if* Meucci had the funds, or how much of his work was or was not used by Bell, is original research and synthesis, which we're not allowed to have in articles. ArakunemTalk 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence from the congressional Resolution: "If Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." is misleading. If Meucci had paid the $10 to renew his caveat after 1874, no patent could have issued to Bell in March 1876. Instead, the examiner would have suspended Bell's application and given Meucci 3 months to file a patent application based on his caveat and provide additional evidence that Meucci had either built his invention using the "undulatory current" feature, or had witnessed writings describing such a feature before Bell. If Meucci's claims still conflicted with Bell's claims and Meucci could prove that he had the "undulatory current" feature before Bell (although lacking in the caveat), then the examiner would have suggested to Bell how to narrow his claims to not read on Meucci's invention. This would be easy for Bell to do by adding the word "magnetic" to his claims 1, 3, and 5. Since Meucci's device as described in his caveat was not electromagnetic, Bell would have been granted a patent every bit as good as the patent Bell did get. So the whole issue of Meucci's caveat is moot. Bell had the electromagnetic telephone before Meucci. Greensburger (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Telephone

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Telephone's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian.co.uk":

  • From Alexander Graham Bell: Rory Carroll (June 17, 2002). "Bell did not invent telephone, US rules". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
  • From Antonio Meucci: Carroll, Rory (17 June 2002). "Bell did not invent telephone, US rules". The Guardian. London, UK.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to add a name in the "telephone" article

In this article, I did not found the name of Thomas Watson mentioned in the early paragraphs, please do so, it is an important gk question. Shubhambhatt1209 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect it. The article is already too large and suggestions of what to trim would be more welcome. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(68) Radiotelephone

It's not clearly defined on the radiotelephone article - which isn't linked to from this main page - how a 'radiotelephone' is different from a mobile phone or two-way radio. Please could someone in the know clarify this?|Moemin05 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical distinctions blurred as the technology evolved. "Radio telephone" originally meant a two-way radio with a telephone handset attached, but could not dial numbers. That changed when base stations began accepting dialed numbers. The word "mobile" in "mobile phone" originally meant in a mobile vehicle, but not a handheld phone. That changed after cellular telephone networks designed for phones in vehicles began accepting Motorola Dynatac calls. Greensburger (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it was a little broader than that. Until the early 1920s, "radio telephone" and "radiotelephony" was a generic term for transmission of sound or voice by radio; that is, AM radio transmission, to distinguish it from the earlier radio communication technology, radiotelegraphy, radio transmission of Morse code. After radio broadcasting began in the early 1920s, the term gradually came to have the more limited meaning of two-way voice radio communication. --ChetvornoTALK 03:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Not yet clear enough.--KitchM (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(70) IP telephony

I was wondering whether analog to digital telephone conversions may be mentioned in this article section (IP telephony). A notable project is OpenUSBFXS, see also http://code.google.com/p/openusbfxs/

Some things I don't get on the project though:

  • is the old telephone number kept (ie 00 33 51 123456 or something like that; 00 --> prefix, 33 --> country code, 51--> area code, last 6 numbers the actual phone number OR

does a entirely new (VOIP) telephoen number needs to be taken ?

  • is the data tranferred via the old telephone line (POTS) or via a seperate internet access line (ie 56k, ISDN, ADSL or even cable, ...)

07:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.231 (talk)

Depending on your meaning, the need to change a phone number is non-existent in the USA. There is a federal law regarding number portability which allows users to keep their old number. This is even more widespread because of the use of VOIP. Regarding IP Telephony, it is not part of this article. The only way that OpenUSBFXS has anything to do with this is when discussing a USB phone. Also, analog to digital is usually handled by an ATA (Analog Telephone Adapter) into which any analog phone is plugged to work over a digital network. --KitchM (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

USB Phone

Where is the mention of a USB phone? --KitchM (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Electric telephone vs electromagnetic telephone

There are four mentions on the page of "electric telephone". I had understood that the telephone relied on electromagnetic spectrum, rather than on electricity. Is "electric telephone" a misnomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.109.44 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Spectrum" here is at least misleading; one could argue that it is just plain false. Telephones work on electricity. Almost all in the 20th century used an electromagnet in the receiver. Many still do. Some also used an electromagnetic or "dynamic" transmitter. A few still do. Of course, some people nowadays are only familiar with a mobile phone. Besides the parts I have already mentioned, it also has a radio part which indeed uses the radio spectrum. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Date next to Bell w/ transmitter incorrect

The year under the image of Bell and the transmitter says 1976 but should be 1876. Logicblue (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

I think the page for "Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell" used to exist but no longer does. The reason for this better be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:8200:56C0:8450:8236:4506:B4E0 (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The debate can easily be found. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. To me the reasoning seems sound; perhaps you have another opinion. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"Telephone communication" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Telephone communication. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Telephone communication until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(55) Unprotecting the page?

Is there a chance the page could be unprotected? I have a few things I wanted to correct (mostly grammar) such as "or the central office (CO) ) are typically". --Zor (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting the page would make it possible to use a Bell tel phone pic. An Olivetti telephone? Bell Tel had a monopoly in the US at that time. Please use another graphic. That picture is great for antiquing or technology in Italy. Olivetti typewriters are better known. Feb 13 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.171.227 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

On 11 June 2002, the US Congress has recognized, historically, to Antonio Meucci paternity of the telephone, thanks to the studies of the Italian quoted Eng. Catania. Period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EENOKEe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Second unprotecting the page. Why? BenjieCola (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkmills28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nyderia Smith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Telephony into Telephone

The two concepts -- technology and device -- could be better covered in the same article. There's a wide overlap between the two articles, e.g.: Telephone#Early_history and Telephony#Overview; or Telephony#IP_telephony and Telephone#Digital_telephones_and_voice_over_IP -- even with similar images across the two articles. Also, Telephony is stunted, compared to Telephone. A similar proposal has already been implemented in Satellite telephony and Satellite phone. fgnievinski (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC) fgnievinski (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No way. This is short-sighted and uniformed. A telephone is just one device used in telephony. A merged article could quickly exceed article size recommendations. By the same token, many WP articles could be merged into telephony. The direction of the the proposed merge also makes no sense. You don't merge a larger-scope article into a smaller one. kbrose (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, the cited case of satellite telephony is not similar at all. It was not a merge of existing articles but simply a redirect for an alternate name of much narrower scope. Those articles could equally be proposed to be merged into Telephone or Telephony. kbrose (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The overlap is unavoidable, as it is with a huge number of subjects on Wikipedia, especially technical and technology ones. Telephone and telephony do overlap and always will, but they’re quite distinct: a telephone is how you make or receive a call, telephony is how data (including voice data) gets between a transmitter and a receiver.
The problem here, if there is one, is that people have split and resplit Telephony down into ever more granular articles on every single type of telephony. Each one is barely more than a stub. Meanwhile Telephone has remained whole.
I can see why that makes it look like Telephony should merge into Telephone, but it would do our readers a disservice. What’s actually needed is to bring the items split off from Telephony back into the main article, or at least use Telephony as a jumping-off point for the science in question with lots of wikilinks outwards.
Merging it into this article is treating a symptom of another problem, rather than treating the problem itself. — Trey Maturin™ 21:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. This article is already too large and should not be made bigger. Telephony in turn should be expanded, if any should be, or perhaps Telephone call. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Telephone/Archive_1&oldid=1211063155"