Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21e8e597bb3dafe

Jump to content

Talk:Call-progress tone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Bever in topic Bold?

Recommendation!

[edit]

As a Telecommunications Engineer of some 35 years it would be my recommendation that both be folded into one section called Telephone Communications Tones. Along with references to Black, Blue and Red Boxes and Captain Crunch. 65.206.71.3 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Laurin Cavender65.206.71.3 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Call-progress tone and Dual-tone multi-frequency signaling are things of different purpose and their usage does not coincide. For example, there are call-progress tones in public telephone networks of my country, but there is no DTMF. I am not willing to look for sources of American humor such as "Black, Blue and Red Boxes and Captain Crunch", but mixing call-progress tones with DTMF is impractical at least for certain parts of the world. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
As a Voice_over_IP software developer over the last 15 years I've had to work with Dual-tone multi-frequency signaling for both generation and detection on a number of different systems but, in developing these systems, this is technically very distinct from Call-progress tones (which work quite differently in VOIP systems than in traditional telephony). Therefore, to me at least, it makes good sense to keep the different sections in their current form. 81.142.89.185 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bold?

[edit]

The list of types starts with the notice 'Major ones encountered by the public on a regular basis are listed in bold', but in fact, none of the entries are in bold. I suppose someone disliked the bold and removed the style but not the notice. Bever (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply