Talk:Signalling System No. 7

message: I was a bit confused at first when I saw Signalling System #7 but I think that the # should be in the title, I can't find a referenced source at the moment as i'm about to go out.  Let's agree here first what the title should be and then make the final change once and for all. ChrisUK (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly not "Signaling System Number #7".  Please desist from putting both the word "Number" and the "#" together in the lede. — Dgtsyb (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Sounds good enough to me.  No # then seems like the way forward.  Should also remove the pound tag as well at the beginning.  To resolve the name completely, can you confirm whether the word 'number' included in the titles?  Is is Signaling System Number 7 or Signaling System 7?ChrisUK (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the ITU specs are free and online at www.itu.ch as PDF files, but in the main its neither, rather its "Signalling System No. 7" See this link as an example:  I did look at a handful of others but not exhaustively beardybloke (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 7 

message: Where is the protocol not in use in the PTSN?  Is it used internally for pulse-dialed and touchtone landlines after the local central office?  Is it used by cell phone handsets? -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if I misunderstand your question, but its generally not in use around the edge of the network. where analogue signalling or other digital signalling systems are in use such as V5, GR303(? US V5 equivalent), similar proprietary systems or perhaps ISDN, etc are used more (or in the case of PBX singllaing then its DPNSS, DASS2, etc?) Its not in use on mobile handsets , though once it gets beyond the air interface it does become used by the upper layers of signalling employed by the handset? Its late and I'm giving up for the night but I'm sure someone else can be along to help you in more detail. beardybloke (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deployment scope

message: The term F-Link, (and A-Link, B-Link etc), are not utilised in the ITU specifications and are not commonly known in Europe. The terminology in Europe relates to whether the link is directly connected to the SP or not. All signalling links directly connected to an SP are known as an Associated Signalling links, irrespective of whether they are connecting to an SEP, STP etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.191.29 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ITU-T Recommendation Q.700 Clause 2.3 identifies links attached to STP as quasi-associated and only links attached between SEP as associated. — Dgtsyb (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: F Links

message: I don't necessarily know if it's correct to say that SS7 uses "out-of-band" signaling, since that would be more like using the first 3500Hz for audio and then signaling in 3700Hz. I think it's more correct to say that SS7 uses common channel signaling, since bearer and control channels are distinctly separated in SS7. 63.211.239.34 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this point of view and it meshes with the older name, CCS7.  Perhaps the "out of band" comes from a T1 system with 1 channel for signaling and 23 for transport.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.201.187 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of band is a broad term. It not only applies strictly to frequency, but also distinct channels of transmission. Kbrose (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS7 and "out-of-band" 

message: In the physical network section, there are references to ‘timeslots’. The first of which links to an article on broadcast programming.
Could someone clarify what that means in this context and potentially change that link? - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 19:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeslots 

message: Would it make sense to re-work a few of the technical aspects of this article along these lines?  Chumpih (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could certainly benefit from better structure, better technical and historical overview, and better detail. kbrose (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

text: If you haven't already done so, post a neutrally-worded notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications alerting readers of this discussion. Given the technical nature of this article, I have a hunch that such a notice 1) will be appreciated and 2) result in a better "end result."  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the suggestion.  Done. Chumpih (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved article? 

message: I mean, has not VoLTE and SMSoIP and ViLTE and RCS with E2EE going through Internet, like with normal interconnection (inter-) of autonomous systems (AS, -net) using BGP deprecated SS7? USSD over SGs and all other stuff is also available. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecation of SS7 in favour of VoLTE IMS and BGPv4 AS interconnect? 

message: The title says Signalling with double L, but the article uses a single L. -- 185.176.78.206 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an WP:ENGVAR question. It looks like the current article text consistently uses American spelling. Signaling System No. 5 and Signaling System No. 6 titles use American spelling. Seems like a move to Signaling System No. 7 is appropriate and likely uncontroversial. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly a lot of history in spelling it with double-l, since that was the name primarily used around the world after the CCITT standardized it, a name that was used much less in the US, where the original publications called it Common Channel Interoffice Signaling.  This is in contrast to the earlier systems, Signaling System 5 and 6. Most Bell System pubs spell 'signaling' (one el), but double-el can also be found. I think, I adjusted all these at one point to the most common historical spellings. kbrose (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: PS: A prior consensus discussion, see above, retains the original spelling.  I think I agree with that. kbrose (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I apparently willfully ignored the discussions above. If we're going with British English in the title, we probably should make the body text match that. I agree with 's conclusion: ugh. ~Kvng (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I already did that earlier. But some book titles decided otherwise, which I didn't change. kbrose (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  it appears you're content to use signalling in the proper noun Signalling System No. 7 (SS7) but use the American spelling, signaling, elsewhere. I would think we'd want to declare this a European topic and use British English throughout. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is a good idea. SS7 is definitively an American/Bell System topic by origin, just like the other signaling systems. Proper names are always allowed to have any spelling, I would think. kbrose (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Signalling" or "Signaling"?