Talk:Private branch exchange

Unsorted talk

I'm getting tempted to resolve this revert war by deleting the reference to Asterisk completely. Is this software used enough to rate a place on this page? -- given that this page does not claim to be a complete reference to PBX manufacturers/systems. Right now, Asterisk gets a bigger mention than products that are used much more commonly. —Morven 00:28, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

We're currently using asterisk in our development lab as a PBX. It is worth a mention because it is a viable alternative to big dollar systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.64.35 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 October 2004

---

I think that we should distinguish between PBXs and IPBXs, although, there may not be much difference in the future. Asterisk itself, with the neccessary hardware, does perform the functions of a PBX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.101.189 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 June 2005

Also, I don't think this should be merged with hosted PBX. They are two different things. A PBX is used by a corporation or agency where they keep the system on site. A Hosted PBX is just that, one that is actually on site with a service company, and lines are then extended to the customer location.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.101.189 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 June 2005

---

I am not sure there is a clear distinction between PBXs and IPBXs. Most PBX OEMs in my experience offer at least one product that has a combination of IP and TDM-based trunks. Perhaps this is seen as a stop-gap measure to capture the market during the anticipated transition to wholly packet based communication.

On another note, I think we should have a new section titled (e.g.) "Types of PBX", under which we list e.g. Traditional, IPBX (or whatever), PBX software (Asterisk, sipXpbx), Hosted PBX, etc.. and give each their own page. That way any "my PBX is better than yours" will be avoided by giving each one space to lay out their case. Alf Boggis 15:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should put each type on their own page. I merged hostedPBX into this page, and there was huge redundancy between the two. Fundamentally they all do much the same thing, they just do it in different ways. I think I'd support splitting into subarticles only once this had become much larger, and then only when there was a decent amount of unique content ready for each of the proposed sub articles. Splitting articles up in anticipation of new content is generally a mistake, and turns one useful article into an archipelago of stubs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, what you say makes sense! Alf Boggis 15:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I hope this edit won't have any great significance. Nonetheless, when I navigated here after hearing an ad for PBX services in a nearby market area, I found this image at the beginning of the article that was disorientingly hard to identify, at least in regards to what angle it was from which the picture had been taken. I hoped the parenthetical "(view from the top)" would clarify things for other viewers as much for myself, since this very strongly seemed to be the angle of the image. I didn't think this would have to be run past a verifiability test by checking with the original photographer, but if I'm in error in method or in point of fact, go ahead and change it back. Constructive comments are welcome. Entrepreneur68 (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hosted PBX...

I am deleting this part of the discussion about the "hosted PBX" stuff. I would recommend to people whom are interested in learning *traditonal* PBXes, to not go to wikipedia - or the internet rather. This kind of medium is really biased on non Definitys, Meridians, etc. I tried looking on the Internet to look do more reasearch on traditonal voice systems, and had no real luck. I can go on with the VoIP/hosted PBX/whatever killing tradtional TDM/ISDN/digital/propertiary telephony. But I still think that this entry should cover more traditonal telephony or a seperate entry on a history of the PBX and another entry of the kinds and types and makes of switches. That is my $0.02... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven312 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 October 2005

In the Home and Small Business Usage section, would it be applicable to reference hosted PBX since it allows small businesses to utilize this form of communication without the technical knowledge?Voice99 (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cabling termination box

Dude, I have a question. Immediately after receiving the signal from traunk lines and processing it on the PABX, you send it to a huge box where all the building extentions are terminated. What is the proper technical name for this termination box? Do we have an article on it, though I suspect there will be very little to say about it? What about an article that thoroughly discuss how telephone cabling is laid out after the PABX? It looks obvious, but I think its still worth an article if you happen to have that information on your figure tips. Google doesn't help much, probabily because nobody has done it out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 209.82.57.208

Sorry Patch Panel —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 209.82.57.208

Main Distribution Frame (MDF) --Ali@gwc.org.uk 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Starting sentence

It says:

Originally an organization's manual switchboard (operated by a person plugging cables into sockets) was known as a PMBX (Private Manual Branch eXchange).

Did they really call it manual when no other alternative existed, or did that name come about later when more sophisticated systems were invented? Is there a citation for this? HighInBC 04:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what's worse is that IP Centrex is in within the first paragraph of the article. Ether someone puts that reference down in the article or just put it into the already existing VoIP article. 71.161.99.39 16:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the emphasis on ownership here and in the reset of the article is inappropriate. Prior to carterphone, PBXs along with internal telephone sets were leased from the phone company just like any other phone equipment. The point of a PBX was to allow a large number of employees to communicate internally and shre a limited number of outside lines. The operator alse functioned as recptionists, taking messages and placing calls, partiularly long distance calls in the pre-direct dial days. --agr 19:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

>>Also the emphasis on ownership here and in the reset of the article is inappropriate.

Huh? wth are you trying to say? I will admit no wrongdoing. I am the poster before you, just that I forgot to log in. But I'll say this: There is a lack of traditional PBX information, and all of this overly covering of VoIP into the PBX article. There is some discussion about that in the VoIP article about IP Telephony and VoIP, etc, etc. Someone should clean out most of the VoIP crap and seperate them into seperate articles or move them into more appropriate articles. I would rather read about NEAX, Meridian or Merlin like information here instead of Asterisk, etc. Steven312 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

VOIP

True, the P as in Private question is service, not ownership, so I corrected that notion in two places. The error of calling it a matter of ownership seems to have been in the article since the early days of Wikipedia. VOIP on the other hand was inserted in the middle of October by someone who has since ceased to edit Wiki. I do not propose to expell VOIP from the article, but have moved it further down in its section. Perhaps someone else will want to move it into the Trends section or a new section, or a more appropriate article. Someone really ambitious could create a separate article; I don't have that kind of knowledge or interest. I do hope others will insert better information. Jim.henderson 01:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PBX vs key systems

So, there are PBXes and key telephone systems. Right now, the two articles don't really make it clear what the distinction is, other than a vague notion of "PBXes are bigger and better".

Modern key systems of course make the line fuzzier, since they have some capabilities originally only found in PBXes. But from what I know, the fundamental difference between a PBX and key system is that a key system's connection to the PSTN is as a Part 68 device -- fundamentally just like a Plain Old Telephone. Just, there are lots of lines, and lots of capabilities inside the key system, but once the KSU connects an extension to the PSTN, it's just another phone. Key systems have regular phone lines, generally with a one-to-one relationship between phone lines and telephone numbers. PBXes, on the other hand, are effectively "part" of the PSTN. Channels in outside trunks are not associated with any particular telephone number; the incoming call setup signaling includes the dialed number.

Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source I can cite for the above, and I suspect it may fall under the name of original research. Can anyone point me towards a source, or at least comment on the accuracy of my description?

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PBX/vendor

"PBX" means: Personal Business eXchange. We called them "switches" after the old telephone manual switchboards. By digitizing and multiplexing; 100 calls could be sent per pair, full duplex. Harris Digital Telephone Corp, of Melbourne, FL is a major supplier. See that scene in "Clear and Present Danger" where a CIA operative slams a defective Harris switch while wiretapping--it is the blue one.68.231.189.108 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PBX Article needs more content - Part 1

This article needs greater depth, with more useful information. A diagram, to define the terms used, would be preferable to the photo. At the first mention of Centrex, there should be a link to the Centrex article in Wikipedia. (I prefer "virtual PBX" to describe Centrex.) With this link the text on Centrex and hosted PBX becomes redundant.

The duplication of comments re Electronic Key Telephone Systems (EKTS) needs to be tidied up. In the Americas, most offices with fewer than 50 lines used EKTS - unless the office needed a PBX for tight integration into a corporate network. Some businesses with over 100 lines were well served by a digital EKTS.

In most cases the major cost saving (as local calls are often free) with a PBX is due to the line:trunk ratio, which is often 10:1, so eliminating the cost of an outside line to each extension. The usual provision of a voice-processing sub-system, delivering a range of applicatios, with a a PBX should be explained. Contact (or call) center applications and requirements should also be addressed.

The fact that the digital PBX is software-based, driven by a minicomputer (in early releases) or a microprocessor, should be emphasized. The major PBX manufacturers had over 6,000 person-years (i.e. at least $1 billion) invested in their software packages. During the life-time of a digital PBX, most vendors made a major upgrade, providing a more powerful processor or more memory, every two years.

Most organizations with 500, or more, lines on their PBX(s) had a dedicated telecom department, with personnel who did System Administration and so handled Moves, Adds and Changes (MACs). It was commonly accepted that one telecom analyst was needed for every 1,000 lines.

JohnRAbrams (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

PBX article needs more content - Part 2

There are over 50 million PBX-attached lines in North America and therefore, probably, 200 million PBX lines worldwide. Four million PBX lines were shipped in the USA & Canada in 1986 - one of the best years for the industry.

For over 15 years the average purchase cost of a PBX has been roughly $1,000. per line and this is still a good estimate with IP-PBXs (now including unlimited voice mail). The cost of hardware has fallen - especially disc storage - but IP phones are more expensive than legacy, digital, sets.

Nearly all PBXs still use a proprietary interface between the switch and the telephone, so severely limiting the choice of set type that may be used and keeping the cost of PBX-attached phones artificially high.

Further Reading

Bush, S. E. & Parsons, C. R. (1993) Private Branch Exchange Systems - McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

Abrahams, J. R. (1987 & 1990) Integrated Private Branch Exchange Systems - National Computing Centre, Manchester, UK

JohnRAbrams (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Business telephone system

The article Business telephone system originally was titled Key system to differentiate it from a Private branch exchange or hybrid systems (which combine elements of both). As this article would seem to fit into the scope of a Business telephone system, and as key systems and PBX systems have grown increasingly similar in operation, I think it would make sense for a merge, and barring significant opposition to doing so, I will attempt the merge soon. Triona (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)