Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us (Chip Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Number of devices on 1 line? Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 89 08:02:57 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us Organization: Dallas Semiconductor Lines: 25 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 199, message 6 of 8 goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 196, message 5 of 6 >If I recall my Part 68 correctly, the rule on Ringer Equivalence >Numbers is that all devices must not have a combined REN greater than 5. Bingo! It's in subpart D. My Part 68 compilation says: "All registered terminal equipment and registered protective circuitry which can affect on-hook impedance shall be assigned a Ringer Equivalence. The sum of all such ringer equivalences on a given telephone line or loop shall not exceed 5 [...]" The rules and conditions for determining REN look pretty hairy. But you can say that about Part 68 in general. I remember way-back-when the story that the telco would sometimes check the impedance of the line through the house, calculate the ringer equivalence, and determine if you had illegal phones. I don't know if this was true, but just the same we had several phones with disconnected ringers in our house. (Omigosh. I hope the statute of limitations has run out :-) -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 "I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom