Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!lll-winken!telecom-request
From: zellich@stl-07sima.army.mil (Rich Zellich)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Query on 8-Party Ringing
Message-ID: <telecom11.252.5@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 21:04:13 GMT
Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 22
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 252, Message 5 of 11

Donald E. Kimberlin asks:

> *how* did Bell accomplish 8- party ringing if they used only one
> frequency?

In my area, at least, it was simple.  They used coded rings, and rang
_every_ phone on the party line, instead of trying to ring only the
_right_ one.  If I remember right, when our number was "IMPerial
5201", we were three short rings (this may have only been a four-party
line, too, so they could have used frequency-selective ringing if they
had wanted to).

To tie the above reference to a previous thread, the IMPerial 5201
number was later changed to HObart 7-5201 and then, much later, to
467-5201 - in other words, in the 45 years my father has lived there,
his number has _never_ changed! (IMP = HO7 = 467)

Cheers,


Rich