Talk:Party line (telephony)

Party line (telephony) was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 12, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Party line (telephony) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://loriemerson.net/2024/08/31/a-brief-history-of-barbed-wire-fence-telephone-networks/

Discussion

Are people really still stuck on this shit or is that copied from some outdated standards document? Plugwash 00:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is still used in some parts of the world. 201.26.64.45 22:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It used to be an option - you could choose party line service and save a few dollars on your phone bill every month Pendragon39 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, should there be any mention of the "You have dialed a party on your line..." recording under Characteristics of Party lines? Or was this too rare and US centric to mention? I made a recording of the message when party lines were about to be removed from my house, so I might be able to find it and offer it up under an acceptable copyright rationale. 24.118.107.222 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this (as two-party lines) being in all one-person student dormitory residence rooms at Queen's University until 1989. It was dropped around the same time as the buildings were wired for Internet access. A fair number of suburban houses from the 1940's and 1950's also had internal wiring in the building which consisted of three black wires twisted together; these were originally tip, ring and ground. Once these were converted to private lines, the third (ground) wire was ignored and not used.

On a two-party line with separate ringers for each, one bell went from tip to ground; on the other party on the same line the bell went from ring to ground. This worked only on the old dial telephones with the mechanical bell — the standard for private line is bell connected between tip and ring, so a modern electronic handset is a two-wire device. On the old mechanical-dial 'phones one could remove the 'phone from the plastic case and move one wire on a terminal strip to connect one side of the bell to ground, selecting a three-wire mode for party line operation. The third (ground) wire went as far as a terminal block in the basement somewhere, then was wired to a water pipe or a ground rod as the actual outside line has two wires (tip and ring) only.

Apparently some of the university kids realised (before the school got rid of these dinosaurs) that if one disconnected everything but whichever two wires went to the bell (ie: phone had tip and no ring, or vice-versa, depending which party) the telephone would ring when called but there was no way for the victim to actually answer the call.

These were still in use in some existing rural installations in the 1990's but any call placed from such a line had no caller-ID (just "unknown name, unknown number, out of area") as the system relied on some utterly obsolete mechanical switchgear to work at all. Any switch new enough to send caller-ID is digital and therefore too new to support true party-line operation. Distinctive ring was a variant which is supported on new switchgear, but it is missing two key capabilities: the ability to handle separate 'phone bills for each party and the ability to call the other party on the same line by dialling a special number (typically 4101 or one's own number), waiting a second or two, then hanging up before the 'busy' tone came on the line. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior unsuccessful GA Review

This article had a prior GA Review. Unfortunately, it was not GA at that time. Editors may wish to consult helpful recommendations to improve the article further, at the GA review subpage at: Talk:Party line (telephony)/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claim

By the 1980s, party lines were removed in most locales.

I don't think this is true. They were up and running in the San Francisco Bay Area until the late 1980s. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "late" 1980s. By the 1980s was never true, as they were clearly operational in wide use throughout the decade. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]