bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) (04/01/91)
I read this story off the AP wire and was reminded of the days, not so
long ago in 1982 and '83, that I had a party line in rural Maine. I
felt like I was reliving a little bit of early Americana by having a
party line in the Eighties. As I recall, it was either have a party
line or wait a few months and pay an extremely high installation fee
to get a private line. Anyway, I hope you all enjoy this story as
much as I did.
By JANET L. CAPPIELLO
Associated Press Writer
WOODBURY, Conn. (AP) -- In the bucolic towns of western
Connecticut, where farmhouses and antiques shops dot the rolling
hills, about 100 people are hanging onto a piece of the past: the
telephone party line.
But as the Woodbury Telephone Co. starts to upgrade its equipment
this spring, the holdouts will all be switched to private lines,
forced into the age of computerized telecommunications.
Woodbury Telephone, itself a relic from the days of small,
independent phone companies, has received permission from state
regulators to replace the last of its two- and four-party lines with
private lines.
Southern New England Telephone Co., which serves 1.5 million
customers to Woodbury's 16,000 customers, eliminated its last party
line in January.
Around the nation, the number of party lines has been steadily
decreasing but one study in 1987 by the United States Telephone
Association said there were still 2.8 million people on party lines.
In 1985, there were 4.6 million party lines, it said.
Although the party line is going the way of hand-cranked
telephones, J. Garry Mitchell, Woodbury Telephone's president, sees no
reason to mourn. He calls party lines old-fashioned, and has been
trying to abolish them for two decades.
"Party lines (are) nothing to be proud of," Mitchell said.
Party lines were popular from 1910 until the early 1960s, he said.
Customers share a phone wire but have separate telephone numbers.
Even the people with party lines, mostly older customers, say
they've put up with the occasional inconvenience of finding someone
else already on the line more for economy than out of a sense of
nostalgia.
In 1961, Woodbury Telephone charged $6 a month for a two-party
line, $4.95 for a four-party line, and $7.25 for a private line.
Today, those costs haven't risen more than 50 cents per month.
Robert Keating, a 61-year-old Woodbury architect who grew up with a
party line, says he has one now because it's the cheapest way to have
separate telephone numbers for his home and the business he operates
out of his house.
Still, having party lines is "sort of nice, in a way," he said. "It
sort of keeps the town rural, if you want to call it that."
Telephone lore has it that party lines were a great source of
gossip for busybodies bold enough to eavesdrop on their neighbor's
conversations.
Norma Bennett, 72, a retired Woodbury operator, remembers the story
about two women who were chatting on their party lines while a third
listened in.
"One said, `I wonder when the mailman is coming?' And the one who
was listening in answered, `Soon, because he just went by here."'
Party lines were once standard telephone fare because there wasn't
enough equipment to provide private lines, Mitchell said. Some party
lines accommodated up to ten customers, usually all in one
neighborhood.
Woodbury Telephone has provided telephone service in the towns of
Woodbury, Southbury and Bethlehem and parts of Roxbury and Oxford
since 1899. SNET serves the rest of the state, except for a small
corner served by New York Telephone.
Woodbury Telephone is being allowed to eliminate the service now
because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said.
Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized
911-emergency response systems.
When a caller dials 911, the caller's address appears on a computer
screen at the dispatch center. With party lines, there's a risk that
the address could be that of the other customer, Mitchell said.
Freida Gauthier, 78, who has had a party line "ever since I had the
phone ... over 40 years," says she's willing to pay a little extra
for the sense of security she will get having the emergency 911
service.
"I live alone," she said.
She too has kept the party line because the service is less
expensive, and she rarely uses her telephone. She talks fondly of the
days when people got much of their news through party lines.
"Other people would listen in to what was going on. That was fun,"
she said. She quickly added that she had never eavesdropped herself.
Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.eduLars Poulsen <lars@spectrum.cmc.com> (04/04/91)
TELECOM Digest vol 11 issue 264 msg 1 reprinted an AP wire service story submitted by Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 about the end of party line service in Woodbury, Connecticut. I enjoyed the story, but would like to make a couple of technical comments. I wish there were a way to get them back to Ms Cappiello of AP. > By JANET L. CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer ... > Woodbury Telephone is being allowed to eliminate the service now > because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said. > Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized > 911-emergency response systems. > When a caller dials 911, the caller's address appears on a computer > screen at the dispatch center. With party lines, there's a risk that > the address could be that of the other customer, Mitchell said. This does not ring true to me. If the switch software can provide ANI for billing, I would expect it to provide ANI for E911 witout problems. It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory agencies that aren't technically competent to see through such fibs). While this particular obfuscation is relatively harmless, I bet that if the company fibs about harmless things they probably lie through their teeth about facts that have a material impact on the ratesetting. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
grayt@uunet.uu.net> (04/11/91)
In article <telecom11.267.5@eecs.nwu.edu> lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: >> because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said. >> Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized >> 911-emergency response systems. > This does not ring true to me. If the switch software can provide ANI > for billing, I would expect it to provide ANI for E911 witout > problems. It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to > regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory Calling party detection on party lines is not infallible. It relies on a specifically modified telephones being used in each residence. It is not uncommon for someone to place an unmodified instrument in his home. This would cause errors in the 911 display. ANI for four party service is notoriously unreliable. Usually the fourth party is not equipped because of this unreliability. There is no commonly available ANI system for party lines of greater than four ( and in practice three) subscribers. In short, I don't think it unresonable to assume that the installers of a 911 service would wish to eliminate party lines. A billing error due to ANI failure may be annoying to a subscriber and costly to a telco, but an ANI failure on a 911 call could be fatal. Tom Gray
locke@tree.uucp (Alan R. Gross) (04/13/91)
In article <telecom11.267.5@eecs.nwu.edu> lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > story submitted by Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 > about the end of party line service in Woodbury, Connecticut. > I enjoyed the story, but would like to make a couple of technical > comments. I wish there were a way to get them back to Ms. Cappiello of > AP. >> By JANET L. CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer >> Woodbury Telephone is being allowed to eliminate the service now >> because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said. >> Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized >> 911-emergency response systems. >> When a caller dials 911, the caller's address appears on a computer >> screen at the dispatch center. With party lines, there's a risk that >> the address could be that of the other customer, Mitchell said. > This does not ring true to me. If the switch software can provide ANI > for billing, I would expect it to provide ANI for E911 witout > problems. It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to > regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory > agencies that aren't technically competent to see through such fibs). > While this particular obfuscation is relatively harmless, I bet that > if the company fibs about harmless things they probably lie through > their teeth about facts that have a material impact on the > ratesetting. It is true that you can get ANI from a two party line, but when it comes to four party lines or larger, it doesn't work so well. I speak from experience, not technical knowledge, btw. When I lived in Fairbanks, they had two and four party lines, and the Alascom operator *always* had you state the number you were calling from before she would place the call through when calling from a four party line. This was not the case on two party lines, but some interesting situations did arise in billing from the Goldstream Valley, which is an area a few miles away from Fairbanks with all two-party lines. The switch was in an old beater trailer, and the grounding in the area was extremely poor. Every couple of weeks, someone in Goldstream would get billed their party line's long distance calls, which demonstrates that ANI on two-party lines can get flaky. Randall A. Gross | csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke @ the UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA | ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke Sprintmail: A.R.Gross | DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito