why was that? didn't that kinda defeat the purpose of having phone service for some?
no fax, answering machine or modem??? that makes no sense...
AT&T used to run ads admonishing people to promptly answer their phones.
For the most part, with rare exception, puthings didn't exist. The first to make widespread market penetration was the answering machine, and it cost and arm and a leg. There was a huge lawsuit over it, too. Ma Bell did NOT want third parties to be allowed to hook anything up to "her" wires. So, she raised a stink about how these devices could damage the system.
The result was the court not really buying that argument, but, compromising. There were two numbers on the label of each "third party" device (answering machine, extention phone, and later, cordless phone), which you "had" to report to the local telco before you could legally connect it to The System. One of the two numbers was the registration number, and the other was the "REN" number -- the "Ringer Equivalent Number", which told the telco how much current the device would draw when it was ringing. (Traditional phones drew a lot of current, at a fairly high voltage, when ringing. There was a rather convoluted tuned circuit inside the phone, for the purpose of directing the very low voltage/current signal (i.e., the speech signal), and the high voltage/current ring.)
It took a lot of juice to travel those miles from the central office to your home, and then, make it through that filter, and finally, swing the hammer back and forth to physically slam into two bells with enough oomph to ensure you'd be able to hear it from anywhere in the house.
I think the ring voltage was something like 70 volts. Or rather, I should say it is something like 70 volts. Nothing has changed in that department.
The REN was a bit more interesting. The telco putatively wanted to know how many phones you had, and how much current each would draw when ringing, so that they would know how much current to direct to your house line when your phone rang. Personally I don't buy it. I think the system had a certain amount of amps behind it, and the individual lines would draw what they'd draw. I do not believe that there was a current-limiter at each line, restricting the output to whatever the math told them was required by the combined RENs of each device you reported. But, that's just conjecture on my part (but I think it makes more sense than anything else). My premise is that Ma Bell's main goal was NOT "to protect the lines", but rather, to erect obstacles to any competition, and to raise the cost of entry.
In the final analysis, the uber-critical "REN" number was rendered pretty much moot by the proliferation of third party phones with electronic ringers. A phone that draws its operating power from the house current (rather than via the phone lines), or, a phone with a very efficient piezo-element for a "ringer", will draw a trivially small amount of current while ringing, a tiny fraction of the amps drawn by those huge double-bell hammer-ringer jobs.
Gee, isn't this exciting history! :)
I guess I'm boring even myself to sleep! Mainly, I'm just recalling the absurd nonsense hoops we had to jump through "back in the day" when we wanted to do something as simple as plug in an extention phone or answering machine. And yes, we did dutifully call in the info each time we added a device -- at least, I did! -- I did not want to get fined or whatnot for "illegally" hooking up a "device" -- and, thanks to the "REN" business, they really could tell if you had hooked up more than the number of devices you were "authorized" to have connected.
As certain as I am that they did not restrict the ring-current going down each line, I am equally certain that they did send out pulses to detect ring-current draw. I have even heard these pulses, I had a phone that would "tingle" out a short sound from its ringer every night in the wee hours, when no one was supposed to be awake. Upon query, the telco fessed up to their "automated equipment" doing "testing" of lines on a regular basis. I was not supposed to hear anything, but my three dolla fone did not properly filter out the test-pulses from its ring circuit.
And lest you think even that idea bordering on paranoia, consider that we are speaking of a company that (according to what I was told by an employee) would have even the operators, during "slack time", dig into the classifieds and small display ads in the local newspapers, comparing phone numbers to check if they were "residential" or "commercial" telephone accounts.
When they ran across someone that they decided was using a home phone for what they determined to be "business", they would sock it to 'em. Back fees, etc., along with a forced "upgrade" to commercial line.
When I asked the obvious question -- WHY do they charge more (not to mention so much more) for a "commercial" number versus a "residential" number (I had both at that time), I was told, very matter-of-factly, completely UNapologetically, "if YOU are using your telepone to make money, then WE ought to be able to take some of that money."
Yes, we all love the phone company, don't we.
Go rent "The President's Analyst". Apart from the hilarious plot, pay attention to the scene at the cafe where the two spies -- Omar Shariff and what's-his-name, are comparing notes (one an American spy, one a Soviet spy, but, the "camaraderie of the trade" between them). The Russian spy says something to the tune of, "I've been all over this world, and there is one thing I've found to be the same in every country I've seen. No matter where you are, no matter what country you are in, no matter how the people live, everyone hates the phone company."