WE 305 phone - why did they make it?

[AdamAnt316]

Hello, everyone. As you might've seen from my post in the recent Find of the Month thread, I recently acquired what I believe to be a WE 305 phone in ivory. I've never seen a 305 before, and it has me wondering: Exactly what was its purpose? I know that in those days, a house would typically have only one phone, located centrally so that its ringing could be heard all over the house. There were no answering machines back then, so if someone missed a call, they wouldn't know about it unless the other party called back later.

Given these facts, why was the 305 made, and why would someone have wanted to have one? To the best of my knowledge, WE never carried the concept over to the 500 series; I know that all 500 sets had ringer loudness controls, but they worked mechanically rather than electrically, so the ringer was never truly turned off, just muffled. In addition, at least some 302s had 500-style ringer adjustment levers installed, which would make this concept seem mostly redundant. Any ideas? Thanks in advance!
-Adam

[poplar1]

It was probably used most often as an early "do not disturb" feature as an extension phone, for example, in a bedroom, especially convenient for someone who worked nights and slept during the day.

The phone company didn't want customers to leave their phone off the hook to prevent ringing, especially in step-by-step areas, because this tied up central office equipment unnecessarily.

It's true that at least one "permanent" ringer was always installed, so that the line could be tested remotely. So, if this was the only phone -- or where all the phones were portable -- then an extension ringer would have been installed, often in the stairway to the basement or in the basement.

[WEBellSystemChristian]

This is one of the only 302 variants that I could ever see as really useful to most people. It isn't frilly; very practical for unwanted nighttime phone calls or annoying telemarketers! (latter more applicable in recent years)

Were black 305s leased at an extra charge, as if it were a colored 302, or were they priced at the standard 302 price?

[poplar1]

Originally, standard rotary phones -- 302s, 500s, etc. -- carried a "one-time charge" for color, but no additional monthly charge for the color; at least that's the way it was in the Bell System. For example, $5 for an ivory 302, $7.50 for an oxidized silver one.

I'm not sure about the "ringer cut-off" charge, but there was probably a monthly charge.

There was no additional charge for color -- either initially or monthly -- for any Touch-Tone sets, or for color (rather than black) Trimlines or Princess sets. However, both Trimlines and Princess sets had both an additional initial charge and a monthly premium. And there was a monthly surcharge for Touch-Tone, which was the same regardless of how many extensions were leased.

Here are examples from c. 1970 Southern Bell in GA:

Color charge for 500 or 554: $7.50 one-time charge

Princess: one time charge of $7, extra monthly charge of 70 cents. (A 500U was an extra 35 cents per month for the light.)

Trimline: one time charge of $5, extra monthly charge of about $1.40.

One standard rotary phone was included in the monthly line rate. Any extensions were about $1.50 per month, in addition to the monthly charges above.  So, for a Princess extension, the cost was $2.20 a month.

Touch-Tone was about $2 per month per line.

[Doug Rose]

Adam.....great find, you have my vote.....Doug

[G-Man]

There would be several legitimate reasons to provide this set to subscribers, whether it was for someone who worked a night shift and slept through the day or for use in a recording or broadcast studio.

It would not have been a waste of resources since the generic instrument could be wired and equipped for various other types of service. Even if  a full factory run could not be justified, they could still be wired and assembled inexpensively at WECo Distributing Houses.

I have listed a few of the models that were equipped with turn-keys that are shown on Paul Fassbender's excellent website:

   
• 305- Single line, ringer cutoff switch marked "ON OFF"
• 410- 2-line or KTS 1A system, turn-switch on front left corner. Key can be wired for 2-line pickup or one line pickup with extension cut-off, ringer cut-off or headset control. Push button for signalling.
• 411- 2-line or KTS 1A system, turn-switch on front left corner - same as 410 plus exclusion key on plunger
• 412BC- Secretarial service (transfer line to secretary or answering service using turn-switch)

[G-Man]

To the best of my knowledge, WE never carried the concept over to the 500 series; I know that all 500 sets had ringer loudness controls, but they worked mechanically rather than electrically, so the ringer was never truly turned off, just muffled.

Actually there was a simple modification to the loudness control on 500-sets and  685-subsets that allowed C-type ringers to be fully silenced. Also, some 500-set models were also equipped with turn-keys and if deemed necessary, they could also be wired to silence the ringer.

[G-Man]

I have combined the following excerpts pertaining to my earlier comments regarding 500-sets.

[NorthernElectric]

WE 305 phone - why did they make it?

Here is a discussion started by a member who wanted to wire up a ringer switch on a 304 so he could silence the ringer when he didn't wish to be disturbed.

[AdamAnt316]

Thanks for all the replies. I did figure that this sort of phone made the most sense as an extension, but wasn't sure how widespread the concept was during the era it was originally made. Also, I'm pretty sure that there were fewer telemarketers around in those days as well. Whoever leased this phone was likely well-off, methinks, given the cited initial charge for the color, and however much extra having the ringer switch added to the monthly bill.

I didn't think that the phone was outright useless, but the fact that the concept didn't directly carry forward to the 500 series made me wonder. It does make sense that a standard 500 set could be modified for this sort of function, but why didn't WE produce a 505 (or somesuch) with the function built-in? Would seem to be less expensive/work-intensive than modifying an existing phone to add a switch it never had...
-Adam

[paul-f]

WE probably didn't need to build a 505 since there were other existing options to achieve the same purpose without having to create the cost of documenting, manufacturing, inventorying and managing a separate model number.

Of course, we've also found lots of sets with the ringers removed, wires disconnected, taped clappers, and with ugly holes drilled for toggle switches to silence the ringers.  There must have been an ongoing need for silence that was "fixed" by customers using their own ingenuity.

Even later on, aftermarket "attachments" appeared to provide external switches to control the ringers.  There's a separate topic to post examples here:

  http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=14604.0

[AdamAnt316]

Wow. I guess the demand really was there. Of course, I suspect that the vast majority of disconnected/removed ringers were done so in order to hide illicit extensions from Ma Bell, but it definitely stands to reason that some folks would've desired silence from their phone's ringer. I've heard that the electronic group Kraftwerk were so eccentric that the telephone in their studio had its ringer disconnected so that they could avoid distractions while recording; if anyone desired to contact them, they were told to call at a certain time, upon which one of the band members would pick up the phone without having heard it ring.
-Adam

[unbeldi]

There were good technical reasons for prohibiting the disconnection of ringers for the majority of subscribers in the Bell System. It was not only a measure for maintaining the ability to test lines.

Most telephones in the US, until even into the 1960s, were installed on party lines. While most of the independents used frequency-selective ringing systems in which all ringers are installed bridged across tip and ring, the Bell System had been using grounded ringing in which ringers are connected from either side of the line (tip and ring) to ground.

Grounding ringing circuits have the great disadvantage that they produce electrical impedance imbalances on the line, if the numbers of ringers, or the ringer impedances, are different for the tip and ring conductors.  Such imbalances cause longitudinal currents that produce inductive noise and crosstalk between adjacent lines. Inductive noise is electrical noise picked up from power circuits, fluorescent lighting, motors, etc. If a line is balanced perfectly, the induced currents are exactly in phase and of the same magnitude in tip and ring, and therefore cause no disturbances.  However, when one side has a higher or lower resistance (impedance) to ground this cannot happen.

Removing or turning off one ringer on a party line disturbs the balance.  On party lines with odd number of subscribers, the telephone company would often install an unused ringer box to achieve proper balance.

Sometimes lines could not be balanced sufficiently, and the line had to be converted to using telephone sets with electron tubes for ringing, such as the 306 type telephone.

So this is a long explanation why a 305 type telephone would not be a main station, at least not on a party line. I am not clear whether these were ever installed on party lines, as that would create imbalances as well, even as an extension ringer.  I think the specifications say, that a 305 could come with a two- or three-conductor line cord.

[HarrySmith]

WE probably didn't need to build a 505 since there were other existing options to achieve the same purpose without having to create the cost of documenting, manufacturing, inventorying and managing a separate model number.

Of course, we've also found lots of sets with the ringers removed, wires disconnected, taped clappers, and with ugly holes drilled for toggle switches to silence the ringers.  There must have been an ongoing need for silence that was "fixed" by customers using their own ingenuity.

Even later on, aftermarket "attachments" appeared to provide external switches to control the ringers.  There's a separate topic to post examples here:

  http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/forum/index.php?topic=14604.0

I love the light switch mounted in the side of the 554!

[poplar1]

2.06 The 305-type telephone set is similar to the 302 type described in 2.01,except that the mounting is equipped with a turn button-type key in the base, having an "OFF" and "ON" marking. This key is wired in series with the ringer circuit and is used by the subscriber to turn the ringer on or off as he desires.

2.07 When the 305-type telephone set is used on a central offrce line, an additional ringer is generally required so that the customer can be signaled from the central office at all times. The 305-type set is particularly useful as an extension station in a bedroom.

2.08 As in the case of the 302-type set, a 3-conductor mounting cord is furnished to permit using the set on nonpolarized grounded ringing lines. The set may also be used for individual lines and regular PBX stations by reconnecting the ringer accordingly and using the 3-conductor cord as a 2-conductor cord. The manual set is coded 305E and the dial sets are coded 305F, 305G, and 305H.





BELL SYSTEM PRACTICES Station Installation and Maintenance
SECTION c32.5O2 Issue 8, Oct., 1955 AT&T Co Standard
3O2, 3O3, 3O4, 305, 306, 3O7, 3O9, AND 329 TYPES DESCRIPTION AND USE