I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.

However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

There is a nice little junction box inside the flat just on the other side
of the wall from where I would like the extra socket. The 'correct' route
would mean a long and involved path on the customer side.

TIA

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

It's not a good idea. You'd be paralleling up the capacitors that make
the ringer work, best bet would be to run a cable back the way from the
master sockets 'client' side to where you want the new socket to be.

Ed Sirett wrote:
I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.
However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

Yes, you will have two ringing capacitors in parallel.

There is a nice little junction box inside the flat just on the other side
of the wall from where I would like the extra socket. The 'correct' route
would mean a long and involved path on the customer side.

If you've got a two-pair cable from that junction box to the master
socket you can run a ringing wire back from the master socket using a
spare wire in the second pair. Extensions don't have to be electrically
downstream of the master socket, although in theory-strictly-compliant
they should be connected via the pluggable faceplate on a Linebox or a
plug-in adapter.

Alternatively, move the Linebox to the location of the master.

Alternatively, many electronic phones don't need the third wire for ringing.

Owain

Ed Sirett wrote:
I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.

However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

There is a nice little junction box inside the flat just on the other
side
of the wall from where I would like the extra socket. The 'correct'
route
would mean a long and involved path on the customer side.

TIA

Could you not then make the new socket the master, run a cable back to
the point of the junction box, stick another junction box next to the
original and run the old master as an extention?

In message .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:

I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.

However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

There is a nice little junction box inside the flat just on the other side
of the wall from where I would like the extra socket. The 'correct' route
would mean a long and involved path on the customer side.


The usual advice is that you are not really supposed to have more than
one ringer capacitor on a circuit, but it *does* work. I have wired
three houses with extensions using exclusively master sockets and only
the pin 2&5 pair. House 1 had seven such extensions (and one master)
altogether (though only six had instruments attached), house 2 had six
extensions and house 3 has five extensions (at the moment, three more
planned). So that's my own experience, but consider this:

I have, in the course of things, taken apart several ADSL microfilters.
Not one was wired up as an extension socket. Every one of them took just
two wires from the phone line, did a bit of LC filtering and then had a
ringing capacitor hung across the "phone" outlet. These are all BABT
approved and are designed to be plugged into every telephone socket in
the house. You'd end up with an all-master installation that way.

Having said that, I did see a cunning trick performed on a BT
installation once: Incoming line runs through attic. One of those little
four-terminal junction boxes in the attic with separate wires running
downstairs to "master" socket in the hall, and into a bedroom to a
secondary socket. There was no second wire between the master socket and
the secondary, so how did phones on the secondary ring? The answer is
that although the two line wires effectively went directly from the JB
to each of the other sockets, the third (ringer) wire was brough back up
from the master using one of the unused wires in the installation cable,
and thence down to the secondary. Difficult to explain, and difficult to
draw in ASCII, but I'll have a go:

________
incoming ========JB========secondary
|||
|||
|||
master

If you don't want to go the multiple-master route, and you don't mind
fiddling with BT property, would this be a suitable solution, assuming
there is a spare wire in the cable between junction box and master?

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... I am programmed in multiple pleasuring techniques.

In article .uk,
Ed Sirett writes:
I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.

However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

That's fine. BT often do it themselves.
(Capacitors are not in parallel as someone else said, because
you do not connect the bell wire (3) between the two master
sockets.)

It only becomes a (slight) problem if you use pulse dialling
and have any phones sensitive to bell tinkle, as you have
lost the function of the bell wire between the two master
sockets to supress bell tinkle, and you could get one phone's
bell tinkling as another phone pulse dials, although it's
harmless.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:54:57 +0100, Ed Sirett
wrote:


However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

No reason at all, the "parallel ringing capacitors" is irrelevant if
you think about what the ringing capacitor does for a few moments.

--
Peter Parry WPP Ltd http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

On 25 Apr 2005 20:10:05 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

(Capacitors are not in parallel as someone else said, because
you do not connect the bell wire (3) between the two master
sockets.)

But they are in parallel as far as the exchange is concerned via the
ringers. I doubt that two C's is going to create a problem with ring
trip but it is a poosibilty dependant on the number of C's and the
impedance of the ringers.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.

However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

There is a nice little junction box inside the flat just on the other side
of the wall from where I would like the extra socket. The 'correct' route
would mean a long and involved path on the customer side.

Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from terminals
2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which would normally
link the bell circuit to the slave.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?
That's fine. BT often do it themselves.
(Capacitors are not in parallel as someone else said, because
you do not connect the bell wire (3) between the two master
sockets.)

The capacitances are in parallel once the phone is plugged in, because
the other side of the ringer is paralleled on pin 5.


2--------------------------------
| |
| |
=== ===
=== ===
| |
|- - -3 omitted - - |
| |
| |
\ \
/ Ringer /
\ ~ 4kR \
/ /
| |
| |
5--------------------------------


Oh, I see Peter Parry has already answered this. But as I've spent 10 s
on this ASCII art I'll send anyway so my creative efforts get googled
for posterity.

Owain

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
(Capacitors are not in parallel as someone else said,
But they are in parallel as far as the exchange is concerned via the
ringers.
Since the ringer can alternatively be placed directly across the A+B
lines (i.e. like the capacitor was shorted out as is done by phones
which don't use the bell wire), it's irrelevant.

It's not, because A+B ringers are electrically equivalent to capacitor +
bell, ie they do not pass DC.

If the capacitor is shorted then there is (a) DC on the ringing wire,
which can cause some electronic phones to ring, because they are
sensitive to both DC and AC on the ringing wire; (b) a DC loop across
the speech pair, which will cause ring trip.

Owain

In article om,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On 25 Apr 2005 20:10:05 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

(Capacitors are not in parallel as someone else said, because
you do not connect the bell wire (3) between the two master
sockets.)

But they are in parallel as far as the exchange is concerned via the
ringers. I doubt that two C's is going to create a problem with ring
trip but it is a poosibilty dependant on the number of C's and the
impedance of the ringers.

Since the ringer can alternatively be placed directly across the A+B
lines (i.e. like the capacitor was shorted out as is done by phones
which don't use the bell wire), it's irrelevant. The shorted out
capacitor in such a phone is equivalent to an infinite number of
capacitors in parallel -- i.e. it's not an issue.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

That's fine. BT often do it themselves.

Also ADSL microfilters are, in effect, mini master sockets - i.e. they
usually have a 2-wire input and contain their own ringer coupling
capacitor after the low-pass filter on the telephony side.

--
Andy

Kaiser wrote:

Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from terminals
2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which would normally
link the bell circuit to the slave.

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 25 Apr 2005 20:10:05 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:


(Capacitors are not in parallel as someone else said, because
you do not connect the bell wire (3) between the two master
sockets.)


But they are in parallel as far as the exchange is concerned via the
ringers. I doubt that two C's is going to create a problem with ring
trip but it is a poosibilty dependant on the number of C's and the
impedance of the ringers.


Think about REN for a minute...The caps only isolate the ringers from
DC, and ite really the phones that are in parallel, not the capacitors.

Apologies if anyone sees this twice. I originally posted it at 2054 on
the 25th but it hasn't appeared at my end yet...

In message .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:

I know that 'by-the-book' you are not supposed to interfere with the
wiring on the supplier side from the master socket.

However setting aside the legals is there any technical reason why it
would be bad to add an extra phone socket off the main pair using
a second master socket?

There is a nice little junction box inside the flat just on the other side
of the wall from where I would like the extra socket. The 'correct' route
would mean a long and involved path on the customer side.


The usual advice is that you are not really supposed to have more than
one ringer capacitor on a circuit, but it *does* work. I have wired
three houses with extensions using exclusively master sockets and only
the pin 2&5 pair. House 1 had seven such extensions (and one master)
altogether (though only six had instruments attached), house 2 had six
extensions and house 3 has five extensions (at the moment, three more
planned). So that's my own experience, but consider this:

I have, in the course of things, taken apart several ADSL microfilters.
Not one was wired up as an extension socket. Every one of them took just
two wires from the phone line, did a bit of LC filtering and then had a
ringing capacitor hung across the "phone" outlet. These are all BABT
approved and are designed to be plugged into every telephone socket in
the house. You'd end up with an all-master installation that way.

Having said that, I did see a cunning trick performed on a BT
installation once: Incoming line runs through attic. One of those little
four-terminal junction boxes in the attic with separate wires running
downstairs to "master" socket in the hall, and into a bedroom to a
secondary socket. There was no second wire between the master socket and
the secondary, so how did phones on the secondary ring? The answer is
that although the two line wires effectively went directly from the JB
to each of the other sockets, the third (ringer) wire was brough back up
from the master using one of the unused wires in the installation cable,
and thence down to the secondary. Difficult to explain, and difficult to
draw in ASCII, but I'll have a go:

________
incoming ========JB========secondary
|||
|||
|||
master

If you don't want to go the multiple-master route, and you don't mind
fiddling with BT property, would this be a suitable solution, assuming
there is a spare wire in the cable between junction box and master?

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... DisneyLand: A people trap operated by a mouse.

The message
from Martin Angove contains these words:


The usual advice is that you are not really supposed to have more than
one ringer capacitor on a circuit, but it *does* work. I have wired
three houses with extensions using exclusively master sockets and only
the pin 2&5 pair. House 1 had seven such extensions (and one master)
altogether (though only six had instruments attached), house 2 had six
extensions and house 3 has five extensions (at the moment, three more
planned).

Not only can it be done, but it's the standard answer if there are more
phones on a single extension than can be rung by the available ringing
supply.

The late and sometimes lamented Omnicom telephone exchange had many
faults, as well as many virtues, but the most tremendous thing about it
was the unfailingly helpful and laid-back Welshman on the end of the
helpline. He recommended using only master sockets on the extensions.
The only disadvantage, of course, was that the phones didn't start
ringing until the capacitors had all charged sufficiently.

With American-style internal exchanges, of course, master sockets are
usually a necessity. When I replaced our internal exchange I had to
buy a supply of capacitors to fit into the slave sockets around the
place.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Kaiser wrote:

Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from
terminals 2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which would
normally link the bell circuit to the slave.

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

--
Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6
terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the master
to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used for the
earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other terminals 1 &
6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a data pair is
required.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:14:44 UTC, "Kaiser" wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Kaiser wrote:

Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from
terminals 2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which would
normally link the bell circuit to the slave.

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6
terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the master
to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used for the
earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other terminals 1 &
6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a data pair is
required.

Have another look at the post to which you are replying. Specifically,
the word "*input*" !!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:14:44 UTC, "Kaiser" wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Kaiser wrote:

Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from
terminals 2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which
would
normally link the bell circuit to the slave.

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6
terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the
master
to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used for the
earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other terminals 1
&
6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a data pair is
required.

Have another look at the post to which you are replying. Specifically,
the word "*input*" !!

Yes, and??

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:53:45 UTC, "Kaiser" wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:14:44 UTC, "Kaiser" wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Kaiser wrote:

Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from
terminals 2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which
would
normally link the bell circuit to the slave.

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6
terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the
master
to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used for the
earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other terminals 1
&
6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a data pair is
required.

Have another look at the post to which you are replying. Specifically,
the word "*input*" !!

Yes, and??

Only that you appeared to be correcting a statement that wasn't wrong.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Kaiser wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote
Yep no problem, If your doing this just connect the two wires from
terminals 2 & 5 in parallel and omit the wire from terminal 3 which
would normally link the bell circuit to the slave.
Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.
Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6
terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the
master to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used
for the earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line.

LJUs were not supposed to be used on party lines. The bell wiring was
different, as well as needing a fleeting earth to seize the linefinder.

Have another look at the post to which you are replying. Specifically,
the word "*input*" !!
Yes, and??

I think we're confusing master sockets and lineboxes, folks.

Owain

LJUs were not supposed to be used on party lines. The bell wiring was
different, as well as needing a fleeting earth to seize the linefinder.

I know they were not intended to be used for party lines, but in several
cases they were. The problem being there was still party lines around when
the LJU's came out and the old type jacks were discontinued. The old type of
phones could have the bell circuits modified from series to parallel by re
arranging the links and fitting a new lead.

Kaiser wrote:

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

--

Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6

8 in fact... ;-)

terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the master
to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used for the
earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other terminals 1 &
6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a data pair is
required.

Note that I said "input" - there are two screw terminals on the back of
the socket for the A & B lines from the exchange, there are then a
further 6 IDC terminals for the outgoing line with wires as you descibe.

Piccie here (half way down):-

http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:47:58 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Note that I said "input" - there are two screw terminals on the back
of the socket for the A & B lines from the exchange, there are then
a further 6 IDC terminals for the outgoing line with wires as you
descibe.

Piccie here (half way down):-

http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

Which calls itself PBX-NTE5. The last time I looked at the BT side of
an NTE it had three screw terminals A B amd Earth connected to the
center of the center tapped surge arrestor. But I guess there are
variants in use.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article om,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
Which calls itself PBX-NTE5. The last time I looked at the BT side of
an NTE it had three screw terminals A B amd Earth connected to the
center of the center tapped surge arrestor. But I guess there are
variants in use.

Yes, I have a few old BT ones here. About half of them have an
earth terminal, about half of them have a surge arrestor plugged
in (not related to weather they have an earth terminal or not),
but none have a center tapped surge arrestor, from which I assume
none actually had an earth connection when in use.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:27:46 UTC, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:47:58 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Note that I said "input" - there are two screw terminals on the back
of the socket for the A & B lines from the exchange, there are then
a further 6 IDC terminals for the outgoing line with wires as you
descibe.

Piccie here (half way down):-

http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

Which calls itself PBX-NTE5. The last time I looked at the BT side of
an NTE it had three screw terminals A B amd Earth connected to the
center of the center tapped surge arrestor. But I guess there are
variants in use.

I think that's the variant! The more usual one is this:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

where the surge suppressor *isn't* centre tapped, and there is no earth
terminal.
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Bob Eager wrote:


http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

Which calls itself PBX-NTE5. The last time I looked at the BT side of
an NTE it had three screw terminals A B amd Earth connected to the
center of the center tapped surge arrestor. But I guess there are
variants in use.

I get the imporession they call it a PBX-NTE5 on the gorunds that is the
only legit place and end user could install one ;-)

I think that's the variant! The more usual one is this:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

where the surge suppressor *isn't* centre tapped, and there is no earth
terminal.

That looks exactly the same as the one in the solwise piccie (the NTE5
that is rather than the plain "master")... or am I missing something?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:26:24 UTC, John Rumm
wrote:

I think that's the variant! The more usual one is this:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

where the surge suppressor *isn't* centre tapped, and there is no earth
terminal.

That looks exactly the same as the one in the solwise piccie (the NTE5
that is rather than the plain "master")... or am I missing something?

I'm no telecoms engineer, but I'd hazard a guess that 99% of domestic
master sockets are of this particular type/variant. (but I don't quite
understand the parenthesised part of your reply)

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Kaiser wrote:

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

--

Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6

8 in fact... ;-)

terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the
master to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used
for the earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other
terminals 1 & 6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a
data pair is required.

Note that I said "input" - there are two screw terminals on the back of
the socket for the A & B lines from the exchange, there are then a further
6 IDC terminals for the outgoing line with wires as you descibe.

Piccie here (half way down):-

http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

--
My apologies. I can see what you are referring to now, I was referring to
the original LJ1/1A as in this pic.

http://www.austin-taylor.co.uk/pages/ljbt1.htm

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:14:12 UTC, "Kaiser" wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Kaiser wrote:

Erm, but you only have two wires (and terminals) on the *input* to the
master socket.

Have another look, I think you will find that a master socket has 6

8 in fact... ;-)

terminals. The line from the exchange has only 2 wires, but from the
master to each slave 3 wires are used, or 4 wires (terminal 4 was used
for the earth recall) on a PABX extension, or a party line. The other
terminals 1 & 6 are used on some electronic switching systems where a
data pair is required.

Note that I said "input" - there are two screw terminals on the back of
the socket for the A & B lines from the exchange, there are then a further
6 IDC terminals for the outgoing line with wires as you descibe.

Piccie here (half way down):-

http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

My apologies. I can see what you are referring to now, I was referring to
the original LJ1/1A as in this pic.

http://www.austin-taylor.co.uk/pages/ljbt1.htm

Ah, I see. You'll understand that I was making the same point!

I remember 'illegally' fitting one of those, to a sunken wall box, in
our last house. It'd only been there a few weeks and BT decided to
replace the pole and all the drop cables. But the guy said my work was
fine, so he left it...

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

My apologies. I can see what you are referring to now, I was referring to
the original LJ1/1A as in this pic.

http://www.austin-taylor.co.uk/pages/ljbt1.htm

Ah, I see. You'll understand that I was making the same point!

I remember 'illegally' fitting one of those, to a sunken wall box, in
our last house. It'd only been there a few weeks and BT decided to
replace the pole and all the drop cables. But the guy said my work was
fine, so he left it...

I don't think BT engineers are too bothered if you fit your own sockets as
long as they are wired correctly.

I was just looking at our master socket and I never noticed before that it
is one of those NTE5 sockets with the removable lower front plate. Saying
that, I've really not had a need to investigate before as there was a slave
socket in virtually every room when we moved in 5 years ago.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:02:09 UTC, "Kaiser" wrote:

I was just looking at our master socket and I never noticed before that it
is one of those NTE5 sockets with the removable lower front plate. Saying
that, I've really not had a need to investigate before as there was a slave
socket in virtually every room when we moved in 5 years ago.

The nice thing about those is that it's easy to fit the 'proper' ADSL
filter to them - either the original or the modified version. As luck
would have it, our NTE5 is two feet from the router rack...

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Bob Eager wrote:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wi...telephone.html

(but I don't quite
understand the parenthesised part of your reply)

I was refering to the fact that the page link has two master sockets
shown - the NTE5 (with removable faceplate section that lets you connect
/disconnect the secondary side of the phone wiring by simply unplugging
it), and the older master socket that it a one piece face plate.

The NTE5 shown on both sites is the same - two (screw) terminals in, six
(IDC) out, no earth connection.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

I get the imporession they call it a PBX-NTE5 on the gorunds that is the
only legit place and end user could install one ;-)

The IDC-input version of the NTE5 is called a CTE5. If the N stands for
network, what does C stand for?

--
Andy

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:01:04 UTC, Andy Wade
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

I get the imporession they call it a PBX-NTE5 on the gorunds that is the
only legit place and end user could install one ;-)

The IDC-input version of the NTE5 is called a CTE5. If the N stands for
network, what does C stand for?

Customer? By definition, a non-IDC input wouldn't be much good for
connecting directly to typical network wiring.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:01:04 UTC, Andy Wade
wrote:


John Rumm wrote:


I get the imporession they call it a PBX-NTE5 on the gorunds that is the
only legit place and end user could install one ;-)

The IDC-input version of the NTE5 is called a CTE5. If the N stands for
network, what does C stand for?


Customer? By definition, a non-IDC input wouldn't be much good for
connecting directly to typical network wiring.

If you look at the manufacturer's site:

http://www.austin-taylor.co.uk/dist/pdf/atlj02b.pdf

They suggest the CTE5 might be used on CATV cable drops...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

They suggest the CTE5 might be used on CATV cable drops...

"Cable" - methinks you've cracked it: the CTE5 version was, perhaps,
introduced for the cable industry.

http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/line_jacks.htm also tends to support that
view.

--
Andy