Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and some
people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so beg your
forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained all
the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection on the
front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I used
the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout the exact
speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it was
the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to something
like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem directly into
socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and all phones work ok
without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation of
the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in the main
box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.
--
the_constructor

Don't tip it, recycle it. Join your local group.

http://freecycle.org/display.php?reg...ited%20Kingdom

"the_constructor" wrote in message
...

Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and some
people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so beg
your forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained
all the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection on
the front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I
used the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout the
exact speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it
was the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to
something like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem
directly into socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and
all phones work ok without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation of
the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in the main
box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.
--
the_constructor

Don't tip it, recycle it. Join your local group.

http://freecycle.org/display.php?reg...ited%20Kingdom


Are all the extension sockets correctly wired with twisted pair telephone
cable? I've seen slow speeds caused by extensions wired with alarm cable.
Some people may suggest that you disconnect the ring wire - although I have
not found that a problem.

Peter

"the_constructor" wrote in message
...

Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and some
people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so beg
your forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained
all the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection on
the front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I
used the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout the
exact speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it
was the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to
something like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem
directly into socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and
all phones work ok without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation of
the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in the main
box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.

It is possible that you havea fault on the extension sockets installed
throughout the house. It may simply be that these sockets have been wired
without the benefit of the correct twisted pair cable. It is also possible
that the "ring" wire is connected, but its partner in the twisted pair is
not, thereby unbalancing the pair and introducing noise.

What you should do is formalise the test arrangement by installing a
faceplate filter. An example is the "NTE5 compatible ADSL filtered
faceplate" see: http://www.solwise.co.uk/adsl_splitters.htm
All the extension cables should then be wired to the filtered output of the
faceplate.

If it isn't possible to install your router or modem adjacent to the
filtered faceplate in the bedroom, then use Cat5 cable to run the unfiltered
signal to a RJ45 socket at a more convenient location.

--
Graham J

On 06/11/2007 11:05 the_constructor wrote:

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained all
the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection on the
front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

If you go to http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_bits.htm and buy the
'Genuine BT Master NTE5 Linebox ADSL Adaptor' (don't forget to get some
screws) you can plug it into your main BT socket, connect your
extensions to the appropriate socket on the front, your broadband cable
to the other and then throw all your other filters away.

No connection other than that of a (very) satisfied customer. They're a
good company to deal with and they have a sense of humour.

--
F

(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

On 6 Nov, 11:45, F wrote:

If you go tohttp://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_bits.htmand buy the
'Genuine BT Master NTE5 Linebox ADSL Adaptor' (don't forget to get some
screws) you can plug it into your main BT socket, connect your
extensions to the appropriate socket on the front, your broadband cable
to the other and then throw all your other filters away.

No connection other than that of a (very) satisfied customer. They're a
good company to deal with and they have a sense of humour.

Thanks, good site.

Is it me, or are they going a teensy bit over the top about the dire
and dreadful consequences of tampering with the BT-side of the wiring?

F wrote:
If you go to http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_bits.htm and buy the
'Genuine BT Master NTE5 Linebox ADSL Adaptor' (don't forget to get some
screws) you can plug it into your main BT socket, connect your
extensions to the appropriate socket on the front, your broadband cable
to the other and then throw all your other filters away.


I think the OP has come to the same arrangement. As far as I can see,
the NTE5 ADSL linebox just looks neater ;-)

--
Adrian C

In article ,
the_constructor wrote:
This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and
some people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so
beg your forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained
all the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection
on the front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I
used the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout
the exact speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it
was the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to
something like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem
directly into socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and
all phones work ok without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation
of the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in
the main box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.

BT when running cables along the street etc take care to avoid sources of
interference like mains wiring. So it seems strange that miles of cable to
the exchange can have less effect than a few yards in the home - but it
can be. The best way is to install a single filtered unit where the line
comes into the house, and site a router there. Then either use CAT5
cabling to your computer(s) or a wireless link.

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
F wrote:
If you go to http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_bits.htm and buy the
'Genuine BT Master NTE5 Linebox ADSL Adaptor' (don't forget to get some
screws) you can plug it into your main BT socket, connect your extensions
to the appropriate socket on the front, your broadband cable to the other
and then throw all your other filters away.


I think the OP has come to the same arrangement. As far as I can see, the
NTE5 ADSL linebox just looks neater ;-)

--
Adrian C

You're correct in your assumption Adrian. I removed the faceplate, plugged
in the filter then plugged the extensions and modem into the filter.
It may look a little more ugly than the NTE5 ADSL Linebox, but it certainly
is cheaper. It'll do for the time being. The bedroom where main BT socket is
located is my Office/junk room so ugliness isn't any problem.
--
the_constructor

Don't tip it, recycle it. Join your local group.

http://freecycle.org/display.php?reg...ited%20Kingdom

"Peter Andrews" wrote in message
. uk...

"the_constructor" wrote in message
...

Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and
some people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so
beg your forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained
all the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection
on the front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I
used the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout the
exact speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it
was the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to
something like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem
directly into socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and
all phones work ok without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation of
the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in the
main box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.
--
the_constructor

Don't tip it, recycle it. Join your local group.

http://freecycle.org/display.php?reg...ited%20Kingdom


Are all the extension sockets correctly wired with twisted pair telephone
cable? I've seen slow speeds caused by extensions wired with alarm cable.
Some people may suggest that you disconnect the ring wire - although I
have not found that a problem.

Peter



I forgot to mention that all the extension sockets are wired with the
propper cable, though I suspect a couple of the sockets may be faulty as
they are not the same as the rest.
--
the_constructor

Don't tip it, recycle it. Join your local group.

http://freecycle.org/display.php?reg...ited%20Kingdom

On 06/11/2007 12:03 Martin Pentreath wrote:

Is it me, or are they going a teensy bit over the top about the dire
and dreadful consequences of tampering with the BT-side of the wiring?

At £150(?) a go if they have to come out to fix a fault that's down to
you, no.

--
F

(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

On 06/11/2007 13:20 the_constructor wrote:

You're correct in your assumption Adrian. I removed the faceplate, plugged
in the filter then plugged the extensions and modem into the filter.

Ah! Sorry, missed that.

It may look a little more ugly than the NTE5 ADSL Linebox, but it certainly
is cheaper. It'll do for the time being. The bedroom where main BT socket is
located is my Office/junk room so ugliness isn't any problem.

Our main socket is just inside the front door so the ugly option wasn't on!

--
F

(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

F wrote:
On 06/11/2007 12:03 Martin Pentreath wrote:

Is it me, or are they going a teensy bit over the top about the
dire and dreadful consequences of tampering with the BT-side of
the wiring?

At £150(?) a go if they have to come out to fix a fault that's down
to you, no.

Add VAT to that so it's nearer £200

kráftéé wrote:
F wrote:

On 06/11/2007 12:03 Martin Pentreath wrote:


Is it me, or are they going a teensy bit over the top about the
dire and dreadful consequences of tampering with the BT-side of
the wiring?

At £150(?) a go if they have to come out to fix a fault that's down
to you, no.


Add VAT to that so it's nearer £200


Gotta pay for you somehow kraftee!! (he he)

Mike

Mike J wrote:
kráftéé wrote:
F wrote:

On 06/11/2007 12:03 Martin Pentreath wrote:


Is it me, or are they going a teensy bit over the top about the
dire and dreadful consequences of tampering with the BT-side of
the wiring?

At £150(?) a go if they have to come out to fix a fault that's
down to you, no.


Add VAT to that so it's nearer £200


Gotta pay for you somehow kraftee!! (he he)

Mike

You mean it's gotta pay for my sick pay don't you??

the_constructor wrote:
"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
F wrote:
If you go to http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_bits.htm and buy
the 'Genuine BT Master NTE5 Linebox ADSL Adaptor' (don't forget to
get some screws) you can plug it into your main BT socket, connect
your extensions to the appropriate socket on the front, your
broadband cable to the other and then throw all your other filters
away.

I think the OP has come to the same arrangement. As far as I can
see, the NTE5 ADSL linebox just looks neater ;-)

You're correct in your assumption Adrian. I removed the faceplate,
plugged in the filter then plugged the extensions and modem into the
filter. It may look a little more ugly than the NTE5 ADSL Linebox, but it
certainly is cheaper. It'll do for the time being. The bedroom where
main BT socket is located is my Office/junk room so ugliness isn't
any problem.



Good solution (if visually ugly!). Add the proper faceplate to your tuit
list.


Back at your original problem, it may have been bad wiring, or it may have
been a bad filter. Some filters seem to be much better than others, and some
appear to go faulty.


- Nigel (ex BT, but not transmission side).


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

the_constructor wrote:
Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and some
people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so beg your
forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained all
the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection on the
front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I used
the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout the exact
speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it was
the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to something
like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem directly into
socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and all phones work ok
without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation of
the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in the main
box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.


Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

Bob

curious wrote:
the_constructor wrote:
Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in
and some people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted
it to, so beg your forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy
chained all the rest of the sockets in the house using the
faceplate connection on the front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones,
4 in total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the
Broadband. I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower
and slower
so I used the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to
findout the exact speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again
and it was the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed
increased to something like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off
and plugged modem directly into socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged
extensions into filter and all phones work ok without individual
filters. Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original
installation of the sockets in the house, or, should I have just
used 1 filter in the main box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.


Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

Conversely it can also cause a problem if it's not

curious wrote:

the_constructor wrote:
Hi Everyone,

This is a cross post because I wasn't sure which one to put it in and some
people may not use all the NewsGroups that I have posted it to, so beg your
forgiveness.

The main BT socket is in the bedroom and from this I have daisy chained all
the rest of the sockets in the house using the faceplate connection on the
front of the BT socket.

From some of the sockets I have filters plugged in for the phones, 4 in
total. I also have a filter plugged in for the PC to use the Broadband.

I noticed that the connection speed was getting slower and slower so I used
the Voyager 105 modem given to me by my ISP in order to findout the exact
speed. It was 320 kbps.

I disconnected all the phones in the house, tried the speed again and it was
the same. Plugged modem into main socket and speed increased to something
like 580 kbps. I thern took faceplate off and plugged modem directly into
socket, now 1.8Mbps. I plugged extensions into filter and all phones work ok
without individual filters.

Now my question is this. Do I have a fault on my original installation of
the sockets in the house, or, should I have just used 1 filter in the main
box as I have at present ?

Your comments are most welcome.

Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

More correctly it WILL cause problems if you attempt to run an ADSL modem from a
filtered connection.

Graham

"kráftéé" wrote:

curious wrote:

Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

Conversely it can also cause a problem if it's not

Could you elaborate on that ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
"kráftéé" wrote:

curious wrote:

Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

Conversely it can also cause a problem if it's not

Could you elaborate on that ?

Graham

I'm not to bother swapping post with you just because you believe that
the DSL port is completely unaffected by the filtering for the
analogue port.

If you had been here long enough you would have read that on occasions
there have been reports of people having to use a filter (using the
correct port of course) to enable their DSL to work & anybody who
argues round in circles to prove his supposed superior knowledge just
isn't worth the efort. I've got more important things to worry about
other than giving you another chance to prove yourself (to whom one
can but wonder).

kráftéé wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"kráftéé" wrote:

curious wrote:
Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.
Conversely it can also cause a problem if it's not
Could you elaborate on that ?

Graham

I'm not to bother swapping post with you just because you believe that
the DSL port is completely unaffected by the filtering for the
analogue port.

Another load of ****ing ********! Seems to be your trademark arsehole!

Major Dennis Bloodnok wrote:
kráftéé wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"kráftéé" wrote:

curious wrote:
Only the phones need to have filters. The
broadband modem doesn't need one and it can
cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.
Conversely it can also cause a problem if it's not
Could you elaborate on that ?

Graham

I'm not to bother swapping post with you just because you believe
that the DSL port is completely unaffected by the filtering for the
analogue port.

Another load of ****ing ********! Seems to be your trademark
arsehole!

Yet another foul mouthed idiot who doesn't know as much as what he
pretends. I don't often use a killfile, but this one is very tempting

curious wrote:




Only the phones need to have filters. The broadband modem doesn't need
one and it can cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

Bob

Not quite true (as kraftee says later)
The 'modem' side of a filter should (on decent units)have additional
components in it to isolate/protect the modem from the DC on the line,
the 25c/s ringing voltage and the dc changes caused by lifting/replacing
the handset on other phones.

Mike

Mike J wrote:

curious wrote:

Only the phones need to have filters. The broadband modem doesn't need
one and it can cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.


Not quite true (as kraftee says later)
The 'modem' side of a filter should (on decent units)have additional
components in it to isolate/protect the modem from the DC on the line,
the 25c/s ringing voltage and the dc changes caused by lifting/replacing
the handset on other phones.

No. Any components there may adversely affect the line balance and impedance.
All the required 'protection' is in the modem itself. It would be nuts if it
wasn't.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Mike J wrote:

curious wrote:
Only the phones need to have filters. The broadband modem doesn't need
one and it can cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.

Not quite true (as kraftee says later)
The 'modem' side of a filter should (on decent units)have additional
components in it to isolate/protect the modem from the DC on the line,
the 25c/s ringing voltage and the dc changes caused by lifting/replacing
the handset on other phones.

No. Any components there may adversely affect the line balance and impedance.
All the required 'protection' is in the modem itself. It would be nuts if it
wasn't.


Not necessarily.

However I suspect the cost of the odd blown modem is a lot less than
trying to distinguish between a 1Mhz signal and a lightning transient,
without making the modem cost £1000 and therefore not be saleable.

I had USR 9600 modem that DID get literally struck by lightning: they
replaced it FOC. I queried this and they said 'its built into the price.
Its easier to simply replace blown units with no paperwork and
invoicing, than to fiddle about trying to determine if the customer is
lying, and its a heck of a lot cheaper than trying to proof them against
it. We strip out the guts and scrap any parts that don't work: In your
case sir, probably the whole thing"

But as far as the typical ADSL unit goes, part of what it does is to
have a high pass filter of probably at least second order set at about
20Khz: That's more than enough to get rid of any DC, speech and ring
tone on the line. All you ant is to reduce it so it doesn't overload the
digital filters that come later.


So you just plug em straight into BT and Robert is a relative.


If the modem has a phone port, that will have its own low pass filter in
it. Another reason why you wouldn't want to do that sort of filtering
higher up the food chain: phones plugged into a phone socket on the
modem would NOT then work.



Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:


Mike J wrote:

curious wrote:

Only the phones need to have filters. The broadband modem doesn't need
one and it can cause problems if one is fitted or so I hear.


Not quite true (as kraftee says later)
The 'modem' side of a filter should (on decent units)have additional
components in it to isolate/protect the modem from the DC on the line,
the 25c/s ringing voltage and the dc changes caused by lifting/replacing
the handset on other phones.


No. Any components there may adversely affect the line balance and
impedance.
All the required 'protection' is in the modem itself. It would be nuts
if it
wasn't.





If the modem has a phone port, that will have its own low pass filter in
it. Another reason why you wouldn't want to do that sort of filtering
higher up the food chain: phones plugged into a phone socket on the
modem would NOT then work.



Graham

The other reason for using a filtered Master Socket is that then the
ADSL signal gets taken off the line as soon as possible and doesn't get
fed on to all the sockets around the house with possible mis-termination
and standing waves upsetting the signal.
I know people will say "what about the crappy BT joins outside your
house" but at least they usually stay the same.

Mike

"Mike J" wrote in message


[snip]

: : The other reason for using a filtered Master Socket is
: : that then the ADSL signal gets taken off the line as
: : soon as possible and doesn't get fed on to all the
: : sockets around the house with possible mis-termination
: : and standing waves upsetting the signal.
: : I know people will say "what about the crappy BT joins
: : outside your house" but at least they usually stay the
: : same.

So what if you need the ADSL signal at a socket other than the master..?
My router/modem is in an upstairs bedroom, it would not be practical to
locate it at the master socket.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
"Mike J" wrote in message


[snip]

: : The other reason for using a filtered Master Socket is
: : that then the ADSL signal gets taken off the line as
: : soon as possible and doesn't get fed on to all the
: : sockets around the house with possible mis-termination
: : and standing waves upsetting the signal.
: : I know people will say "what about the crappy BT joins
: : outside your house" but at least they usually stay the
: : same.

So what if you need the ADSL signal at a socket other than the master..?
My router/modem is in an upstairs bedroom, it would not be practical to
locate it at the master socket.

Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and run cat5 cable from its
RJ45 socket to another RJ45 socket at a convenient location. Plug your
router into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5 cable will ensure that the
ADSL signal arrives at the second socket substantially uncontaminated.

--
Graham J

Graham J wrote:
"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
"Mike J" wrote in message


[snip]

The other reason for using a filtered Master Socket is
that then the ADSL signal gets taken off the line as
soon as possible and doesn't get fed on to all the
sockets around the house with possible mis-termination
and standing waves upsetting the signal.
I know people will say "what about the crappy BT joins
outside your house" but at least they usually stay the
same.

So what if you need the ADSL signal at a socket other than the
master..? My router/modem is in an upstairs bedroom, it would not be
practical to locate it at the master socket.

Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and run cat5 cable
from its RJ45 socket to another RJ45 socket at a convenient location.
Plug your router into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5 cable will
ensure that the ADSL signal arrives at the second socket
substantially uncontaminated.


Or, put your router beside the master socket and work out a networking
solution to your computer (upper room). Network could be ethernet (same as
Graham J's method for cabling); wireless (depending on wall count), ethernet
over mains (pretty effective every time I've seen it used, Solwise.co.uk for
reasonably priced components).

It is worth finding out how much you loose through your house wiring on your
BB speed. Some people loose immeasurably little, others find half their
speed is lost in the poor wiring around their house.


- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Graham J wrote:
"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...
"Mike J" wrote in message


[snip]

The other reason for using a filtered Master Socket is
that then the ADSL signal gets taken off the line as
soon as possible and doesn't get fed on to all the
sockets around the house with possible mis-termination
and standing waves upsetting the signal.
I know people will say "what about the crappy BT joins
outside your house" but at least they usually stay the
same.

So what if you need the ADSL signal at a socket other than the
master..? My router/modem is in an upstairs bedroom, it would not
be practical to locate it at the master socket.

Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and run cat5 cable
from its RJ45 socket to another RJ45 socket at a convenient
location. Plug your router into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5
cable will ensure that the ADSL signal arrives at the second socket
substantially uncontaminated.

Or buy a SSFP with 2 sets of isc's on the back, one for you extension
wiring & one for your DSL signal, but you would still need good
quality telephone cable to get the signal to where you want

"kráftéé" wrote in message

: : Graham J wrote:
: : : "Ivor Jones" wrote in message
: : : ...

[snip]

: : : : So what if you need the ADSL signal at a socket
: : : : other than the master..? My router/modem is in an
: : : : upstairs bedroom, it would not be practical to
: : : : locate it at the master socket.
: : :
: : : Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and
: : : run cat5 cable from its RJ45 socket to another RJ45
: : : socket at a convenient location. Plug your router
: : : into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5 cable will
: : : ensure that the ADSL signal arrives at the second
: : : socket substantially uncontaminated.
: :
: : Or buy a SSFP with 2 sets of isc's on the back, one for
: : you extension wiring & one for your DSL signal, but you
: : would still need good quality telephone cable to get
: : the signal to where you want

Sorry to burst everybody's bubble, but my system works perfectly well with
el-cheapo plug-in filters at the master and extension sockets. Plus the
router (which has built in VoIP and LED's that I want to be able to see)
can be where I want it.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
"kráftéé" wrote in message

Graham J wrote:
"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
...

[snip]

So what if you need the ADSL signal at a socket
other than the master..? My router/modem is in an
upstairs bedroom, it would not be practical to
locate it at the master socket.

Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and
run cat5 cable from its RJ45 socket to another RJ45
socket at a convenient location. Plug your router
into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5 cable will
ensure that the ADSL signal arrives at the second
socket substantially uncontaminated.

Or buy a SSFP with 2 sets of isc's on the back, one for
you extension wiring & one for your DSL signal, but you
would still need good quality telephone cable to get
the signal to where you want

Sorry to burst everybody's bubble, but my system works perfectly
well with el-cheapo plug-in filters at the master and extension
sockets. Plus the router (which has built in VoIP and LED's that I
want to be able to see) can be where I want it.

Ivor

Pity you didn't read Nigels post. If you had you would have already
known that you wasn't going to burst anybodies bubble...

"kráftéé" wrote in message

: : Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

: : : Sorry to burst everybody's bubble, but my system
: : : works perfectly well with el-cheapo plug-in filters
: : : at the master and extension sockets. Plus the router
: : : (which has built in VoIP and LED's that I want to be
: : : able to see) can be where I want it.
: : :
: : : Ivor
: :
: : Pity you didn't read Nigels post. If you had you would
: : have already known that you wasn't going to burst
: : anybodies bubble...

I did read it, he said run CAT5. I don't want or need to.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
"kráftéé" wrote in message

Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

Sorry to burst everybody's bubble, but my system
works perfectly well with el-cheapo plug-in filters
at the master and extension sockets. Plus the router
(which has built in VoIP and LED's that I want to be
able to see) can be where I want it.

Ivor

Pity you didn't read Nigels post. If you had you would
have already known that you wasn't going to burst
anybodies bubble...

I did read it, he said run CAT5. I don't want or need to.

In the first paragraph I gave three options for linking back to a master
socket.

In the second paragraph I wrote:
[quote]
It is worth finding out how much you loose through your house wiring on your
BB speed. Some people loose immeasurably little, others find half their
speed is lost in the poor wiring around their house.
[quote]


Evidently you think you are loosing so little that doing nothing is
sensible. Others will find a certain amount of loss, and have to decide if
its worth networking to the master socket to remove that loss. In extremes
its the difference between a stable broadband service and no connection.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Graham J wrote:



Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and run cat5 cable from its
RJ45 socket to another RJ45 socket at a convenient location. Plug your
router into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5 cable will ensure that the
ADSL signal arrives at the second socket substantially uncontaminated.

The ADSL connectors on the master socket/modem are actually RJ11 with
the line on the centre pins.
One can now buy long cables terminated in RJ11 both ends for this very
purpose.
I guess PC world will charge about £100 whereas Maplin will be much
cheaper at £10 for a 10m cable (A93CG) or less for shorter.
Or an 'ultra high speed version for £20 (A97CG)
CPC even cheaper.

I used to always pick up a few when I was in the US/Canada before they
became available here

Mike

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:10:18 UTC, Mike J wrote:

Graham J wrote:

Fit a filtered faceplate at the master socket, and run cat5 cable from its
RJ45 socket to another RJ45 socket at a convenient location. Plug your
router into the second RJ45 socket. The Cat 5 cable will ensure that the
ADSL signal arrives at the second socket substantially uncontaminated.

The ADSL connectors on the master socket/modem are actually RJ11 with
the line on the centre pins.
One can now buy long cables terminated in RJ11 both ends for this very
purpose.
I guess PC world will charge about £100 whereas Maplin will be much
cheaper at £10 for a 10m cable (A93CG) or less for shorter.
Or an 'ultra high speed version for £20 (A97CG)
CPC even cheaper.

Yes, I got a 15m one MUCH cheaper at CPC (I don't use it any more;
router and rack are 1 metre from the master socket!)

Having said that, a twisted pair cable will be better in many cases, as
a house is inherently a 'noisy' place.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:



Yes, I got a 15m one MUCH cheaper at CPC (I don't use it any more;
router and rack are 1 metre from the master socket!)

Having said that, a twisted pair cable will be better in many cases, as
a house is inherently a 'noisy' place.

Yeh but it still requires RJ11s unless one wants to wire from the back
with CAT5 and that is probably only better than standard (modern) BT
twisted pair cable cos it is thicker and hence less lossy.

I doubt it is possible to get RJ11 terminated CAT5 unless one makes it
oneself and manages to get the thicker cable into RJ11s

Mike

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:28:53 UTC, Mike J wrote:

Having said that, a twisted pair cable will be better in many cases, as
a house is inherently a 'noisy' place.

Yeh but it still requires RJ11s unless one wants to wire from the back
with CAT5 and that is probably only better than standard (modern) BT
twisted pair cable cos it is thicker and hence less lossy.

I doubt it is possible to get RJ11 terminated CAT5 unless one makes it
oneself and manages to get the thicker cable into RJ11s

Standard BT twisted pair was really all I meant. Most extension leads
seem to be flat twin.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Mike J wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:



Yes, I got a 15m one MUCH cheaper at CPC (I don't use it any more;
router and rack are 1 metre from the master socket!)

Having said that, a twisted pair cable will be better in many
cases, as a house is inherently a 'noisy' place.

Yeh but it still requires RJ11s unless one wants to wire from the
back with CAT5 and that is probably only better than standard
(modern) BT twisted pair cable cos it is thicker and hence less
lossy.
I doubt it is possible to get RJ11 terminated CAT5 unless one makes
it oneself and manages to get the thicker cable into RJ11s

Mike

ADSL Nation used to do a range of what they called ADSL2 extension
leads, RJ11 plugs on the end & (lovely) twisted pair inbetween & if my
memory serves me well the longest was 20mtrs, which should fill
anybodies needs..

In article ,
Huge wrote:
It was convenient that the master socket was in my study - it is, as
someone has said, useful to be able to see the modem.

My modem feeds 4 RJ45 sockets around the house. Wireless was a bit
expensive when I installed it. And I'd rather not have to look at all that
wiring so I fitted it in the cellar - which is where I re-routed the phone
line to enter the house, rather than the original through a window
frame. ;-)

If I suspect a problem with the router I can interrogate it from any
computer on the LAN, and re-boot if necessary.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.