I expect this has been answered in part before but I can't find it all
in a search, so perhaps I can tap the expertise here for my issues.

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs. I'm in the process of changing broadband service and I
thought I might sort all this out as part of the change. (Although
I'll check the new service works OK before changing anything) The
general opinion seems to be that the broadband filter should be as
close to where the service comes in as possible, for the best signal.
The idea is:

A) Put the master socket where the cable arrives in the house. (Yes,
I know I'm not supposed to touch BT's side but they won't know if I
don't screw it up, and it will regularise everything. In any case, a
while ago a tame BT man who came to fix a fault gave me some cable and
jelly crimps to sort the wiring out, so he doesn't mind at least.)

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

C) Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

Now the questions:
When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e? It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better? Is it even
worth worrying about: As the data path to the house is pretty mucky,
in old cable from whenever it was laid, will the little bit in the
house make any real difference?
If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable, but how do I make up a reasonably good looking cable
for this? (ie prettier than just the strands going to plugs). I've
thought of heatshink to cover the strands but this may not be ideal -
Would 2 short patches (of phone cable) into a double socket, then
cat5e behind that, laid in trunking to the outlets be better?
Has anyone used the decorative trunking (D-line from Screwfix for
example) and found it to be good or bad? (I was wondering if it would
ever open again once closed!)

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers
G

In article ,
GMM wrote:
I expect this has been answered in part before but I can't find it all
in a search, so perhaps I can tap the expertise here for my issues.

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs. I'm in the process of changing broadband service and I
thought I might sort all this out as part of the change. (Although
I'll check the new service works OK before changing anything) The
general opinion seems to be that the broadband filter should be as
close to where the service comes in as possible, for the best signal.

The filter is for the phones not the broadband - that wants as unfiltered
a feed as possible!

The idea is:

A) Put the master socket where the cable arrives in the house. (Yes,
I know I'm not supposed to touch BT's side but they won't know if I
don't screw it up, and it will regularise everything. In any case, a
while ago a tame BT man who came to fix a fault gave me some cable and
jelly crimps to sort the wiring out, so he doesn't mind at least.)

Best idea. Get a new NTE5 from one of the online places.

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

Get a filtered faceplace for the NTE5 and run all phone extensions off
that one filter.

C) Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

Indeed. I'd also suggest to put the router as close to the master socket
as practical and run cat5 from there.

Now the questions:
When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e? It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better? Is it even
worth worrying about: As the data path to the house is pretty mucky,
in old cable from whenever it was laid, will the little bit in the
house make any real difference?

It shouldn't make a difference but if you can, put the router into the
master socket with as short a bit of wire as possible.


If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable, but how do I make up a reasonably good looking cable
for this? (ie prettier than just the strands going to plugs). I've
thought of heatshink to cover the strands but this may not be ideal -
Would 2 short patches (of phone cable) into a double socket, then
cat5e behind that, laid in trunking to the outlets be better?
Has anyone used the decorative trunking (D-line from Screwfix for
example) and found it to be good or bad? (I was wondering if it would
ever open again once closed!)

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.

Keep life easy. Personally if you have mains in the hallway, I'd put the
router there next to the (new) master socket, then run separate Ethernet
and phone wires out to the rest of the house. Good time to upgrade your
phones too - put a Siemens DECT base station in the hallway too and save
yourself the effort of running telephone wire!

Add a small UPS and you're all set...

Gordon

GMM wrote:
I expect this has been answered in part before but I can't find it all
in a search, so perhaps I can tap the expertise here for my issues.

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs. I'm in the process of changing broadband service and I
thought I might sort all this out as part of the change. (Although
I'll check the new service works OK before changing anything) The
general opinion seems to be that the broadband filter should be as
close to where the service comes in as possible, for the best signal.
The idea is:

A) Put the master socket where the cable arrives in the house. (Yes,
I know I'm not supposed to touch BT's side but they won't know if I
don't screw it up, and it will regularise everything. In any case, a
while ago a tame BT man who came to fix a fault gave me some cable and
jelly crimps to sort the wiring out, so he doesn't mind at least.)

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

C) Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

Now the questions:
When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e? It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better? Is it even
worth worrying about: As the data path to the house is pretty mucky,
in old cable from whenever it was laid, will the little bit in the
house make any real difference?
If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable, but how do I make up a reasonably good looking cable
for this? (ie prettier than just the strands going to plugs). I've
thought of heatshink to cover the strands but this may not be ideal -
Would 2 short patches (of phone cable) into a double socket, then
cat5e behind that, laid in trunking to the outlets be better?
Has anyone used the decorative trunking (D-line from Screwfix for
example) and found it to be good or bad? (I was wondering if it would
ever open again once closed!)

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers
G


Seen as there is "telephone cable" between the exchange and your house,
it won't make any difference.
I personally would install one of these on the master NET5
http://www.adslnation.com/products/xte2005.php

Then from the back run CAT5 (may be useful in the future when you next
re-jig everything!)

I would use one pair to take the unfiltered "ADSL" signal to wherever
you are going, an then another pair for pins 2 and 5 of the filtered
"phone" section, and then one of the other cables for the ring wire.

It is important to keep pins 2 and 5 as a pair.

Toby...

On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.

--
F

F wrote:
On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.


Then on the other end of the cable, install one of these
http://www.clarity.it/acatalog/ADSL_...ion.html#dual1
(Professional dual outlet secondary faceplate)

But as Gordon said, it would be better still to install the router next
to the master socket if that is practical, then you just need the
filtered face plate, and the extra wiring will all be filtered here, and
you will get the best ADSL signal you are likely to achieve.

If it is not practical to install the router in the current master
socket location, then, install a BT77A connection box where the line
comes in, and then run telephone cable from here to the location of the
router, and then stick the master socket on the end of this (Important
to use telephone cable, as BT would not use CAT5 here, so this would be
blatant evidence of your tampering!

BT77A - http://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/BT77A.html

Toby...

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be GMM
wrote this:-

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs.

As you have a branded one I would move the master socket into the
hallway. Then you can claim, without fear of contradiction, that
everything beyond that is yours.

I would then feed an NTE5 from this master socket, as explained in
http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/nte5.htm. I would put this beside
the master socket, unless there are objections from those who must
be obeyed.

In this NTE5 I would fit a filtered faceplate like
http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16134&cat=262&page=1
and run all extensions from the back of this faceplate. This is far
neater than the awful dangly things.

You could then use the existing cables from the filtered side of
this faceplate to the kitchen and upstairs, or new cable depending
on your level of determination.

You can run a cable from the unfiltered side of this faceplate to a
socket convenient for where you want the router. If you want you can
run filtered and unfiltered versions of the phone line down this
cable to a socket which has an RJ45 and telephone socket. Make sure
you wire the right pairs to the right sockets and make sure the
wires in the pairs are paired properly. If you are doing this I
suggest that you wire the telephone side using the right colour code
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/wiring_info.htm and use the brown
pair for the unfiltered line to the RJ45 socket.

C) Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

I would provide network sockets for you and the missus to use while
working. Better bandwidth and less interference. Your son could have
some too.

When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e? It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better?

The latter would work marginally better, but you are unlikely to be
able to measure the difference and it will probably make no
noticeable difference to the speeds you get.

Is it even worth worrying about:

Not in most circumstances.

If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable, but how do I make up a reasonably good looking cable
for this? (ie prettier than just the strands going to plugs).

1) this sort of cable is not stranded.

2) if it is wired into the back of a
http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16134&cat=262&page=1
then it is as neat as you make it.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:07:38 UTC, Toby
wrote:

Seen as there is "telephone cable" between the exchange and your house,
it won't make any difference.

The difference is that the indoor stuff is exposed to much more
interference.

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

GMM wrote:
I expect this has been answered in part before but I can't find it all
in a search, so perhaps I can tap the expertise here for my issues.

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs. I'm in the process of changing broadband service and I
thought I might sort all this out as part of the change. (Although
I'll check the new service works OK before changing anything) The
general opinion seems to be that the broadband filter should be as
close to where the service comes in as possible, for the best signal.
The idea is:

A) Put the master socket where the cable arrives in the house. (Yes,
I know I'm not supposed to touch BT's side but they won't know if I
don't screw it up, and it will regularise everything. In any case, a
while ago a tame BT man who came to fix a fault gave me some cable and
jelly crimps to sort the wiring out, so he doesn't mind at least.)

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

C) Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

Now the questions:
When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e?

either.

It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better? Is it even
worth worrying about: As the data path to the house is pretty mucky,
in old cable from whenever it was laid, will the little bit in the
house make any real difference?

Nope

If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable,

I wouldnt.

There is a small bit of anecdotal ******** that says that the BELL wire
is unbalanced and carries enough signal to bugger the ADSL when a phone
rings. So its generally better to take two wires only to a MASTER
socket, in which case one cat 5 is OK, or take a completely separate
extension cable FROM the master socket.

In fact., I question why you are putting a master socket in the hall at
all if the router and the phones are not there. I would take the POTS
cable all the way to the router, filter there and extend to phones
beyond that. A simple junction box will suffice, and if you ask a BT man
he may give you theh one with the right letters on it!

On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

wrote in message
...
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

My Wi-Fi can stream HD video without any trouble.
If you know what you are doing Wi-Fi is fine.

On Jun 12, 4:28*pm, GMM wrote:

I expect this has been answered in part before but I can't find it all
in a search, so perhaps I can tap the expertise here for my issues.

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs. *I'm in the process of changing broadband service and I
thought I might sort all this out as part of the change. *(Although
I'll check the new service works OK before changing anything) *The
general opinion seems to be that the broadband filter should be as
close to where the service comes in as possible, for the best signal.
The idea is:

A) *Put the master socket where the cable arrives in the house. *(Yes,
I know I'm not supposed to touch BT's side but they won't know if I
don't screw it up, and it will regularise everything. *In any case, a
while ago a tame BT man who came to fix a fault gave me some cable and
jelly crimps to sort the wiring out, so he doesn't mind at least.)

B) *Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

C) *Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. *The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

Now the questions:
When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e? *It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better? *Is it even
worth worrying about: As the data path to the house is pretty mucky,
in old cable from whenever it was laid, will the little bit in the
house make any real difference?

I'd use cat5e everywhere that it wont cause a problem, ie everywhere
after the master socket. A few reasons:
1. Your system is then usable later for full speed networking
2. complete flexibility should you decide to change room uses later
3. Your incomer may be flat pair today, but many have had their
incomer upgraded already, and then it will matter quite a lot
4. cost difference is trivial

Also usually worth bunging extra cat5es in anywhere youre burying
some, as it can be used for various other things later and costs so
little.


NT

On 12 June, 20:55, "dennis@home"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

My Wi-Fi can stream HD video without any trouble.
If you know what you are doing Wi-Fi is fine.

Hi Dennis,

Without wanting to get involved in willy waving, it was 1080p high-
definition x264 stuff which I was streaming. My wifi handles the old-
fashioned files fine, but if you start trying to stream heavy-duty
stuff then it just doesn't have the bandwidth and stutters very badly.
I don't pretend to be a techie in these matters, but having spent a
good few hours in the relevant forums trying to sort out my set-up,
the general experience is that for 1080p video wifi isn't up to the
job.

I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I certainly couldn't get wifi to
work for me, and was unanimously advised to go over to ethernet, which
luckily I happened to have installed.

Cheers!

Martin

coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

I agree - Panasonic Inverter microwaves totally bugger my Wifi. Changing the
antenna polarisation helps, but it's still fairly naff. Almost naff enough
to make me consider trying 802.11a (5GHz) - although the wall penetration
of "a" is poor...

Cables to main points. Wifi for flexibility.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:12:53 +0100, F wrote:

On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.

Some good stuff on there - thanks - and the 'forums' have tech. stuff.

Going OT a bit: is there any way of replacing an old (about 20 years or so)
main point with the modern one that'll not be sussed?

Bit expensive to get it done - just need the right box, really.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:26:31 UTC, PeterC
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:12:53 +0100, F wrote:

On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.

Some good stuff on there - thanks - and the 'forums' have tech. stuff.

Going OT a bit: is there any way of replacing an old (about 20 years or so)
main point with the modern one that'll not be sussed?

Bit expensive to get it done - just need the right box, really.

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

In article
s.com, scribeth thus
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

And the world and his wife have it now. We live in a small close but
everyone round here has a wi-fi point .. some even have Two!..

24 way switch and a lot of CAT 5 recycled low halogen type and 24 way
switch.

5.8 Ghz for wireless is the way forward;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim S
scribeth thus
coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

I agree - Panasonic Inverter microwaves totally bugger my Wifi. Changing the
antenna polarisation helps, but it's still fairly naff. Almost naff enough
to make me consider trying 802.11a (5GHz) - although the wall penetration
of "a" is poor...

Cables to main points. Wifi for flexibility.

5.8 Works well with reflection but if you use it outdoors any tree will
sod it up!. If its got a clear path its fine we've got one running over
18 miles..in the C band part of the 5.8 Ghz spec..

Yes that was Eighteen miles)


--
Tony Sayer

On 12 Jun 2009 20:38:35 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:26:31 UTC, PeterC
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:12:53 +0100, F wrote:

On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.

Some good stuff on there - thanks - and the 'forums' have tech. stuff.

Going OT a bit: is there any way of replacing an old (about 20 years or so)
main point with the modern one that'll not be sussed?

Bit expensive to get it done - just need the right box, really.

eBay.

oh, nasty route, but if it's the only one I'll have a look. Ta.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:18:57 UTC, PeterC
wrote:

On 12 Jun 2009 20:38:35 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:26:31 UTC, PeterC
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:12:53 +0100, F wrote:

On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.

http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.

Some good stuff on there - thanks - and the 'forums' have tech. stuff.

Going OT a bit: is there any way of replacing an old (about 20 years or so)
main point with the modern one that'll not be sussed?

Bit expensive to get it done - just need the right box, really.

eBay.

oh, nasty route, but if it's the only one I'll have a look. Ta.

You can buy the master sockets in loads of places, but if you want a
'fell off the back of the van' OpenReach one, needs must. Less likely to
be sussed.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article
s.com, scribeth thus
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

And the world and his wife have it now. We live in a small close but
everyone round here has a wi-fi point .. some even have Two!..

I have three!

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:52:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e?

either.

Aye, CW1308 otherwise known as CAT3. Personally I'd use CAT5 or above for all
cables as laying in cables is the hard bit and the cost difference is
minimal.

will the little bit in the house make any real difference?

Nope

To squeeze the last drop of bandwidth out of ADSL you want minimum
interference from 25kHz up to 1.1MHz (or 2.2MHz for ADSL2+). Running your
ADSL line through the house with all manner of bits of kit chucking out RF
interference isn't going to help.

If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable,

I wouldnt.

Neither would I.

There is a small bit of anecdotal ******** that says that the BELL wire
is unbalanced and carries enough signal to bugger the ADSL when a phone
rings.

That might be but it also acts as a "long wire antenna" for MF broadcast
stations and other RF muck and injects it onto the line. If you plot the SNR
from your router over time you'll see it get bad a night when the foreign MF
broadcast stations start to interfere.

I'd fit an NTE as soon as possible and fit the router next to it then run
ethernet from it to the LAN switch/firewall/server. I'd also play with
different filters. I bought the ADSLNation faceplate to make things "tidy"
but it doesn't work as well as the BT badged MF50 "soap on a rope" filter.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:55:08 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

My Wi-Fi can stream HD video without any trouble.
If you know what you are doing Wi-Fi is fine.

Until you have 4 other WiFi notworks that can hear each other and all want to
use a lot of bandwidth at the same time streaming stuff.

--
Cheers
Dave.

dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article
s.com, scribeth thus
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

And the world and his wife have it now. We live in a small close but
everyone round here has a wi-fi point .. some even have Two!..

I have three!

WHY?

Dave

wrote:
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Yup agreed. 802.11g can work in limited circumstances, but tends to run
out of puff. .11n gear is coming on stream now and is better, but there
is still plenty to be said for nice old fashioned cable!

(just in the process of pulling 2000 feet of the stuff into this place!)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , John
Rumm writes
wrote:
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers
One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to.
Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Yup agreed. 802.11g can work in limited circumstances, but tends to run
out of puff. .11n gear is coming on stream now and is better, but there
is still plenty to be said for nice old fashioned cable!

(just in the process of pulling 2000 feet of the stuff into this place!)

Yeah, I "lost" a roll (1000ft) under the floorboards when I replaced the
downstairs carpets

every foreseen possibility is now catered for


--
geoff

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article
s.com, scribeth thus
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers

One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Cheers!

Martin

And the world and his wife have it now. We live in a small close but
everyone round here has a wi-fi point .. some even have Two!..

I have three!

WHY?

802.11g wpa2 for the wife's computer.
802.11a wpa2 for my laptop and media centre, etc.
firewalled 802.11g WEP for my pda.

I also have a Netgear me102 802.11 in the shed connected over powerline
stuff but I don't use it often as the powerline stuff only gives me 2M and I
inherited a three dongle with 12 Gig to use in the next six months.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , John Rumm
writes
wrote:
On 12 June, 16:28, GMM wrote:

Any thoughts/experiences gratefully received.
Cheers
One random thought - don't rely on wifi any more than you have to. Put
in cat 5 cable from the router. I did this all over the house back in
2004 much to the amusement of friends who told me wireless was the way
forward. Having just started streaming video to our telly from a file
server I'm glad that I did. Wifi is OK for basic surfing from a
laptop, but for anything more demanding it's not up to the job.

Yup agreed. 802.11g can work in limited circumstances, but tends to run
out of puff. .11n gear is coming on stream now and is better, but there is
still plenty to be said for nice old fashioned cable!

(just in the process of pulling 2000 feet of the stuff into this place!)

Yeah, I "lost" a roll (1000ft) under the floorboards when I replaced the
downstairs carpets

every foreseen possibility is now catered for

10 gig FTTH?
only a couple of years away for some.

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:


10 gig FTTH?
only a couple of years away for some.

Yes if you can cope with the cable stiffness, Cat6a is a good bet: 10 gig.

Or Cat 7a - simulated results to 100gig over short distances!


It'll be a while before home grade computers will manages to make much use
of 10gig - internal busses are a big source of contention. You can stick a
10gig card in now, but it won't manage more than a fraction of sustained
throughput unless your PC is seriously high specced.

PeterC wrote:
On 12 Jun 2009 20:38:35 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:26:31 UTC, PeterC
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:12:53 +0100, F wrote:

On 12/06/2009 16:28 GMM wrote:

B) Split/filter the cable at the master and take separate feeds to
the phone and router.
http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm might be useful. I've
got one and it works well.
Some good stuff on there - thanks - and the 'forums' have tech. stuff.

Going OT a bit: is there any way of replacing an old (about 20 years or so)
main point with the modern one that'll not be sussed?

Bit expensive to get it done - just need the right box, really.
eBay.

oh, nasty route, but if it's the only one I'll have a look. Ta.

Whenever I have needed one, I have just asked someone in a BT van!

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:32:48 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

10 gig FTTH?
only a couple of years away for some.

One or three lucky peopel up here will have FTTH this year. Community
group laying fibre.

Chatting to an Openreach chap the other day (after he had been
feretting about in the joint box below "our" pole and broke the ali
cable connection for the ISDN). Seems the new dropwire No.10 they put
in these days has at least a fibre in it. There does seem to be a bit
of contention about getting FTTC and who is paying though.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:52:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e?
either.

Aye, CW1308 otherwise known as CAT3. Personally I'd use CAT5 or above for all
cables as laying in cables is the hard bit and the cost difference is
minimal.

will the little bit in the house make any real difference?
Nope

To squeeze the last drop of bandwidth out of ADSL you want minimum
interference from 25kHz up to 1.1MHz (or 2.2MHz for ADSL2+). Running your
ADSL line through the house with all manner of bits of kit chucking out RF
interference isn't going to help.

If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable,
I wouldnt.

Neither would I.

There is a small bit of anecdotal ******** that says that the BELL wire
is unbalanced and carries enough signal to bugger the ADSL when a phone
rings.

That might be but it also acts as a "long wire antenna" for MF broadcast
stations and other RF muck and injects it onto the line. If you plot the SNR
from your router over time you'll see it get bad a night when the foreign MF
broadcast stations start to interfere.
No arf as much as the 5,000 ft of overhead cable to the exchange..

I'd fit an NTE as soon as possible and fit the router next to it then run
ethernet from it to the LAN switch/firewall/server. I'd also play with
different filters. I bought the ADSLNation faceplate to make things "tidy"
but it doesn't work as well as the BT badged MF50 "soap on a rope" filter.

On 12 June, 18:37, David Hansen
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be GMM
wrote this:-

My phone line comes into the house in the hallway (a sort of extension
on the front of the house) and has previously been bodged to split
there and send one line to a (BT but not NTE5) master in the kitchen
(via half a mile of cable through the garage) and a secondary socket
upstairs.

As you have a branded one I would move the master socket into the
hallway. Then you can claim, without fear of contradiction, that
everything beyond that is yours.

I would then feed an NTE5 from this master socket, as explained in
http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/nte5.htm. I would put this beside
the master socket, unless there are objections from those who must
be obeyed.

In this NTE5 I would fit a filtered faceplate like
http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16134&cat=262&page=1
and run all extensions from the back of this faceplate. This is far
neater than the awful dangly things.

You could then use the existing cables from the filtered side of
this faceplate to the kitchen and upstairs, or new cable depending
on your level of determination.

You can run a cable from the unfiltered side of this faceplate to a
socket convenient for where you want the router. If you want you can
run filtered and unfiltered versions of the phone line down this
cable to a socket which has an RJ45 and telephone socket. Make sure
you wire the right pairs to the right sockets and make sure the
wires in the pairs are paired properly. If you are doing this I
suggest that you wire the telephone side using the right colour code
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/wiring_info.htm and use the brown
pair for the unfiltered line to the RJ45 socket.

C) *Take two runs of cat5e cable from the router to my son's room, so
he can plug his computer and Xbox into it and stop moaning about games
dropping. *The wireless box should do for more trivial applications,
like me and the missus working from home (!).

I would provide network sockets for you and the missus to use while
working. Better bandwidth and less interference. Your son could have
some too.

When I split the service, should I take the runs to the router and
phone in telephone cable or cat5e? *It doesn't matter on cost grounds
as I have plenty of each, but which would work better?

The latter would work marginally better, but you are unlikely to be
able to measure the difference and it will probably make no
noticeable difference to the speeds you get.

Is it even worth worrying about:

Not in most circumstances.

If I use cat5e, I presume I can take the filtered and unfiltered down
the same cable, but how do I make up a reasonably good looking cable
for this? *(ie prettier than just the strands going to plugs).

1) this sort of cable is not stranded.

2) if it is wired into the back of a
http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16134&cat=262&page=1
then it is as neat as you make it.

--
* David Hansen, Edinburgh
*I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
*http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Thanks David (and a lot of others). For some reason this topic seems
to stir up a few conflicting opinions, but the key ideas seem pretty
similar. I think some of the details are a bit location-dependent
(and mine's a stupid layout of a house where nothing ever seems to be
simple!).

I had seen the clarity pages on installing an NTE5 and that way seems
to make a lot of sense. Must admit I'm a little reluctant to start
taking a feed from the back of the old BT box I have, as I thought
they might get a bit ****ed if they saw it. It would make for the
neatest solution though....and I could always blame clarity (though
they are a bit equivocal on that topic), or (if done in grubby-looking
cable for a short run) say it was already like that (the universal
excuse).

I did try tapping up an Openreach man who was ferretting in a hole in
our road the other day, to see if I could get a BT NTE5 but no joy.
Funny how people don't seem so eager to catch a few quid the 'right
way' like they used to - before long, the whole of society will become
afflicted by honesty (MPs excepted of course).

Still...looks like it'll be a good bet to put an order in to clarity
for a few bits. It's a pity these things aren't very available off
the shelf anywhere locally.

Of course the wired/wireless debate will rage on forever. To date,
I've been fairly happy with the old original (b-type) wireless,
although I had to get the location right by trial and error. Now
we're moving to 8 meg (from 1 meg) it might become more of a limiter
but the new setup comes complete with a new wireless router (g-type).
I'm sure it all depends on applications but the nipper's online gaming
seems much more prone to network issues than my uses. One day, when
we all have mega-giga-tera-bit connections, and watch 3D HD TV with
smell-o-vision etc online, I'm sure it will be inadequate, but for
now, I prefer the convenience of using my laptop wherever I happen to
be, without worrying about cables. I shall probably put a network
cable to a point behind the TV though, as that seems the most obvious
place for any 'non computer' internet boxes.

I guess most of my concern is that, in wanting to run cables for my
nipper's room (at least), I'll be doing a few things that are less
easy to reverse than with wireless alone, and I want to give the whole
thing the best possible chance of working optimally (so I don't have
to change it all again!). Somehow, I've a feeling I might not acheive
that in one go(!)

Cheers
G

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:07:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That might be but it also acts as a "long wire antenna" for MF
broadcast stations and other RF muck and injects it onto the line.
If
you plot the SNR from your router over time you'll see it get bad
a
night when the foreign MF broadcast stations start to interfere.

No arf as much as the 5,000 ft of overhead cable to the exchange..

True enough. Mind your I don't know if you'd actually get useable
ADSL on 5 kilo feet of overhead line mind let alone 16,000 odd for a
three mile one. I suspect that it would be very router dependant and
how good the common mode rejection is in a given router.

My 3 mile line is only overhead for the last 40 yds and the SNR
difference between day and night is about 10dB. Giving night time
sync rates about 4Mbps but daytime ones above 6 but they can't be
sustained during the night so it tends to settle about 5Mbps.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT), GMM wrote:

Now we're moving to 8 meg (from 1 meg) it might become more of a limiter

Unless you are pretty close to the exchnage you won't get 8Mbps.
Those magic 6pt words "up to" next to the 72pt "8Mbps", though I
think Ofcom might have tried to stop that sort of advertising now.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:07:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That might be but it also acts as a "long wire antenna" for MF
broadcast stations and other RF muck and injects it onto the line.
If
you plot the SNR from your router over time you'll see it get bad
a
night when the foreign MF broadcast stations start to interfere.
No arf as much as the 5,000 ft of overhead cable to the exchange..

True enough. Mind your I don't know if you'd actually get useable
ADSL on 5 kilo feet of overhead line mind let alone 16,000 odd for a
three mile one. I suspect that it would be very router dependant and
how good the common mode rejection is in a given router.


Don/t be daft. I am that distance, its mostly overhead, and I get 3.5Mbps

My 3 mile line is only overhead for the last 40 yds and the SNR
difference between day and night is about 10dB. Giving night time
sync rates about 4Mbps but daytime ones above 6 but they can't be
sustained during the night so it tends to settle about 5Mbps.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:10:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mind your I don't know if you'd actually get useable ADSL on 5
kilo
feet of overhead line mind let alone 16,000 odd for a three mile
one.

Don/t be daft. I am that distance, its mostly overhead, and I get
3.5Mbps

Which distance, 5 or 15 thousand feet?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:46:13 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT), GMM wrote:

Now we're moving to 8 meg (from 1 meg) it might become more of a
limiter

Unless you are pretty close to the exchnage you won't get 8Mbps. Those
magic 6pt words "up to" next to the 72pt "8Mbps", though I think Ofcom
might have tried to stop that sort of advertising now.

The exchange used to be at theend of our 100' garden, and our phone line
went direct from the house to the exchange via overhead cable. I got
6.5Mbps.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:10:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mind your I don't know if you'd actually get useable ADSL on 5
kilo
feet of overhead line mind let alone 16,000 odd for a three mile
one.
Don/t be daft. I am that distance, its mostly overhead, and I get
3.5Mbps

Which distance, 5 or 15 thousand feet?

5000 feet.

PCPaul coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:46:13 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT), GMM wrote:

Now we're moving to 8 meg (from 1 meg) it might become more of a
limiter

Unless you are pretty close to the exchnage you won't get 8Mbps. Those
magic 6pt words "up to" next to the 72pt "8Mbps", though I think Ofcom
might have tried to stop that sort of advertising now.

The exchange used to be at theend of our 100' garden, and our phone line
went direct from the house to the exchange via overhead cable. I got
6.5Mbps.

Athough I haven't tested the actual throughput yet, I'm getting a sync rate
of 7.5 MBit/sec on a short hop of old overhead line, and the exchange is
1/2 mile away.

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
PCPaul coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:46:13 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT), GMM wrote:

Now we're moving to 8 meg (from 1 meg) it might become more of a
limiter

Unless you are pretty close to the exchnage you won't get 8Mbps. Those
magic 6pt words "up to" next to the 72pt "8Mbps", though I think Ofcom
might have tried to stop that sort of advertising now.

The exchange used to be at theend of our 100' garden, and our phone line
went direct from the house to the exchange via overhead cable. I got
6.5Mbps.

Athough I haven't tested the actual throughput yet, I'm getting a sync rate
of 7.5 MBit/sec on a short hop of old overhead line, and the exchange is
1/2 mile away.

I'd suggest there is a wiring fault somewhere, as at those distances you
ought to be getting a solid 8Mb/sec sync speed. I'm 600 metres from my
exchange as the crow flies, all underground bar the last hop from a
pole, and I know the wire path is a bit longer and I get 8Mb/sec - just,
but my neighbours get a much better SNR than I do, so I know there is
a cabling fault somewhere - trouble is, it's the sort of fault you just
can't get BT to fix )-:

I also have a friend who could literally throw a brick through his
exchanges window, yet some days his sync rate drops to next to nothing
which screws the BRAS profile for a while for him.

On the flip-side, I have a customer who is 800m from their BT exchange,
over a busy road, and they're getting 22Mb/sec sync rate... Sometimes
it's just not fair.

And while I want a long, hot summer, I know that in periods of dry
weather, my line will deteriorate (as it has done in the past), so I
suspect there's a junction box in the way that's a bit damp, and when it
dries out, maybe something goes high resistance or has a diode effect...

Gordon