All,

A fairly lengthy explanation, so please bear with me :-)

I've recently had some building work done in my hall which necessitated me
to move my phone block terminal (referring to
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/connection_boxes.htm it looks like a GPO
BT20/4).

Anyway, there was a socket immediately following the block terminal which I
have discarded as it was is a bad state. I've subsequently wired up my
extensions to the junction box, using standard (slave?) phone sockets.

I don't know much about phone wiring, but it's just come to my attention
that this may have been a master socket, however my phone still works -
would this work if there was no termination resistor & capacitor?

I'd like to replace the block terminal as the contacts are corroded and the
box is really shabby, what could I replace this with (I don't need a socket
there)? The box has 3 wires going in - one is my extension, one is twin bell
wire and the other is 3 core which I think goes to some old sockets
upstairs.

I've read that the wiring up to the master socket belongs to BT, but have I
already violated this by discarding the socket?

Thanks in advance,

Ant Harris

I've read that the wiring up to the master socket belongs to BT, but have=
I
already violated this by discarding the socket?

Technically it is their equipment and they could take the hump, but I=20
believe in practice they often just charge you maybe =A320 to "normalise"=
=20
it with the proper master box.

--=20
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Anyway, there was a socket immediately following the block terminal which
I
have discarded as it was is a bad state. I've subsequently wired up my
extensions to the junction box, using standard (slave?) phone sockets.

I don't know much about phone wiring, but it's just come to my attention
that this may have been a master socket, however my phone still works -
would this work if there was no termination resistor & capacitor?

I'd like to replace the block terminal as the contacts are corroded and
the
box is really shabby, what could I replace this with (I don't need a
socket
there)? The box has 3 wires going in - one is my extension, one is twin
bell
wire and the other is 3 core which I think goes to some old sockets
upstairs.

BT own the cable that comes into your house, up to and including the master
socket

If the master socket is a NTE5 socket, as far as I am aware you are allowed
to remove the lower half of the face plate to connect your extensions to.

If you have removed the master socket, the phones will still work, except
one key point
They may not ring!
Older phones are more likely not to ring, where newer ones sometimes will.
The master socket filters out the ring, and feeds it down another wire.

A master socket needs to be reinstalled where the line enters the building
BT should do this, but will probably charge you.
However, it is not impossible to do it your self!

There should be two wires entering your property (Probably the twin bell
wire)

You need to put a master socket here, connect these two wires to the A and B
terminals on a NTE5 socket
(The lower half of the face plate comes away separately to the upper part on
these)
The A and B terminals are in the second part of the face plate.

Then you need three cores running to all your other sockets (pins 2,3 and 5
both ends)
(If you are using a master socket that doesn't have A and B, connect the two
incoming wires to pins 2 and 5)

There is some more info here
http://tinyurl.com/4gu1

Sparks...

"Ant Harris" wrote in message
.. .
All,

A fairly lengthy explanation, so please bear with me :-)

I've recently had some building work done in my hall which necessitated me
to move my phone block terminal (referring to
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/connection_boxes.htm it looks like a GPO
BT20/4).

Anyway, there was a socket immediately following the block terminal which
I
have discarded as it was is a bad state. I've subsequently wired up my
extensions to the junction box, using standard (slave?) phone sockets.

I don't know much about phone wiring, but it's just come to my attention
that this may have been a master socket, however my phone still works -
would this work if there was no termination resistor & capacitor?

probably not....or at least it shouldn't but may on some phones. Coming into
your house (before the master) there are 2 wires, after the master socket
there are 3 (one is the ringer). The master socket has a capacitor in it and
a PSTN master (but not PBX Masters) have lighting protectors in them (a good
idea if you don't want your phones zapped)

I'd like to replace the block terminal as the contacts are corroded and
the
box is really shabby, what could I replace this with (I don't need a
socket
there)? The box has 3 wires going in - one is my extension, one is twin
bell
wire and the other is 3 core which I think goes to some old sockets
upstairs.

Do you need them all - if the line coming in is 3 wires (as opposed to 2)
then its beyond the master so just join them together. If not just replace
with a master socket. I have a feeling i've lost you though and this isn't
the case.


I've read that the wiring up to the master socket belongs to BT, but have
I
already violated this by discarding the socket?

Yes, you have really but as long as you do a proffessional job on it then it
doesn't really matter. Its just a clause to stop people doing really stupid
things because they think they know what they are doing, I would say stop
'DIY'ers' fiddling.

Thanks in advance,

Ant Harris





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Sent from \\STN1 on HOMENET1 by user Sam Albrow 'Administrator'.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 23/10/2003

In article "Sparks" writes:

There is some more info here
http://tinyurl.com/4gu1

Whilst using tinyurl is justifiable where the URL in question is likely
of ephemeral interest (and especially if it's huge), for a post like this
that could usefully be found by someone DejaGoogling years hence, it's
better to provide the real URL, no matter how convoluted that might be.

Remember that all these "make a short URL" services only work for a few
weeks, not in perpetuity. (Or perhaps you didn't know that?)

Besides, Peter's original URL is hardly overtaxing; it even fits on one
line:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919

Whilst using tinyurl is justifiable where the URL in question is likely
of ephemeral interest (and especially if it's huge), for a post like this
that could usefully be found by someone DejaGoogling years hence, it's
better to provide the real URL, no matter how convoluted that might be.

Remember that all these "make a short URL" services only work for a few
weeks, not in perpetuity. (Or perhaps you didn't know that?)

Besides, Peter's original URL is hardly overtaxing; it even fits on one
line:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

Brian,

Point taken, It just looked long in the address bar!

However tinyurl's addresses do not expire...ever!

(From their home page)
"Are you sick of posting URLs in emails only to have it break when sent
causing the recipient to have to cut and paste it back together? Then you've
come to the right place. By entering in a URL in the text field below, we
will create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings and never
expires."

Sparks...

In article , "Sparks" wrote:

Whilst using tinyurl is justifiable where the URL in question is likely
of ephemeral interest (and especially if it's huge), for a post like this
that could usefully be found by someone DejaGoogling years hence, it's
better to provide the real URL, no matter how convoluted that might be.

Remember that all these "make a short URL" services only work for a few
weeks, not in perpetuity. (Or perhaps you didn't know that?)

Besides, Peter's original URL is hardly overtaxing; it even fits on one
line:

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

Brian,

Point taken, It just looked long in the address bar!

However tinyurl's addresses do not expire...ever!

(From their home page)
"Are you sick of posting URLs in emails only to have it break when sent
causing the recipient to have to cut and paste it back together? Then you've
come to the right place. By entering in a URL in the text field below, we
will create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings and never
expires."

Sparks...

I'd be more worried that they'll go belly up/be taken over/switch to a
subscription model. Of course the target URL stands a good chance of
expiring too, but it usually provides at least a clue as to where to
look for the up-to-date/moved information.

Because URL's are so ephemeral, I wish people would summarise what
information is at the URL when posting "the answer is at
www.somethingorother.com" messages. In a couple of years the answer
quite probably WON'T be there!

David



--
Replace nospame with yahoo to reply
Unsolicited commercial email will incur a $100 processing fee

BTW you can buy an NTE5 linebox from RS Components.
Mike.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27-Oct-2003

"Ant Harris" wrote in message
.. .
I'd like to replace the block terminal as the contacts are corroded and
the
box is really shabby, what could I replace this with (I don't need a
socket
there)? The box has 3 wires going in - one is my extension, one is twin
bell
wire and the other is 3 core which I think goes to some old sockets
upstairs.
I've read that the wiring up to the master socket belongs to BT, but have
I
already violated this by discarding the socket?

http://tinyurl.com/t1wa You just need one of these NTE5's correctly wired
into your house wiring to replace the bits you have removed. You'll then be
responsible for the wiring from that point forwards into your house. No BT
engineer is likely to complain so long as the installation is done
correctly. The box should even come with connection instructions if its the
same make as the BT ones (which i think it is)

Paul

"Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote in message
...
Whilst using tinyurl is justifiable where the URL in question is likely
of ephemeral interest (and especially if it's huge), for a post like this
that could usefully be found by someone DejaGoogling years hence, it's
better to provide the real URL, no matter how convoluted that might be.

Remember that all these "make a short URL" services only work for a few
weeks, not in perpetuity. (Or perhaps you didn't know that?)

Sorry didn't read the whole thread before I posted.The URL I was referring
to was
http://www.rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/brow...tockNo=2648064

Paul

In article
amplease "Paul" writes:

Sorry didn't read the whole thread before I posted.The URL I was referring
to was
http://www.rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/browse/Module.jsp?
@@@@&BV_Engi
neID=cccdadcjkdjfkjdcfngcfkmdgkldfhn.0&cacheID=uki
e&3244998011=3244998011&stockNo=2648064

Which doesn't work; neither does the http://tinyurl.com/t1wa which you
posted earlier.

The reason for this failure is that RS maintain separate sessions for
each person connecting, and these sessions time-out (to say nothing of
being meant to be unique to you, at that time).

Anyone wanting these details will probably have to go to the RS site
http://www.rswww.com/ and use the search facility to look for the
product number: presumably that is the 2648064 in the URL above?

One final comment; many browsers are confused by URLs which span multiple
lines (which is, of course, why posters like services such as tinyurl).
The confusion arises because the blank lines are seen as being the same
sort of delimiting white space as that which precedes and follows the
entire URL. The RFCs that define the syntax for URLs suggest using
something other than white-space to delimit the URL (and the best
suggestion is matching diamond brackets ).

So if you'd quoted your URL (had it not been broken through being tied to
a particular session) in the form:
http://www.rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/browse/Module.jsp?
@@@@&BV_Engi
neID=cccdadcjkdjfkjdcfngcfkmdgkldfhn.0&cacheID=uki
e&3244998011=3244998011&stockNo=2648064
then _some_ browsers would not have been confused. (Some, I fear, would
still be.)

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919

Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
In article
amplease "Paul" writes:

Sorry didn't read the whole thread before I posted.The URL I was
referring to was
http://www.rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/browse/Module.jsp?
@@@@&BV_Engi
neID=cccdadcjkdjfkjdcfngcfkmdgkldfhn.0&cacheID=uki
e&3244998011=3244998011&stockNo=2648064

Which doesn't work; neither does the http://tinyurl.com/t1wa which
you posted earlier.

The reason for this failure is that RS maintain separate sessions for
each person connecting, and these sessions time-out (to say nothing of
being meant to be unique to you, at that time).

Anyone wanting these details will probably have to go to the RS site
http://www.rswww.com/ and use the search facility to look for the
product number: presumably that is the 2648064 in the URL above?

One final comment; many browsers are confused by URLs which span
multiple lines (which is, of course, why posters like services such
as tinyurl). The confusion arises because the blank lines are seen as
being the same sort of delimiting white space as that which precedes
and follows the entire URL. The RFCs that define the syntax for URLs
suggest using something other than white-space to delimit the URL
(and the best suggestion is matching diamond brackets ).

So if you'd quoted your URL (had it not been broken through being
tied to a particular session) in the form:
http://www.rswww.com/cgi-bin/bv/browse/Module.jsp?
@@@@&BV_Engi
neID=cccdadcjkdjfkjdcfngcfkmdgkldfhn.0&cacheID=uki
e&3244998011=3244998011&stockNo=2648064
then _some_ browsers would not have been confused. (Some, I fear,
would still be.)

OE sees the original post as a valid URL but your version breaks it ( I
guess do to line length. The version with the is broken as well. Makes no
difference with RS though because of the session thing anyway.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:26, "James Hart" wrote:

OE sees the original post as a valid URL but your version breaks it

There are a variety of (older?) news readers which don't act in a
similar way to "Windows" and don't wrap lines. One terminal I was
using a few years ago dinged its 'bell' (I think it was a speaker,
to sound out a ding, rather than a bell - anyone know about VT52s?)
for each character above the 80th, and showed the characters on the
80th character position on screen, so for any long lines (some people
just type, and type, assuming their text will be wrapped by the reader
software), it would actually show the first 79 characters and the rest
of the paragraph would be 'lost' from view, thus making nonsense. This
post could show up as four lines, 1) OE sees ... 2) There are a few
3) Makes no ... and 4) I'd recommend ... Yuk! (Except I type a CR
around the 65th to 75th character position of each line)

Makes no difference with RS though because of the session thing anyway.

I'd recommend www.makeashorterlink.com (which displays the full length
URL, so one can copy the full URL and/or avoid visiting the site, if a
commission or other site is seen) : it gives about 5 seconds before the
browser is redirected, whereas tinyurl.com goes straight there (for now,
I wonder if they'll eventually do something to pop-up adverts as it can
hardly do them much good just zipping off to the other site). Peter M.

Peter Morgan wrote
| Makes no difference with RS though because of the session thing
| anyway.
| I'd recommend www.makeashorterlink.com (which displays the full
| length URL, so one can copy the full URL and/or avoid visiting
| the site, if a commission or other site is seen) :

For sites like RS, Maplin, Argos etc which all seem to use session IDs in
the URL, I think it's much easier to say: www.rswww.com and search for stock
number xxx-xxx.

Owain

In article

"Peter Morgan - 0870 432 9631" writes:

There are a variety of (older?) news readers which don't act in a
similar way to "Windows" and don't wrap lines. One terminal I was
using a few years ago dinged its 'bell' (I think it was a speaker,
to sound out a ding, rather than a bell - anyone know about VT52s?)

VT52s used a hardware buzzer: a relay with a contact which broke the
electro-magnet's supply when it operated, so that the armature "buzzed".

Mind you, all the VT52s I used to use were swopped out and replaced with
VT100s and above by 1983.

I'd recommend www.makeashorterlink.com (which displays the full length
URL, so one can copy the full URL and/or avoid visiting the site, if a
commission or other site is seen) : it gives about 5 seconds before the
browser is redirected, whereas tinyurl.com goes straight there (for now,
I wonder if they'll eventually do something to pop-up adverts as it can
hardly do them much good just zipping off to the other site). Peter M.

Someone (was it you) in this thread said that tinyurl is NOT (as I had
imagined) ephemeral. So that useless URL complete with session
identifier is now permanently part of their canon. Seems a terrible
waste of resources: I can envisage a time when they decide that they will
not after all keep such shorter links in perpetuity.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919