Best splitter to use

Hi

I live in a new building. By new I mean constructed from the ground up
in the last 24 months.

Current wiring:

Master socket in utility room / cloak room / box room with no power
socket (although I can put one there if I need to).

2nd socket in bedroom, 3rd and 4th sockets in living room, all fitted
as part of the build.

I have two phones, both are 2 wire, so bell wires are discon
everywhere (including removing the bell capacitor and the BT431A
socket's bell pin in the Thomson filter / splitter units I have at the
moment).

Provider is demon / thus / c&w. Product is adsl 2+ (I think) (Demon
Home 8000). Modem is Thomson speedtouch St510 v6. Distance by main
roads to exchange is 1.6 miles.

Recent adsl network "upgrade" shifted 500 Kbits / sec from the
downstream to the upstream. Testing by tracking a seperate cable to
the master socket suggests that there's at least 1 Mbit / sec
downstream more available at the master socket than socket 3, which is
where the asdl modem is currently connected.

Given that whatever I do will involve running Cat5 from the master
socket area to the network hub, I think I have the following options:

a) relocate the modem to the master socket, run ethernet over the the
new cat5.
b) run the dsl over the new cat 5, leave the modem where it is.

(a) is obviously preferred.

Master socket is split bt openreach branded NTE5, standard master (not
a splitter). I'm assuming that it may have some additional filtration
on the internal bell wire on the back section, but that's irrelevant
as the bell wire terminal on the customer removable / wireable section
isn't connected.

Now first of all, I'm thinking that whatever I do out of a and b
above, the best place for the splitter is at the master socket. The
question then is which splitter to use.

I've seen some splitters that claim "active filtering" quoting numbers
of transistors, inductors, chokes and transformers, and others seem
much more basic. I'm wondering if the more expensive and feature rich
splitters are worth the extra cost?

My plan at the moment is to come from the customer panel to the
splitter socket with 1 pair of a 2 pair, then take a 2-wire pots feed
from the filtered side of splitter back to the master socket with the
second pair, I can jelly bean this onto the original premises side
pots wiring in the back of the master socket. This will supply pots to
sockets 2 .. 4.

I then have adsl on the splitter frontplate, which I can either take
directly to the modem (plan a) or patch to the cat5 (plan b).

Next question - is it worth paying for a belkin stp / utp rj11 modem
lead in place of the supplied flat untwisted modem lead?

So, what I'm actually looking for is actual experiences of using the
belkin rj11 twisted pair modem leads against the more common supplied
flat cables, and also experiences with different socket style filter /
splitters.

I know most of you will vote for plan a in preference to plan b. Can
anyone suggest a better solution than plan a?

Denis McMahon

In article <a67e2740-6661-4593-876c-
(E-Mail Removed)>, "Denis McMahon" wrote:

>
> I then have adsl on the splitter frontplate, which I can either take
> directly to the modem (plan a) or patch to the cat5 (plan b).

I prefer Plan A, although I have used plan B using either a single CAT5
pair, wasting all the other pairs, or a single pair from a standard
twisted pair telephone cable, if it's already installed.
>
> Next question - is it worth paying for a belkin stp / utp rj11 modem
> lead in place of the supplied flat untwisted modem lead?
>
> So, what I'm actually looking for is actual experiences of using the
> belkin rj11 twisted pair modem leads against the more common supplied
> flat cables, and also experiences with different socket style filter /
> splitters.
>
> I know most of you will vote for plan a in preference to plan b. Can
> anyone suggest a better solution than plan a?


I had a problem at the beginning of the year with increasing "noise" on
my ADSL line. As part of the investigation, I tried a short, screened
RJ11 cable
<http://www.adslnation.com/phpapps/ca...o.php?cPath=21
&products_id=121> in place of the longer, unscreened, untwisted-pair
type supplied with the modem. It made no practical difference to the
problem, (as I expected, but if I hadn't done it...). It did make the
installation look more professional, for when Openreach visited :-) My
router is already adjacent to the master socket and so the old RJ11
cable was tied up with a twist-wrap similar to its as-supplied state.
Since the cupboard housed more than one wall-wart, I needed to eliminate
the effect of radiated noise from these. (The problem turned out to be
on the Openreach side, and they changed my pair onto a new cable to the
exchange)

My master socket is the ADSLnation XTE2005, which I've also used at
several other installations. I've replaced cheap types with this and
have typically seen speed improvements, especially in marginal
locations, including some on Ali cables, so I'm a convert... :-) I've
also rewired the "traditional, plug-in filters everywhere" type of
installations to have the ADSLnation faceplate filter and, preferably, a
collocated modem/router with a CAT5e cable from it to the computer.
That's my favourite installation, giving the best performance, based on
expreience.

A second type of installation is where I've fitted the faceplate filter
and put all the house telecomms wiring on the filtered IDC output on the
back of the faceplate. The ADSLnation also has two unfiltered IDC
connectors on the back and I've been able to use these to feed ONE slave
socket, using a single twisted pair only in an already installed
telephony cable, with the unfiltered ADSL signal. In the computer room,
I normally replace the old BT type slave socket with an XTF68/85 so
there is no possibility of plugging a phone into the unfiltered ADSL
socket.

Hope this helps
--
John W
I you really want to mail me, replace the obvious with co.uk twice

On 2009-06-01, Denis McMahon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Given that whatever I do will involve running Cat5 from the master
> socket area to the network hub, I think I have the following options:
>
> a) relocate the modem to the master socket, run ethernet over the the
> new cat5.
> b) run the dsl over the new cat 5, leave the modem where it is.
>
> (a) is obviously preferred.

I don't think (a) is preferred over (b), either works fine. What
you want to accomplish is a little different.

What you need to do to optimize the ADSL is to carry the ADSL
signals over a single pair of wires from the exchange to your
modem. That is, you need to remove the ADSL signals from all
the wire pairs inside your home other than the pair to the
socket where you'll plug in the modem.

To do this you should install a Master Faceplate Splitter like
the one on this page (linked to in another reply):

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

Attach the wiring for all phone sockets in the home which will be
used only for voice to the (filtered) punch-down terminals on the
back of the faceplate to keep the ADSL off of them. The only
remaining socket carrying the ADSL will be the RJ11 on the front
of the faceplate.

Once you've done this I think all options for getting the ADSL
to the modem are about equivalent:

(1) Plug the modem directly into the RJ11 in the faceplate with
a standard patch cable (RJ11's on both ends) and run ethernet
over the Cat5 from the modem to where ever the computers are;

(2) Terminate one of the pairs in the Cat5 you are installing with
an RJ11 plug, plug that into the faceplate and put the modem
at the far end of the Cat5 cable (essentially making the Cat5
cable a long patch cable); or

(3) If the existing telephone socket where you'd like to locate
the modem is by itself on a cable which runs back to the
master socket, separate that cable from the rest of your voice
wiring, put an RJ11 on the pair, plug that into the master
socket and plug the modem into the wall socket. The Cat5
cable may then be unnecessary.

I don't think it matters much what kind of patch cable is used
to connect from the master socket to the modem as long as you are
using twisted pair telephony cable. ADSL signals are low frequency
compared to LAN signalling, the Cat5 cable is overkill for ADSL
(but certainly won't hurt) and the difference between fancy shielded
RJ11 patch cables and the flat stuff that came with the modem really
doesn't matter either given the short runs we're talking about.
What does help is getting the ADSL off the branching network of
stubbed pairs which is your home's voice wiring and onto a single
pair run from the (unfiltered) side of the faceplate filter to
your modem. Any option which achieves the latter should work
equivalently well.

Dennis Ferguson

> I've seen some splitters that claim "active filtering" quoting numbers
> of transistors, inductors, chokes and transformers, and others seem
> much more basic. I'm wondering if the more expensive and feature rich
> splitters are worth the extra cost?

You have had good advice here, and coupled with the good
grasp you clearly have of the issues, I predict a good outcome.

As everyone else has ignored the active filter question, I thought
I would volunteer.

I too am a little baffled by them. They appear to use a transistor
to switch one or more additional L-C filter networks *out* of
the circuit in the *absence* of the ADSL signals.
I just can't see the point in doing that, why not have the extra filtering
in there permanently?
Some of the more expensive ones use miniature relays to give
better isolation.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Jun 1, 4:31*pm, Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2009-06-01, Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given that whatever I do will involve running Cat5 from the master
> > socket area to the network hub, I think I have the following options:
>
> > a) relocate the modem to the master socket, run ethernet over the the
> > new cat5.
> > b) run the dsl over the new cat 5, leave the modem where it is.
>
> > (a) is obviously preferred.
>
> I don't think (a) is preferred over (b), either works fine. *What
> you want to accomplish is a little different.
>
> What you need to do to optimize the ADSL

Yes, I know what I need to do, thanks. I also know what I want to
accomplish. I'm seeking opinions on some specific aspects of achieving
what I want to accomplish.

The internal phone wiring is not stubs to each socket. The sockets are
linked in a chain from 1 (master) through 2 (bedroom), then 3 (living
room, where the computers are and the modem is currently) to 4 (living
room, unused).

See, that was a mistake on your part. You assumed radial stub wiring.

Because the wiring is a chain, and I have already established that
using the existing wiring costs me 1 mbit/sec over running a dedicated
utp telephony connection from the master socket, I do, whatever I
decide, need to run a new cable. The new cable might carry ethernet or
adsl, which is one of the choices I have. This is the "a or b" choice
in my first post.

a - put the modem by the master socket, and carry ethernet over the
cat 5.
b - carry the adsl over the cat 5, and keep the modem by the
computers.

Ok, I could run cw1301 instead of cat5, as I have plenty of both to
hand, but cat5 gives me more options, especially if I try b and then
decide to try a. cw 1301 won't support ethernet (well, it might manage
10 mbit/sec, on a good day, with a following wind, downhill, when
lubricated).

> To do this you should install a Master Faceplate Splitter like
> the one on this page (linked to in another reply):
>
> * *http://www.solwise.co.uk/adsl_splitters.htm

Yes, I'm looking at options for the splitter. The post title kind of
gives away that one issue facing me is that I'm finding it hard to
choose between:

i) adslnation "XTE-2005 Master Faceplate"

ii) clarity "Modified BT NTE5 Master ADSL Adaptor" (or even the
standard BT one)

iii) The solwise adsl splitter mentioned elsewhere. I suspect that
functionally this may be the same as the clarity.

iv) The austin taylor splitter, also available from solwise.

You obviously think I didn't realise I needed a splitter, as you may
have surmised by now, that would have been an error on your part.

> Once you've done this I think all options for getting the ADSL
> to the modem are about equivalent:
>
> (1) Plug the modem directly into the RJ11 in the faceplate with
> * * a standard patch cable (RJ11's on both ends) and run ethernet
> * * over the Cat5 from the modem to where ever the computers are;

Yes, this is my option a.

> (2) Terminate one of the pairs in the Cat5 you are installing with
> * * an RJ11 plug, plug that into the faceplate and put the modem
> * * at the far end of the Cat5 cable (essentially making the Cat5
> * * cable a long patch cable); or

And wow, this is my option b.

> (3) If the existing telephone socket where you'd like to locate
> * * the modem is by itself on a cable which runs back to the
> * * master socket, separate that cable from the rest of your voice
> * * wiring, put an RJ11 on the pair, plug that into the master
> * * socket and plug the modem into the wall socket. *The Cat5
> * * cable may then be unnecessary.

No, this isn't an option, see above.

> I don't think it matters much what kind of patch cable is used
> to connect from the master socket to the modem as long as you are
> using twisted pair telephony cable.

Now this is the only part of your whole post that actually addressed
anything that I actually asked, and to be honest, given the rest of
your post, your contribution is questionable anyway.

> ADSL signals are low frequency
> compared to LAN signalling, the Cat5 cable is overkill for ADSL
> (but certainly won't hurt) and the difference between fancy shielded
> RJ11 patch cables and the flat stuff that came with the modem really
> doesn't matter either given the short runs we're talking about.

Oh wow, I never knew that, No honestly, all those years I worked in
computing, networking, datacomms and telecomms never led me to think
for one moment that perhaps adsl is using signals on the pots cable
outside of the pots frequency range (which is actually 300 ~ 3400 Hz).
If you can't detect the sarcasm here, you're ably described by {R}.

> What does help is getting the ADSL off the branching network of
> stubbed pairs which is your home's voice wiring and onto a single
> pair run from the (unfiltered) side of the faceplate filter to
> your modem. *Any option which achieves the latter should work
> equivalently well.

See, there's that assumption that I have a "branching network of
stubbed pairs".

I don't think it's ever been UK "best practice" to do this, as BT
practice has been serial connection from socket to socket for as long
as I can remember (certainly since before the bt431a style plugs were
introduced). Partly because the GPO method of wiring extensions
required it.

So to clarify, I have:

line --- master / faceplate --- bedroom --- lounge 1 --- lounge 2

bedroom socket has thomson microfilter / splitter and a 2 wire phone.
lounge 1 socket has thomson microfilter / splitter, the modem and a 2
wire phone.

modem is connected at lounge 1.

If I disconnect the internal wiring at the faceplate and run a
separate piece of cw 1301 from the faceplate to a slave socket in the
lounge, and plug the modem straight into that, I get 1 mbit / sec more
than at present. Thus I deduce that using the internal wiring is
costing me at least 1 Mbit / sec. This means that using the internal
wiring really isn't an option.

So we're back to my a or b scenario again.

And that brings me back to:

(1) Which is the best faceplate splitter to use?
(2) Will I benefit from using a "cat 5" rj 11 lead as well (majority
opinion seems to be no, but I think that's you and one other, and
you're of dubious expertise)

Hmm, supplementary to my original questions, can anyone think of a
good reason why I shouldn't run a dc supply for the modem alongside
the cat 5? If I do that, it saves me messing about with mains wiring
(which I feel fully competent and equipped to do, but involves fiddle
and cost) and I can then keep the wall wart by the computers whilst
locating the modem by the master socket.

Denis McMahon

On 2009-06-01, Denis McMahon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:31?pm, Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > (a) is obviously preferred.
>>
>> I don't think (a) is preferred over (b), either works fine. ?What
>> you want to accomplish is a little different.
>>
>> What you need to do to optimize the ADSL
>
> Yes, I know what I need to do, thanks. I also know what I want to
> accomplish. I'm seeking opinions on some specific aspects of achieving
> what I want to accomplish.

I think I answered that above. There's no difference between (a)
and (b), there is no reason to prefer one over the other. The fact
that you were asking which option is preferred kind of made me think
you didn't know that.

> See, that was a mistake on your part. You assumed radial stub wiring.

I didn't assume that at all. I offered a third possibility if
your apartment happened to be wired that way.

> You obviously think I didn't realise I needed a splitter, as you may
> have surmised by now, that would have been an error on your part.

There are master socket faceplate splitters, and there are plug
splitters which fit in the BT extension sockets. It was clear you
knew you needed a splitter, but you never mentioned which kind of
splitter you were talking about. Sorry I couldn't read your mind
about that.

>> What does help is getting the ADSL off the branching network of
>> stubbed pairs which is your home's voice wiring and onto a single
>> pair run from the (unfiltered) side of the faceplate filter to
>> your modem. ?Any option which achieves the latter should work
>> equivalently well.
>
> See, there's that assumption that I have a "branching network of
> stubbed pairs".

Yes you do, that's exactly what the daisy chain of bridge-tapped
sockets you've got is. It just isn't radially wired.

> I don't think it's ever been UK "best practice" to do this, as BT
> practice has been serial connection from socket to socket for as long
> as I can remember (certainly since before the bt431a style plugs were
> introduced). Partly because the GPO method of wiring extensions
> required it.

Yet I have an apartment in London whose construction was completed
in March which is wired exactly like that. 6 phone sockets and 6
(4-pair) cables wired into the closet where the master socket is, with
the wires in use in each cable being bridged together behind
a wall plate beside the master socket.

Whether BT used to do it that way or not it's a more flexible arrangement
and my apartment is an existence proof that it is sometimes done that
way for recent construction. If your's wasn't wired that way, well,
too bad for you.

Dennis Ferguson

On Jun 1, 9:53*pm, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > whatever I
> > decide, need to run a new cable. The new cable might carry ethernet or
> > adsl, which is one of the choices I have. This is the "a or b" choice
> > in my first post.

> So the preference is to put the modem/router next
> to the NTE5.

Yeah, I'm tending to lean towards that as the technically better
solution, on the same basis ie that ethernet will have stronger signal
levels and so be more resilient.

Now I just need to work out the best way to deliver power to the
modem, I'm thinking of running a separate cable in the mini trunk with
the cat 5 to carry the dc, it's only a few volts of dc from a wall
wart, so I doubt there's any issues, although I think I'll rfi choke
it and maybe put a capacitor across it at the modem end to remove any
noise that gets picked up on it, I don't really want to create a noise
path into the modem through the power line.

In article <77d2b674-3d0f-4d51-8dd2-f846783dd696
@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, "Denis McMahon" wrote:

>
> Hmm, supplementary to my original questions, can anyone think of a
> good reason why I shouldn't run a dc supply for the modem alongside
> the cat 5? If I do that, it saves me messing about with mains wiring
> (which I feel fully competent and equipped to do, but involves fiddle
> and cost) and I can then keep the wall wart by the computers whilst
> locating the modem by the master socket.
>
That was my original configuration, powering the router over one of the
unused CAT5e pairs from the main computer location. This system worked
fine for months, allowing me to power everything from one location. As
more LAN computers/servers and external backup services were supported,
I installed protected power adjacent to the master socket, as powering
everything centrally was no longer a good idea.

The power connections I used are disconnected from the CAT5e since my
LAN is now GB, with the only 100Mb sections being to the router from the
GB switch and to one other low-speed device.


--
John W
I you really want to mail me, replace the obvious with co.uk twice