Extending Telephone Feed For Voice/ADSL

I have a pretty old BT master socket in my new home, bit smaller than a 13
A power socket, which takes in the incoming (underground) feed and then
takes it on to an NTE5 socket where my 'phone and modem/router are plugged
in via a splitter/filter. It looks official although it says GPO rather
than BT on the front (from memory, it's behind a heavy piece of furniture).

If I put one of Clarity's ADSL adaptors with a 6 way block on my existing
NTE5 and then run an un-filtered feed from that on to 3 additional Clarity
NTE5 boxes (in 3 different rooms) can I expect decent voice and ADSL from
each of the extensions? I would only use one for ADSL but I'm dithering a
bit about where I want my modem/router and main PC.

Presumably I won't upset BT as I won't need to touch their master box.

If it's feasible any recommendations for decent cable to use?

I am only 351 metres from the exchange so get pretty good broadband and
I'd like to keep it that way!

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
(Bill Gates, 1981)

"Jeff Gaines" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I have a pretty old BT master socket in my new home, bit smaller than a 13 A power socket, which takes in the incoming
> (underground) feed and then takes it on to an NTE5 socket where my 'phone and modem/router are plugged in via a splitter/filter.
> It looks official although it says GPO rather than BT on the front (from memory, it's behind a heavy piece of furniture).
>
> If I put one of Clarity's ADSL adaptors with a 6 way block on my existing NTE5 and then run an un-filtered feed from that on to 3
> additional Clarity NTE5 boxes (in 3 different rooms) can I expect decent voice and ADSL from each of the extensions? I would only
> use one for ADSL but I'm dithering a bit about where I want my modem/router and main PC.
>
> Presumably I won't upset BT as I won't need to touch their master box.
>
> If it's feasible any recommendations for decent cable to use?
>
> I am only 351 metres from the exchange so get pretty good broadband and I'd like to keep it that way!


No, that's completely the wrong thing to do.
Why do you want the ADSL signal in three additional places when your router is at a fourth?

Run a FILTERED feed from the clarity faceplate to the extensions and use them for PHONES
You don't need NTE5 sockets for the extensions, just regular secondary sockets.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> I have a pretty old BT master socket in my new home, bit smaller than a
> 13 A power socket, which takes in the incoming (underground) feed and
> then takes it on to an NTE5 socket where my 'phone and modem/router are
> plugged in via a splitter/filter. It looks official although it says GPO
> rather than BT on the front (from memory, it's behind a heavy piece of
> furniture).
>
> If I put one of Clarity's ADSL adaptors with a 6 way block on my
> existing NTE5 and then run an un-filtered feed from that on to 3
> additional Clarity NTE5 boxes (in 3 different rooms) can I expect decent
> voice and ADSL from each of the extensions? I would only use one for
> ADSL but I'm dithering a bit about where I want my modem/router and main
> PC.
>
> Presumably I won't upset BT as I won't need to touch their master box.
>
> If it's feasible any recommendations for decent cable to use?
>
> I am only 351 metres from the exchange so get pretty good broadband and
> I'd like to keep it that way!
>
put a filter in and then cat 5 to all the other points. Run phones after
the filter, and where the router ends up before, on ONE wire only. Or
better still shove the router at the NTE socket and use the cat 5 for
Ethernet and phone on different pairs.

On 26/11/2010 in message <icn1h4$oul$(E-Mail Removed)> Graham.
wrote:

>No, that's completely the wrong thing to do.
>Why do you want the ADSL signal in three additional places when your
>router is at a fourth?

I want the ADSL signal at what would be the fourth NTE5 as that will be
next to my computer. I am using a Devolo device to get the signal from the
router to the PC at the moment but I would prefer a cabled connection.
Since getting the 'phone cable to the fourth NTE5 will mean it passes
through both bedrooms it seemed sensible to stick NTE5's in those while
I'm at it. That gives me flexibility to move the computer to one of those
rooms and free up the dining room where it is at the moment. The plan was
to put the incoming into the back of the NTE5 and then continue with an
un-filtered connection from the faceplate.

>Run a FILTERED feed from the clarity faceplate to the extensions and use
>them for PHONES
>You don't need NTE5 sockets for the extensions, just regular secondary
>sockets.

I want ADSL rather than 'phone at the sockets. I have a DECT 'phone with 3
handsets so the main 'phone can go anywhere, although the most sensible
place would also be the fourth NTE5 so the answer-phone is on my desk next
to the computer.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

"Jeff Gaines" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 26/11/2010 in message <icn1h4$oul$(E-Mail Removed)> Graham. wrote:
>
>>No, that's completely the wrong thing to do.
>>Why do you want the ADSL signal in three additional places when your router is at a fourth?
>
> I want the ADSL signal at what would be the fourth NTE5 as that will be next to my computer. I am using a Devolo device to get the
> signal from the router to the PC at the moment but I would prefer a cabled connection.
> Since getting the 'phone cable to the fourth NTE5 will mean it passes through both bedrooms it seemed sensible to stick NTE5's in
> those while I'm at it. That gives me flexibility to move the computer to one of those rooms and free up the dining room where it
> is at the moment. The plan was to put the incoming into the back of the NTE5 and then continue with an un-filtered connection from
> the faceplate.
>
>>Run a FILTERED feed from the clarity faceplate to the extensions and use them for PHONES
>>You don't need NTE5 sockets for the extensions, just regular secondary sockets.
>
> I want ADSL rather than 'phone at the sockets. I have a DECT 'phone with 3 handsets so the main 'phone can go anywhere, although
> the most sensible place would also be the fourth NTE5 so the answer-phone is on my desk next to the computer.

Mmm. I thought that's what you were doing, now you've confirmed it.
The problem here is you are trying to do two mutually incompatible things.
A) You are wanting to implement a single point of filtering and ADSL split
with the Clarity faceplate. This is commendable.

B) You want a "Bus" or "daisychain" of multiple sockets carrying the ADSL signal,
this is precicly what single point filtering is used to avoid. The faceplate would be a waste of money and effort.

Lets imagine you have plugged the router into a mid-point on the "bus", say one of the bedrooms.
Let's further imagine that nothing else at all is plugged into any other socket in the house.
In theory your ADSL signal is degraded simply by the presence of the unused "stub" of cable
going to the last socket causing RF standing waves.
Note I said in theory, in fact the vast magotity of ADSL installations in the UK have the unfiltered
line distributed around the house in a bus/star layout, and use a microfilter where ever they want a phone etc.
Not ideal, but it works most of the time.

As it seems everything could be located at the last socket in the chain, you could fit an NTE5 & Clarity faceplate
here, and simply do not plug anything into anything into any other socket ie just regard them as junction boxes.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 26/11/2010 in message <icohjv$5do$(E-Mail Removed)> Graham.
wrote:

>Mmm. I thought that's what you were doing, now you've confirmed it.
>The problem here is you are trying to do two mutually incompatible things.
>A) You are wanting to implement a single point of filtering and ADSL split
>with the Clarity faceplate. This is commendable.

I am not worried about a single point of filtering, if each socket has
both ADSL and 'phone outputs then that's fine.

>B) You want a "Bus" or "daisychain" of multiple sockets carrying the ADSL
>signal,
>this is precicly what single point filtering is used to avoid. The
>faceplate would be a waste of money and effort.

Except it would give me a choice of output at each point so allowing me a
choice of where I use the PC and router.

>Lets imagine you have plugged the router into a mid-point on the "bus",
>say one of the bedrooms.
>Let's further imagine that nothing else at all is plugged into any other
>socket in the house.
>In theory your ADSL signal is degraded simply by the presence of the
>unused "stub" of cable
>going to the last socket causing RF standing waves.
>Note I said in theory, in fact the vast magotity of ADSL installations in
>the UK have the unfiltered
>line distributed around the house in a bus/star layout, and use a
>microfilter where ever they want a phone etc.
>Not ideal, but it works most of the time.

OK, that's good to know. I want to avoid degrading the signal if I can.
I've got used to 6+ mbp/s speeds now and want to keep them!

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

> I am not worried about a single point of filtering, if each socket has both ADSL and 'phone outputs then that's fine.

<SNIP>

> I want to avoid degrading the signal if I can. I've got used to 6+ mbp/s speeds now and want to keep them!

There you go again!

You need to decide if you want to do it the first way, which is a fudge
and a compromise, but it's still what most ADSL punters do, and is usually recommended by their ISPs

or

You can do all you can to maximise your speed in the long term which means single-point filtering
ideally at the point of entry to your property. This means that all the sockets downstream will be filtered so will be
for phone stuff only. As you need the router at the other side of the house you will need to run a pair of
wires to a dedicated unfiltered socket for the router. This might be difficult I know.

You might like to look if there is a spare pair in the *existing* cabling that you can use to serve the unfiltered
socket, some people like it to be a separate cable but I have done it in the same cable with good results

If you do it the first way, it might work out perfectly well for you, I think you said you are close to the
exchange and have normal rate-adaptive ADSL but be aware the filtered faceplate will be doing nothing
useful except filtering the phone socket on the front (which I understand you won't be using)
RememberADSL filters, be it faceplate or micro, do nothing to the ADSL side of things!

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Jeff
Gaines chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> OK, that's good to know. I want to avoid degrading the signal if I can.
> I've got used to 6+ mbp/s speeds now and want to keep them!

I know that 6+ Mbps could include 12Mbps or 20Mbps, but I just have to
mention if you think that 6Mbps is good for being 350m from the exchange,
you need to have a look at your filtering!

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
10:06:02 up 1 day, 15:26, 6 users, load average: 0.13, 1.32, 0.97
"I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
-- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010

On 27/11/2010 in message <(E-Mail Removed)> alexd wrote:

>I know that 6+ Mbps could include 12Mbps or 20Mbps, but I just have to
>mention if you think that 6Mbps is good for being 350m from the exchange,
>you need to have a look at your filtering!

You're right, it should be nearer 7. It was one of the things I was going
to look at while re-wiring.

In view of Graham's comments I am re-thinking at the moment. The best
answer in terms of performance is to just have the one 'phone socket and
bite the bullet and run a Cat5 (or 5e or 6) cable from the router to the
study. It will be a pig but I'm waiting for inspiration to hit me :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
All things being equal, fat people use more soap

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 27/11/2010 in message <(E-Mail Removed)> alexd wrote:
>
>> I know that 6+ Mbps could include 12Mbps or 20Mbps, but I just have to
>> mention if you think that 6Mbps is good for being 350m from the exchange,
>> you need to have a look at your filtering!
>
> You're right, it should be nearer 7.

Assuming it's vanilla ADSL, it should be 8.128 Mb/s, and banging on the end
stop, with plenty on SNR headroom at 350 metres !


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk