Master socket to loft: phone cable, CAT 5 or wireless?

I have an ADSL provision at a lowly 512kb. I'm right on the line
length limit and have neighbours who can't get ADSL at all. I resisted
the idea of the rate-adaptive option when it first came out as I'd
heard a) that it was unlikely to help me and b) there were occasional
horror stories of BT reviewing lines when any change was ordered and
occasionally deciding ADSL should not have been provided in the first
instance, and withdrawing service - perhaps an urban legend. However
I've now been persuaded to give the rate-adaptive option a try.

My current installation consists of three telephone extension leads -
total around 10m - hooked together and running between the master
socket by the front door and my router in the loft. My main PC and two
others are cabled to the router, other machines in the house access
the router via wireless. The 512kb connection works reliably, but I'm
keen to provide something better now that (if I understand things
correctly) the rate-adaptive option will take advantage of any
improvement over the course of a few days. There are one or two unused
slave phone sockets in the house - in particular I've ensured the Sky
box is not connected to the phone line. The master socket - which is
the only one used - has a good-quality microfilters in place.

Some time ago I installed a slave phone socket in the loft, using
telephone cable bought by the reel - to my surprise this gave a less
reliable service than the extension leads. This may have been because
its wiring was longer at about 15m, though I expected the better (and
fewer) connections to offset that.

I'm now considering mounting the router on the wall by the master
socket, and either running CAT 5 cable to the loft (probably to a
cheap non-wireless router to serve the three PCs wired from there) or
just adding wireless cards to the currently cabled PCs and going over
to a totally wireless network.

My questions are:

1. Given an ADSL provision which is unlikely ever to exceed 1Mb, am I
right in assuming that the wireless connection is never going to be
the limiting factor in my connection speed? (If I put a laptop by the
master socket with the wireless router next to my PC in the loft, i.e.
the reverse of the planned configuration, the wireless connection
reports as "excellent" or "very good" so I know I'm OK in terms of
signal strength.) I should also point out I'm referring to internet
connection speed - I know the all-wireless option would slow down data
transfer between my currently wired PCs, but I almost never do that.

2. Are there any tests I can do - e.g. by noting parameters like
attenuation as reported by my router in its current location and again
when temporarily relocated next to the master socket, or running the
BT speed test once with the router in each location, which will tell
me whether moving the router is worth doing? If so, does it make any
difference if I do these tests nefore or after rate-adaptive mode is
enabled, and after it's enabled to I have to leave the router in each
location for three days to stabilise before testing?

3. Is my result with the loft telephone extension surprising, and is
it worth trying again?

4. Any other suggestions?

Many thanks,

Steve

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 01:07:05 UTC, Steve <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> 3. Is my result with the loft telephone extension surprising, and is
> it worth trying again?

It may be that it passes near sources of interference which are
affecting the signal a bit.

There's a lot of rubbish talked about always using category 5e twisted
pair cable, but in your case it may be worth the effort; tighter
twisting and slightly better noise immunity than normal phone
installation cable.

--
Bob Eager
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3e43a4fc-0afc-4a2a-afd7-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an ADSL provision at a lowly 512kb. I'm right on the line
> length limit and have neighbours who can't get ADSL at all.


Hi Steve.

I have a similar situation here and I must say that rate-adaptive ADSL has
helped. Originally, I was told I could never have broadband. When I
insisted, they got it working at 512k. Now it runs happily at 1.8Mb. On the
same phone line.

To take the best advantage of your ADSL connection, put the router as close
to the master socket as you physically can. Get a filtered faceplate and use
the shortest possible cable from the router to the faceplate. This will
maximise your chances on ADSL and minimise interference.

Your wireless connection should not be a limiting factor, as it should give
you 10Mb at least, but if it were up to me, I would run CAT5 from the router
to the loft. I would then buy a 4-way or 8-way ethernet switch (or hub) and
use it to connect the other PCs. Although I use wireless extensively for my
laptop, I still think there's something about having a "proper" wired
connection.

Good luck with your project.

Vic.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Steve
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm now considering mounting the router on the wall by the master
>socket, and either running CAT 5 cable to the loft (probably to a
>cheap non-wireless router to serve the three PCs wired from there) or
>just adding wireless cards to the currently cabled PCs and going over
>to a totally wireless network.

>4. Any other suggestions?

A possibility, which might turn out to be cheaper and more flexible is
to mount the router next to the master socket, and connect the PCs to
it via powerline / HomePlug adaptors, like for instance, these:
http://www.transparentcommunications...RLINESHOP.html
Many other sellers also have them

If these had been available 8 years ago, when I wired my house, I
would have certainly used them, instead of laying CAT5 all over the
place.

Lnz

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:07:05 -0700, Steve passed an empty day by writing:

> I have an ADSL provision at a lowly 512kb. I'm right on the line length
> limit and have neighbours who can't get ADSL at all. I resisted the idea
> of the rate-adaptive option when it first came out as I'd heard a) that
> it was unlikely to help me and b) there were occasional horror stories
> of BT reviewing lines when any change was ordered and occasionally
> deciding ADSL should not have been provided in the first instance, and
> withdrawing service - perhaps an urban legend. However I've now been
> persuaded to give the rate-adaptive option a try.
>
> My current installation consists of three telephone extension leads -
> total around 10m - hooked together and running between the master socket
> by the front door and my router in the loft. My main PC and two others
> are cabled to the router, other machines in the house access the router
> via wireless. The 512kb connection works reliably, but I'm keen to
> provide something better now that (if I understand things correctly) the
> rate-adaptive option will take advantage of any improvement over the
> course of a few days. There are one or two unused slave phone sockets in
> the house - in particular I've ensured the Sky box is not connected to
> the phone line. The master socket - which is the only one used - has a
> good-quality microfilters in place.
>
> Some time ago I installed a slave phone socket in the loft, using
> telephone cable bought by the reel - to my surprise this gave a less
> reliable service than the extension leads. This may have been because
> its wiring was longer at about 15m, though I expected the better (and
> fewer) connections to offset that.
>
> I'm now considering mounting the router on the wall by the master
> socket, and either running CAT 5 cable to the loft (probably to a cheap
> non-wireless router to serve the three PCs wired from there) or just
> adding wireless cards to the currently cabled PCs and going over to a
> totally wireless network.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Given an ADSL provision which is unlikely ever to exceed 1Mb, am I
> right in assuming that the wireless connection is never going to be the
> limiting factor in my connection speed? (If I put a laptop by the master
> socket with the wireless router next to my PC in the loft, i.e. the
> reverse of the planned configuration, the wireless connection reports as
> "excellent" or "very good" so I know I'm OK in terms of signal
> strength.) I should also point out I'm referring to internet connection
> speed - I know the all-wireless option would slow down data transfer
> between my currently wired PCs, but I almost never do that.
>
> 2. Are there any tests I can do - e.g. by noting parameters like
> attenuation as reported by my router in its current location and again
> when temporarily relocated next to the master socket, or running the BT
> speed test once with the router in each location, which will tell me
> whether moving the router is worth doing? If so, does it make any
> difference if I do these tests nefore or after rate-adaptive mode is
> enabled, and after it's enabled to I have to leave the router in each
> location for three days to stabilise before testing?
>
> 3. Is my result with the loft telephone extension surprising, and is it
> worth trying again?
>
> 4. Any other suggestions?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Steve

I was not aware that Hatch Warren was so 'in the sticks' that broadband
was hit or miss. It used to be a little flaky - assuming we are thinking
of the same Hatch Warren.

--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe

Steve wrote:
> I have an ADSL provision at a lowly 512kb. I'm right on the line
> length limit and have neighbours who can't get ADSL at all. I resisted
> the idea of the rate-adaptive option when it first came out as I'd
> heard a) that it was unlikely to help me and b) there were occasional
> horror stories of BT reviewing lines when any change was ordered and
> occasionally deciding ADSL should not have been provided in the first
> instance, and withdrawing service - perhaps an urban legend. However
> I've now been persuaded to give the rate-adaptive option a try.
>
> My current installation consists of three telephone extension leads -
> total around 10m - hooked together and running between the master
> socket by the front door and my router in the loft. My main PC and two
> others are cabled to the router, other machines in the house access
> the router via wireless. The 512kb connection works reliably, but I'm
> keen to provide something better now that (if I understand things
> correctly) the rate-adaptive option will take advantage of any
> improvement over the course of a few days. There are one or two unused
> slave phone sockets in the house - in particular I've ensured the Sky
> box is not connected to the phone line. The master socket - which is
> the only one used - has a good-quality microfilters in place.
>
> Some time ago I installed a slave phone socket in the loft, using
> telephone cable bought by the reel - to my surprise this gave a less
> reliable service than the extension leads. This may have been because
> its wiring was longer at about 15m, though I expected the better (and
> fewer) connections to offset that.
>
> I'm now considering mounting the router on the wall by the master
> socket, and either running CAT 5 cable to the loft (probably to a
> cheap non-wireless router to serve the three PCs wired from there) or
> just adding wireless cards to the currently cabled PCs and going over
> to a totally wireless network.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Given an ADSL provision which is unlikely ever to exceed 1Mb, am I
> right in assuming that the wireless connection is never going to be
> the limiting factor in my connection speed? (If I put a laptop by the
> master socket with the wireless router next to my PC in the loft, i.e.
> the reverse of the planned configuration, the wireless connection
> reports as "excellent" or "very good" so I know I'm OK in terms of
> signal strength.) I should also point out I'm referring to internet
> connection speed - I know the all-wireless option would slow down data
> transfer between my currently wired PCs, but I almost never do that.

That is correct.

>
> 2. Are there any tests I can do - e.g. by noting parameters like
> attenuation as reported by my router in its current location and again
> when temporarily relocated next to the master socket, or running the
> BT speed test once with the router in each location, which will tell
> me whether moving the router is worth doing? If so, does it make any
> difference if I do these tests nefore or after rate-adaptive mode is
> enabled, and after it's enabled to I have to leave the router in each
> location for three days to stabilise before testing?
>

Yes, definitely. Look at the attenuation/SNR on your system with the
router plugged into the master socket and no POTS/filters in place at
all, and see what you get. That is 'as good as it gets' for you.

My experience going from a rick solid 256/576 fixed ADSL to a max
service was to get upload to 448, which was very useful, and download
from an estimated-by-BT 2500, to around 3000-3500.



> 3. Is my result with the loft telephone extension surprising, and is
> it worth trying again?
>

Dunno.
> 4. Any other suggestions?

If you have >3 phones and don't want to go wireless phone, consider a
small cheap analogue or hybrid PABX. This will buffer the phone
line..most PABX's draw a lot less than a standard phone - and
essentially decouple the phones themselves from the phone line.

Its also handy to dial extensions so SWMBO can,when you are at the far
end of the house, tell you when dinner is ready ;-)

In my case it also runs three door phones..as the house is big enough
NOT to hear any doorbells.

My system would be overkill for you - a panasonic 3->8 (extensible up to
16) extensions PABX, but smaller ones exist. The nice thing these days
is the ability to program them by using a USB port and a laptop. Wish it
was via ethernet and a browser...

couple that with a quality faceplate filter, and thats probably as good
as can be got.



>
> Many thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Klunk wrote:
>
>
> I was not aware that Hatch Warren was so 'in the sticks' that broadband
> was hit or miss. It used to be a little flaky - assuming we are thinking
> of the same Hatch Warren.
>

Its a strange fact that many rural lines are actually shorter and better
coppered than many urban ones.
FWIW.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
empty day by writing:

> Klunk wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was not aware that Hatch Warren was so 'in the sticks' that broadband
>> was hit or miss. It used to be a little flaky - assuming we are
>> thinking of the same Hatch Warren.
>>
>>
> Its a strange fact that many rural lines are actually shorter and better
> coppered than many urban ones.
> FWIW.
Indeed it is. I can think of numerous exchanges where the DP's outside of
them are fed on ali, short of pairs and have a collection of DACS hanging
from them.


--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe

Thanks to all for their input. To my great surprise, RADSL seems to
have made a big difference and I'm now seeing about 1.5Mb (without
having made any internal wiring changes). I'll give it a few days to
settle down and then decide whether I need to make the wiring changes
or not.

Steve