Phone socket wiring upsetting Broadband

Any clues appreciated.
HAve wired in new telephone secondary socket using terminals 2 & 5
and it works fine as phone outlet.

However my Broadbank connection on separate run, is knocked over as
soon as I even plug in the phone on new socket.

A side issue is that rest of house's sockets can have their
phones plugged in, without upsetting, BUT as soon as one is used, out
goes the Broadband connection.

Something silly I'm sure in my handywork.

You using a filter?


"Gel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Any clues appreciated.
> HAve wired in new telephone secondary socket using terminals 2 & 5
> and it works fine as phone outlet.
>
> However my Broadbank connection on separate run, is knocked over as
> soon as I even plug in the phone on new socket.
>
> A side issue is that rest of house's sockets can have their
> phones plugged in, without upsetting, BUT as soon as one is used, out
> goes the Broadband connection.
>
> Something silly I'm sure in my handywork.
>

Ah thanks, that has put me on route to solving.

Lighting last week caused my usual twin faceplate that has 1 raw output
for radsl outer and 1 for phone to disfunction, but only on phone
output.
{Something must have fried}

Swopping over for standard 2 gang "BT" secondary socket
I'd forgotten I need to slip an adsl plug in filter on that.

Thanks a lot.

On 27 Jun 2005 00:16:56 -0700, "Gel" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Any clues appreciated.
>HAve wired in new telephone secondary socket using terminals 2 & 5
>and it works fine as phone outlet.
>
>However my Broadbank connection on separate run, is knocked over as
>soon as I even plug in the phone on new socket.
>
>A side issue is that rest of house's sockets can have their
>phones plugged in, without upsetting, BUT as soon as one is used, out
>goes the Broadband connection.
>
>Something silly I'm sure in my handywork.

One possibilty is that you have a reversal between 2 and 5 somewhere
between your new socket and where you connected it to. By the way if
you only use terminals 2 and 5 the phone won't ring unless you use a
master socket instead of the normal extn socket. This does I believe
increase the capacity of the line.

Alan

Alan Penn wrote:
> One possibilty is that you have a reversal between 2 and 5 somewhere
> between your new socket and where you connected it to. By the way if
> you only use terminals 2 and 5 the phone won't ring unless you use a
> master socket instead of the normal extn socket. This does I believe
> increase the capacity of the line.

Polarity reversals are commonplace, even on BT wiring. It is rare that
any device is polarity-sensitive. A few made-for-US-market modems can
be, and some answering machines can be picky.

There is no guarantee that the incoming pair has -48V on the B wire
w.r.t. the A wire. BT Engineers are encouraged to maintain polarity
through the many joints in the cable between you and the exchange, but
there is no guarantee that they will do so.

As for the ring wire (pin 3 on the socket, pin 4 on the plug), an
increasing number of telephones will ring without it as they contain
their own ring detection hardware (most DECT handsets, and anything
manufactured for more than just the UK market)

As to whether or not it increases the capacity of the line, this is
doubtful, and it depends on what you mean by capacity. THe 'REN'
(Ringer Equivalance Number) is an indicator of how much ring current is
available (i.e. how many ringers the line can support in total). Adding
additional caps and resistors as found in master sockets will not
provide additional current.
Most telephones are rated with a REN of 1, although in the bulk of
modern telephones, the ring current consumption is virtually nonexistant
compared to an old electro-mechanical bell ringer.

Back to polarity for a moment. A number of sockets supplied by Screwfix
direct, and possibly other places, have a zener diode instead of the
usual spark-gap surge arrestor, which is kind of wierd, and definitely
polarity sensivite, and the cause of no end of telecoms headaches recently.

--

Back to the OP's problem. This sounds like a filtering issue. Remember
that filters are required to keep the DSL signal OUT of analogue
equipment that may be confused by, or interfere with, the DSL signal.
ADSL by itself requires no filter, but anything else on the line does.

Thanks for the useful advice; and filter grief it was.

I was always puzzled at the limit of 4 for REN, which was roughly 4
phones/devices max, when you think about how many phones/gadgets we
tend to have hung on line these days.

You've also answered one query as to why some phones will ring on a
secondary socket {ie with no bell capacitor} and some won't.

Presumably further away from exchange you are the more critical the REN
factor is as weaker signal.
I was told when I applied for ADSL I'd be lucky to get
512mb[due to distance from exchange}, since then I've got it to 1mb,
and next month will wait to see if it achieves 2mb free upgrade.

On 27 Jun 2005 03:15 -0700, "Gel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I was always puzzled at the limit of 4 for REN, which was roughly 4
>phones/devices max, when you think about how many phones/gadgets we
>tend to have hung on line these days.

You have to remember the phones with a mechanical bell mechanism that
had a really nice ring. Modern kit is often marked as REN 1 but when
someone I know was getting some other kit tested, he was told they'll
often have from 10 to 40 modern phones to get a REN of 1, so each one
is a fraction of that load, to give the electonic warble they emit...

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!
E-mail + files - 30 day free trial - <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>
USENET news service? <http://tinyurl.com/3rjw4> (plans from under US$5)

Gel wrote:
> I was always puzzled at the limit of 4 for REN, which was roughly 4
> phones/devices max, when you think about how many phones/gadgets we
> tend to have hung on line these days.

Typical actual RENs are really low, but the general public cannot cope
with decimals, or atleast that is what the manufacturers think. (Having
worked with the general public, I think the manufacturers are being a
bit optimistic assuming that they can add up to numbers as high as four
(I double as a betting shop manager, and cover fratton park on match days)).

> You've also answered one query as to why some phones will ring on a
> secondary socket {ie with no bell capacitor} and some won't.

You are supposed to connect wire 3 (orange) from master to secondary in
order to provide a ring signal for the benefit of those telephones.

It is also possible that pin 3 in your socket is actually pin 4, due to
the upside-down nature of the wiring standard. Pin 2 on the socket
actually mates with pin 5 of the plug, 3-4, 4-3, and 5-2. (Ditto pins
1+6 if you have them, which you probably dont). With such daft
standards, some manufacturers get confused. If you are looking at the
front of the socket with pins uppermost, pin 3 is either the 3rd or 4th
pin, depending on whether you have four (5432) or six (654321) pins in
your sockets.
If you are holding a plug with pins uppermost and facing you, the pins
read left to right in order (i.e. 123456 for BT631 plugs and 2345 for
the more common BT431 4-way plug)

Maddening, isn't it? A good (as in sanity-preserving) career move is to
pretend to know absolutely nothing about networking, computing, and
telecoms.

> Presumably further away from exchange you are the more critical the REN
> factor is as weaker signal.

It doesn't actually make that much difference, because the ring signal
(which is +/- 40 to 100 volts, with or without a DC bias (typically
48V), at 25Hz, line length is unlikely to affect it.

Too many devices on the line _may_ cause the exchange to see a lower
line resistance than normal, possibly causing a 'ring trip', although
this is really unlikely unless you go mad with the things. Ring trip
usually only occurs in the event of water ingress or some other fault on
the BT side of the circuit.

Line length does affect propagation of higher frequencies, such as those
used in DSL signalling. As of course does the general quality of the
line, type and age of wiring, the phase of the moon, the day of the
week, and whether or not dave the mad cable guy did your street's
wiring. (Every BT area has a 'Dave the mad cable guy' who may or not
actually be called Dave)

> I was told when I applied for ADSL I'd be lucky to get
> 512mb[due to distance from exchange}, since then I've got it to 1mb,
> and next month will wait to see if it achieves 2mb free upgrade.

I'm still waiting here. PlusNet have a page at
http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/ which lists expected start dates
for particular DSLAMs which suggests I'll be waiting until August.
While I'm with Demon, everybody gets to use the same DSLAMs, and Demon
(and PlusNet) expect all work to be complete by September. If you just
assume that, you may be pleasantly suprised.

Thanks for {further] the wealth of info.
Yes have used that +net exchange data before.

My exchange due to start July {Chieveley}
My router doesnt give SNR/Attenuation data and all that stuff, so its
just figers crossed.
Must say I prefer old style oblongish BT terminal blocks for
wiring/connecting rather than current IDC which I find hit& miss, as to
whether connections good.
With screws you always know when you're screwed!!