Security dialler and ADSL

Are modern security alarm diallers fitted with filters?
ISTM they should be if they are attached as extensions to ADSL lines?

In article <ef3f4cb0-1cca-44b0-b883-(E-Mail Removed)>,
jasee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Are modern security alarm diallers fitted with filters?
>ISTM they should be if they are attached as extensions to ADSL lines?

Wouldn't it be best if they weren't fitted with filters (which can break),
then you would be responsible for your own filters on your own internal
house telephone wiring?

That's certinaly the way I'd like things to be if they were plugging
into my telephone wiring...

Gordon

"jasee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ef3f4cb0-1cca-44b0-b883-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Are modern security alarm diallers fitted with filters?
> ISTM they should be if they are attached as extensions to ADSL lines?

I don't think that they will be - I assume that they are designed to work
with a POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) line and that it should be the
users responsibility to provide filters, etc. dependant upon the
circumstances at point of use.

Peter

On 9 Feb, 11:07, Gordon Henderson <gordon+use...@drogon.net> wrote:
> In article <ef3f4cb0-1cca-44b0-b883-c5b824213...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups..com>,
>
> jasee *<economycust...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Are modern security alarm diallers fitted with filters?
> >ISTM they should be if they are attached as extensions to ADSL lines?
>
> Wouldn't it be best if they weren't fitted with filters (which can break),
> then you would be responsible for your own filters on your own internal
> house telephone wiring?
>
> That's certinaly the way I'd like things to be if they were plugging
> into my telephone wiring...

However, you're compromising the security of the dialler if you
interrupt it's connection and if the alarm has been professionally
fitted and I think you'd probably invalidate your insurance.

If they were already fitted internally there wouldn't ben a
disadvantage even if you didn't have ADSL on the line. Maybe they do
nowadays? I've found only a very few links of alarm adsl filters as a
seperate item.

On 9 Feb, 12:02, Jono <notha...@blueyonder.invalid> wrote:
> on 09/02/2009, jasee supposed :

> Bit of info here
>
> http://www.redcare.bt.com/partner/broadband_compat.htm

Thanks very much indeed! That's very useful, IIRC they've got redcare,
not sure yet which version

In article <ef3f4cb0-1cca-44b0-b883-c5b8242131c2
@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, "jasee" wrote:
> Are modern security alarm diallers fitted with filters?
> ISTM they should be if they are attached as extensions to ADSL lines?
>
They don't normally, since most can operate without the ADSL signal
being filtered out. This type may kill the ADSL connection when they do
a line test... Some have a "fix" so they don't kill a modem-type
connection, the signals for which are in the speech-part of the
bandwidth - but I doubt this works for the ADSL signal?

However - they do have a cable wired to the master socket, not connected
via the removable faceplate, so removing this doesn't cause an alarm
condition. This means the ADSL signal is carried over the alarm's
monitored phone wire, even if you use a master faceplate filter - which
is a bad thing, IME. The installer may even have used non-twisted pair
alarm cable, which is even nore of a potential problem...

There are "Hardwired ADSL filters" (Google it) designed for fixed,
sealed installation, so they can be a permanent part of the phone line
monitored by the alarm circuit monitoring equipment. With these, you can
use a removeable faceplate filter or plug-in filters for the normal home
wiring. I've used one of these in a job with the agreement of an alarm
company. They're also handy for use with older installations or those
with an NTE5B, located in out-of-the way places where you don't want to
install a filter with local sockets.
--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

John Weston wrote:

> However - they do have a cable wired to the master socket, not connected
> via the removable faceplate, so removing this doesn't cause an alarm
> condition. This means the ADSL signal is carried over the alarm's
> monitored phone wire, even if you use a master faceplate filter - which
> is a bad thing, IME. The installer may even have used non-twisted pair
> alarm cable, which is even nore of a potential problem...

Does this mean that a non-BT person has interfered with the line (BT)
side of the master socket ?

If so, how do they get away with this (Assuming it's not BT Redcare) ?

In article <49904d98$0$24590$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Gaius" wrote:
>
> Does this mean that a non-BT person has interfered with the line (BT)
> side of the master socket ?
>
> If so, how do they get away with this (Assuming it's not BT Redcare) ?

The same way others do, I guess :-) They can't connect their monitored
alarm wiring to an easily disconneted plug-in service, otherwise anyone
accessing the test socket would cause an alarm condition.

Do "BT Redcare" installers have to get Openreach out to connect their
cable? Why should BT Redcare be any different to any other similar
alarm provider?
--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

On 9 Feb, 14:54, John Weston <inva...@earlsway.invalid> wrote:

> There are "Hardwired ADSL filters" (Google it) designed for fixed,
> sealed installation, so they can be a permanent part of the phone line
> monitored by the alarm circuit monitoring equipment. With these, you can
> use a removeable faceplate filter or plug-in filters for the normal home
> wiring. *I've used one of these in a job with the agreement of an alarm
> company. *They're also handy for use with older installations or those
> with an NTE5B, located in out-of-the way places where you don't want to
> install a filter with local sockets.

Thank you : this is also very useful information! I've googled and
found some suitable ones, I think the alarm company will need to
install it or something similar, in thisd case they've actually fixed
their extension socket (an NTE5B) through the _faceplate_ internal
connection on an NTE5a and on the same wire connection, in the middle,
is the extension socket with a filter and the adsl connector! So it's
a bit of a mess really.

Kráftéé wrote:

>Redcare doesn't
> need a filter as it is not a 'dialler'.

What about this then (quoted earlier)?

<http://www.redcare.bt.com/partner/broadband_compat.htm>

Seems to imply that at least one version of Redcare needs a filter
with adsl