Small network, new broadband connection - need help please

I've been on NTL's broadband service via their set top box for the
last couple of years. With some help, I set up a (slightly flaky)
small network of two desktop machines and a laptop via ethernet cards
and a Netgear RT314 router which shares the broadband connection just
fine. I'm moving house soon to a non-cabled property and will have to
reconnect to BT and use another ISP for my broadband (seriously
considering plus.net after lurking here for a week or two).

I think I may ditch the Netgear kit (I'll have to get an ADSL modem
anyway) - what can people recommend? An ADSL modem/router with a print
server might be a good idea - I've always had problems getting the
printer to work on anything but the main PC (Zone Alarm - Pro on one
PC, free version on the other - seems to be part of that problem).

The new property is a new build flat with only two BT sockets, neither
of which is close to where the network will be. Being a novice at all
of this, I've been confused by some of the posts here and am not sure
what I need to get broadband. Can I use the existing BT sockets or do
they need to be replaced? What are microfilters for and do I need
them? Are extension cables OK to use? Am I right to be wary of a
wireless network?

Alternatively, does anyone know anyone in north Cheshire who won't
charge an arm and a leg to set it up all for me?!

David

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:28:15 +0100, DC <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

<snip.

>The new property is a new build flat with only two BT sockets, neither
>of which is close to where the network will be. Being a novice at all
>of this, I've been confused by some of the posts here and am not sure
>what I need to get broadband. Can I use the existing BT sockets or do
>they need to be replaced?

Assuming they are the modern type (which they had better be if it is
anew build flat), then you can use the existing sockets. You only need
to replace them if they are the very old hard-wired type.

>What are microfilters for and do I need
>them?

The same line will be used for broadband and voice phone usage. Unless
you want to always unplug the voice phones when using broadband, and
vice versa, then you need the microfilters.

They are devices that filter out the interference between the BB
frequencies and the voice frequencies.

BB simply won't work if there are any unfiltered non-BB devices in the
circuit. If they are all filtered, then they can be used
simultaneously with BB.

> Are extension cables OK to use?

Yes, in general. If you are far enough away from the exchange for it
to be borderline, then that may be the final straw.

>Am I right to be wary of a
>wireless network?
>

Not really. Just make sure that if you get a wireless router/modem,
that both it and the PC's that will be accessing it wirelessly can
cope with WPA encryption. For home use, 128-bit WEP *should* be
enough, but WPA is better.



--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
.... KARAOKE is Japanese for "Tone Deaf"

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:10:54 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:28:15 +0100, DC <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
><snip.
>
>>The new property is a new build flat with only two BT sockets, neither
>>of which is close to where the network will be. Being a novice at all
>>of this, I've been confused by some of the posts here and am not sure
>>what I need to get broadband. Can I use the existing BT sockets or do
>>they need to be replaced?
>
>Assuming they are the modern type (which they had better be if it is
>anew build flat), then you can use the existing sockets. You only need
>to replace them if they are the very old hard-wired type.
>
>>What are microfilters for and do I need
>>them?
>
>The same line will be used for broadband and voice phone usage. Unless
>you want to always unplug the voice phones when using broadband, and
>vice versa, then you need the microfilters.
>
>They are devices that filter out the interference between the BB
>frequencies and the voice frequencies.
>
>BB simply won't work if there are any unfiltered non-BB devices in the
>circuit. If they are all filtered, then they can be used
>simultaneously with BB.
>
>> Are extension cables OK to use?
>
>Yes, in general. If you are far enough away from the exchange for it
>to be borderline, then that may be the final straw.
>
>>Am I right to be wary of a
>>wireless network?
>>
>
>Not really. Just make sure that if you get a wireless router/modem,
>that both it and the PC's that will be accessing it wirelessly can
>cope with WPA encryption. For home use, 128-bit WEP *should* be
>enough, but WPA is better.

Thanks for the help, Alex. The replies to the "NTL to ADSL" query have
helped also.

David

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
DC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I've been on NTL's broadband service via their set top box for the
> last couple of years. With some help, I set up a (slightly flaky)
> small network of two desktop machines and a laptop via ethernet cards
> and a Netgear RT314 router which shares the broadband connection just
> fine. I'm moving house soon to a non-cabled property and will have to
> reconnect to BT and use another ISP for my broadband (seriously
> considering plus.net after lurking here for a week or two).

I've been with PlusNet for a while now - and it's fine. It's even cheaper
now than when I joined. If you do go with them, perhaps you might consider
using my reference (mills37) in your referral - it just might earn me a few
pence off my subscription.

<snip>

>
> The new property is a new build flat with only two BT sockets, neither
> of which is close to where the network will be. Being a novice at all
> of this, I've been confused by some of the posts here and am not sure
> what I need to get broadband. Can I use the existing BT sockets or do
> they need to be replaced?

You either need to install another extension socket close to where your
router will be, or to use a wireless router - plugged into one of the
existing sockets

>What are microfilters for and do I need them?

They separate the signal into high frequency (ADSL) and low frequency
(voice). You certainly need them. Without them, you will get skwarking (sp?)
on your voice lines and - unless you are very close to the exchange - ADSL
may not work at all. The alternative is to use a filtered faceplate in your
master socket. This does away with the need for plug-in filters - but you
would then have to wire a *digital* extension to a convenient point for your
(wired) router - unless you use a wireless router plugged straight into the
ADSL socket on the filtered faceplate.

>Are extension cables OK to use?

They *may* work - but are *not* recommended foe ADSL use since they are more
prone to noise pickup than proper twisted pair cable. Far better to put a
permanent extension socket in the right place.

> Am I right to be wary of a wireless network?

Wireless networks are fine when you need to be to able to operate (say) a
laptop in various places without a lot of trailing wires. If your computers
are in fixed locations, I don't think that a wireless network is the right
solution for the problem of the phone points being in the wrong place. It's
far better to install an extra phone point.

Even with a wireless router, you need to be able to connect at least one
computer to the router using a wired connection. Otherwise, it's all too
easy to change the router config such that it stops communicating wirelessly
with any of your computers - particularly when you are tweeking the security
settings. If you can no longer talk to the router, you're stuffed!
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:10:54 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
<SNIP>


I notice that the respondent here is using a dummy email address of
(E-Mail Removed) - probably following the suggestion of the owners of the
news.individual.net news server.

The downside of this is that a *lot* of people use this address. If *any* of
them find your way into your blocked senders list, you won't see any posts
from *anyone* using this address.

For example I only saw the post from Alex Heney because the OP had replied
to it - and I saw the OP's reply, with Alex's message quoted.

Can I suggest using a variation of (E-Mail Removed) to avoid getting blocked
by all and sundry. I use a different variation depending on which newsgroup
I'm posting to (i.e. changing "me" to something else) - and, as far as I can
tell, this seems acceptable to news.individual.net - my posts get through at
any rate!
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:28:15 +0100, DC wrote:

> I've been on NTL's broadband service via their set top box for the last
> couple of years. With some help, I set up a (slightly flaky) small
> network of two desktop machines and a laptop via ethernet cards and a
> Netgear RT314 router which shares the broadband connection just fine.
> I'm moving house soon to a non-cabled property and will have to
> reconnect to BT and use another ISP for my broadband (seriously
> considering plus.net after lurking here for a week or two).
>
> I think I may ditch the Netgear kit (I'll have to get an ADSL modem
> anyway) - what can people recommend? An ADSL modem/router with a print
> server might be a good idea - I've always had problems getting the
> printer to work on anything but the main PC (Zone Alarm - Pro on one PC,
> free version on the other - seems to be part of that problem).
>
> The new property is a new build flat with only two BT sockets, neither
> of which is close to where the network will be. Being a novice at all of
> this, I've been confused by some of the posts here and am not sure what
> I need to get broadband. Can I use the existing BT sockets or do they
> need to be replaced? What are microfilters for and do I need them? Are
> extension cables OK to use? Am I right to be wary of a wireless network?
>
> Alternatively, does anyone know anyone in north Cheshire who won't
> charge an arm and a leg to set it up all for me?!
>
> David

Microfilters stop your telephones from shunting (soaking up) the tiny
amount of ADSL signal that actually makes it as far as your dwelling.
Your ADSL model must be the only thing that has an un-filtered connection
direct to BT. Many microfilters provide two outlets one for phone, one
for ADSL modem; the ADSL output is actually wired straight-through
(un-filtered) but is presented via an American standard RJ-11 socket,
which suits the cable that is supplied with most ADSL modems.Look for
NTE5 faceplate filter in Google.

BT's recent experience is that the best plan is to fit a single ADSL
filter incorporated into the BT Master Socket faceplate. This will
provide filtered signal to existing extension wiring, a filtered outlet
on the faceplate for a phone and an unfiltered RJ-11 outlet for you ADSL
modem.

More than 1 PC in more than 1 room? Go Wireless! All wireless equipment
now on sale supports at least the 128-bit WEP standard, which has
weaknesses, so it could be cracked by somebody camping outside your flat
for several days with a large amount of computer equipment. I suspect
your data doesn't warrant that much effort, you'll scoop the Nation
Lottery before that happens. For people that actually have data worth
protecting, the WPA standard addresses the weaknesses in the WEP-128
standard and is now supported by most kit.

If you're buying new kit, I'd get a combined ADSL
modem/Firewall/Router/Wireless Access Point. You can even get a bundle
including PCMCIA laptop card for eighty-odd quid. You'll still need some
email-scanning software, but it will cut out all the open-port attacks.

I'm a Plus.net ADSL subscriber and firmly committed, yes, I get the
occassional issue with them (never about the connection - that's
practically flawless), but the good thing is: THEY RESPOND! usually
within a few hours and after a few exchanges of messages, it gets sorted.
And you didn't have to do it on the phone!! There is a complete web-based
tracking system for support requests.

HTH

Eric Lee

If you're looking to do someone a favour by putting their name as a
referrer in your Plus.net application, then naturally I'd be in the frame
for a kick-back! refferrer: SENTRY

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:12:38 +0100, "Tiscali Tim" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:10:54 +0100, Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>
>
>I notice that the respondent here is using a dummy email address of
>(E-Mail Removed) - probably following the suggestion of the owners of the
>news.individual.net news server.
>
>The downside of this is that a *lot* of people use this address. If *any* of
>them find your way into your blocked senders list, you won't see any posts
>from *anyone* using this address.
>
>For example I only saw the post from Alex Heney because the OP had replied
>to it - and I saw the OP's reply, with Alex's message quoted.
>
>Can I suggest using a variation of (E-Mail Removed) to avoid getting blocked
>by all and sundry. I use a different variation depending on which newsgroup
>I'm posting to (i.e. changing "me" to something else) - and, as far as I can
>tell, this seems acceptable to news.individual.net - my posts get through at
>any rate!

But is that acceptable to privacy.net?

They only list the address (E-Mail Removed), plus the variations
(E-Mail Removed) through to (E-Mail Removed).

I've now switched to me8, I don't know if you will see this one.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure...

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Alex Heney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:12:38 +0100, "Tiscali Tim" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can I suggest using a variation of (E-Mail Removed) to avoid getting
>> blocked by all and sundry. I use a different variation depending on
>> which newsgroup I'm posting to (i.e. changing "me" to something
>> else) - and, as far as I can tell, this seems acceptable to
>> news.individual.net - my posts get through at any rate!
>
> But is that acceptable to privacy.net?
>
> They only list the address (E-Mail Removed), plus the variations
> (E-Mail Removed) through to (E-Mail Removed).
>
> I've now switched to me8, I don't know if you will see this one.


Yes, I did see your post. [I have removed (E-Mail Removed) from my blocked
senders list, anyway to avoid missing a lot of valid posts - doubtless I
shall also get a lot of trolls!]

I don't know what's *officially* acceptable to privacy.net - I only know
that I've used {various_things}@privacy.net for a year or two, and no-one
has yet complained, to my knowledge. [You might ask how I would know,
because if they sent a complaint to my dummy mailbox, I wouldn't see it
anyway! Whilst this is true, they could always reply to any of my posts
which use this address].

FWIW, I've just done a Google search for posts using (E-Mail Removed) There
are thousands. Looking at the first 100, the vast majority have used me -
with a smattering of me2, me5 and me9. There are also some other prefixes
such as tdemark, m7, me.nospam, spam.yourself, diy and tele - the last 2 of
these being mine!

I've also just read the latest rules for posting to news.individual.net
Whereas they were previously suggesting the use of (E-Mail Removed) for anyone
who wished not to use a genuine address, they are now suggesting:
"Another option is using the Top Level Domain ".invalid". The Top Level
Domain ".invalid" is intended for construction of obviously invalid
addresses like "(E-Mail Removed)". Such addresses do not disturb and
pollute regular name space and can easily be identified as invalid by both
humans and machines."
Maybe we should all be using dummy addresses ending with .invalid ?
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

On 23 Sep 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Tiscali Tim" wrote:

>Yes, I did see your post. [I have removed (E-Mail Removed) from my blocked
>senders list, anyway to avoid missing a lot of valid posts - doubtless I
>shall also get a lot of trolls!]

If the block is only on mail address, and not poster's name (with/without
mail address), then it may be time to consider an alternative newsreader.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
poster <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Tiscali Tim" wrote:
>
>> Yes, I did see your post. [I have removed (E-Mail Removed) from my
>> blocked senders list, anyway to avoid missing a lot of valid posts -
>> doubtless I shall also get a lot of trolls!]
>
> If the block is only on mail address, and not poster's name
> (with/without mail address), then it may be time to consider an
> alternative newsreader.

Maybe. I'm using Outlook Express - with the bolt-on goodie "Quotefix" -
which serves me fairly well. But the blocked senders list *does* appear only
to consist of the email address - with no name - unless anyone knows
different.
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.