Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: New phone extensions preventing DSL internet working ( No Answer,   2 Comments )
Question  
Subject: New phone extensions preventing DSL internet working
Category: Computers > Hardware
Asked by: gan-ga
List Price: $25.00
Posted: 23 Jan 2003 14:58 PST
Expires: 23 Jan 2003 23:40 PST
Question ID: 147669
Question regarding UK telephone extension wiring & DSL internet
connection. Probably best answered by a researcher with some
familiarity or comfortableness with UK telecom installation / DSL
internet provision?

I need an answer to this particular question before I leave for work
in the morning, which will be at 0700 GMT (7am UK time) Friday 24th
Jan.

Customer has one standard incoming telephone line, supplied by British
Telecom. It is terminated by a standard BT NTE capacitor linejack.

Customer accesses the Internet over this line using DSL (data signal
superimposed on the voice pair).

Recently she had 2 extension sockets added:
Standard 4-pair cabling was stapled along skirtings from the BT NTE,
for a distance of 10 metres, to additional socket number 1, which was
type lj2/1a (standard 'master', or capacitor, socket). The new cable,
(blue) pair number 1, was connected directly across the screw
terminals of the incoming line at the NTE, & the same (blue) pair was
connected to the new additional socket number 1 using terminals 2 & 5.

Similar wiring was then run from additional socket number 1, to
additional socket number 2, using the blue pair to connect the second
additional socket to the first additional socket, pin 2 to pin 2 and
pin 5 to pin 5:

--------------2----------/---------2-----------------------2
--------------5--------------------5-----------------------5
line in.....bt nte...........new socket 1............new socket 2

With the new setup as above, the customer cannot access the Internet
using her DSL connection from any socket, although all three phone
points operate for voice or standard dial-up 56k internet connection.

A 'stopgap' solution has been found; a make-break single pole switch
type 2a has been fitted in the line between the NTE and additional
socket 1. using this, the customer can disconnect one leg of the pair
feeding the two new extensions. By this means, she may use the
Internet connection from the NTE, but loses the use of the 2 new
extension sockets whilst online.

Her DSL connection seems to be of the following format: a small box,
about the size of a matchbox, which has a standard BT plug on a flying
lead, plugs into the phone point. The small box itself has two
sockets: one to plug a standard pot or slt type phone in, for voice,
and an (rj45?) socket into which a (patch lead?) from the Internet PC
plugs. It is labelled 'DSL filter' and is identical in general
appearance to a junction box BT78a.

My job tomorrow is to arrange the wiring in such a way as to provide 3
permanently working voice phone points, any of which may be used if
and when desired to access the Internet via DSL, by plugging in the
DSL filter.

My guess, and it *is* a guess, having little experience with DSL, is
that the capacitors in the two additional sockets are somehow
interfering with the DSL signal. I'm planning on replacing the two
additional sockets with type 3/1a, slave sockets containing no
capacitor, and wiring pin 3, the ringer output, from the NTE, through
to pin 3 on each new extension in addition to the '2&5' speech pair.

Is my guess as to the cause of her problem (too much capacitance
across the line) likely to be correct, and is the solution I propose
likely to work, or, am I barking up the wrong tree?

The newsgroup uk.telecom might help in answering, or, if you have the
required knowledge I'm happy to accept a personal knowledge, rather
than research, based answer.

Request for Question Clarification by sublime1-ga on 23 Jan 2003 16:51 PST
gan...

I'm not sure how well this translates to a British system,
but when I used a local American DSL service, the configuration
was as follows:

The DSL 'modem' card acted as a 'DSL filter', of itself, and
so was plugged directly into an outlet. A phone could then
be plugged into the card itself, which served as a filter.

All other wall outlets (to which a device of any kind - phone
or fax - was attached) had to have a DSL filter placed in line
between the wall and the device.

The way I'm understanding your description of her setup is that
she has her computer (that is, the DSL modem) plugged into a
DSL filter which is then connected to the wall socket. In the 
American system, this is specifically stated to be unnecessary,
and likely to cause problems.

Given this, and assuming it translates to the British system,
I would first remove the DSL filter between her wall jack and
her computer's DSL modem card, and use a straight connection
(and test it with the inline switch open). If that works, I
would then close the switch, with no devices connected to
'new socket 1' and 'new socket 2'. If the connection remains
functional, I would then connect a phone to 'new socket 1
or 2' with a/the DSL filter in between the phone and the 
socket. If that works, as I believe it should, it just
remains to add another DSL filter to the second new socket
prior to adding a phone to that socket.

Let me know if all of the above makes sense to you, and if
you try it, let me know the results.

sublime1-ga

Clarification of Question by gan-ga on 23 Jan 2003 23:30 PST
Thanks Sublime1.

I suspect that in her case, the external filter is neccessary - the PC
card lead is terminated in an (rj45?) plug, if not rj45 then still,
not the correct type to insert into the BT wall outlet.

Bear with me whilst I go & visit site - I'll be back around midday UK
time to let you know the results etc.

Researchers, as noted in the original question, it is now 0726 GMT,
I'm leaving for site now so further answers will not be of any use to
me.

Clarification of Question by gan-ga on 23 Jan 2003 23:40 PST
Sublime1, I'm closing this question to avoid researchers answering in
error past the deadline.

I will open a new question for your attention only, on my return from
site.
Answer  
There is no answer at this time.

Comments  
Subject: Re: New phone extensions preventing DSL internet working
From: sycophant-ga on 23 Jan 2003 15:58 PST
 
I believe, from things I was taught when working on an internet
helpdesk a number of years ago, that your guess regarding the
capacitance is correct. I believe the BT wiring scheme calls for only
one master socket per line. There is also a measure on telephones of
how they affect the line capacitance of the line, whereby having too
many devices on one line can have a cumlative effect like you are
describing.

On the New Zealand Telecom network, this is indicated in the 'RAL' or
'RN' number of an Telepermit label
(http://www.telepermit.co.nz/About%20PTC.html). It is stated that for
all phones to ring, the RAL/RN should add up to less than 5 for all
the devices attached to the network.

The documentation I received with my DSL Line Filter, which I have
since thrown away, said a very similar thing, and advised that in some
circumstances it may be advisable to remove additional devices from
the line if problems occur.

As I say, this is my understanding, I did attempt to find some
documentation to back it up, but it has been a little inconclusive. I
have some contacts I could try who may have more concrete evidence,
but it is unlikely I will be able to get details from them before your
deadline.

Regards,
sycophant-ga
Subject: Re: New phone extensions preventing DSL internet working
From: gan-ga on 23 Jan 2003 16:09 PST
 
Thanks, sycophant-ga, if you can come up with anything more concrete
for the answer box that would be fantastic, but yes time is limited.

Nonetheless your input has made me more hopeful - check the fresh
board for a fresh question for yourself.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy