Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Black Sheep]

c) how can an extra capacitor, whose function is to protect from extra voltage spikes, be seen as 'confusing the circuit'?

Hi, the purpose of the capacitor in this instance isn't as a 'smoothing capacitor' (ie: soaking up spikes), it's there to block the DC whilst allowing the audio/ring signals through.

If there are too many sockets on the circuit with capacitors, the remote test will return a 'High capacitance' result, that said, I've not personally seen this with just two sockets in a circuit.

We used to get lots of these issues 'back in the day',  when engineers would use the spare 2-wires in an existing cable, to provide an extension socket and then simply plop a socket with a cap in it at the end. Whereas, they should really have used 3-wires and a socket with no cap. Yes - I've done it myself hundreds of times, when broadband wasn't a 'thang'.

This practice was slowly eradicated on the introduction of rate-adaptive BB.

 

[Edinburgh_lad]

Thanks. This clarifies everything.

While looking for an extension socket that will take my faceplate, ice come across this:

https://kauden.co.uk/shop/adsl_vdsl/nte5-new-style-master-socket/

It's a master extension socket. This implies that it can be used as either. Or that it's an extension socket that is also the only one. It'll be interesting to see if it has resistors/capacitors.

[j0hn]

That's a master socket. It should have the same components inside.
There are no extension sockets that will take your faceplate.

[HPsauce]

Not the cheapest but looks like what you really need: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323854207786?

[HPsauce]

So, it's been 2 weeks since the question was posed and several people have offered advice........
When they do that it's helpful (for contributors and other observers with relevant/similar problems) to have feedback on what the conclusion was, if any. 
Or is the problem still unresolved/undecided?

[Edinburgh_lad]

Hi

I've expressed gratitude for everyone's advice several times.

My plan was to remove the parts of the extension socket that would otherwise be seen a 'problem', though I agree with one person responding on here that with one extension socket, it probably doesn't matter, especially that I have a comparison with an ADSLNation extension socket in terms of data rates, margins etc. However, the source of our connection problem may be elsewhere - see below. 

So far, I've established that a boiler is causing interference on our line. It's either ours, or two of my neighbours' and I'm in the process of testing. Our boiler had the motor replaced - not because of the potential interference but because of a leak that occurred a few weeks ago - and things have settled, but our neighbours' boiler is till broken and switched off, in need of the motor replacement, too. We have to wait until theirs is fixed and I shall report back on the outcome.

List of 'symptoms' of a faulty boiler impacting a VDSL connection:

- frequent connection drops; the most frequent one being at 12:57am
- Min. effective data rate in Fritzbox dropping down to 128 kb/s (!)
- flurry of errors (ES, SES, CRC) at random times, though more in the winter than in the summer
- Signal-to-noise ratio dropping from 9db to 6db all the time (= it was 6db, now jumped up to 9db)
- when the 12:57 disconnection was to occur, there was a specific noise on the tel. line (as if that of an old modem connecting to the Internet)

- powerline adapters didn't help, even from a good manufacturer like Devolo. Since the Fritzbox has now a function to adjust settings to the information provided from Devolo powerplugs (Magic 1 and 2 only), the next step for me will be to experiment with them in an attempt to see how they all co-operate and potential impact on the VDSL line. Before I do that, I will test using Devolo dLan 1200 which I still have, albeit am not using them currently. 

For the information: I have done tests with AM radio several times. The problem with that is that it'll pick up any interreference, which doesn't necessarily have an impact on the quality of the connection. 

It's been over a year of very intensive searches and analyses, involving other IT professionals, complaints, Plusnet etc. It's been a complete hell in terms of our Internet connection (money spent on various equipment, sockets, time, money, effort etc.). It has impacted our ability to work from home, stream etc. Many a time I've lost hope, but things, I think, look a bit brighter.

[HPsauce]

Thanks, that's an interesting update. A more complex problem than might be apparent initially.

I don't know if it's relevant to your possible solutions, but I've "cheated" in my house and have some LAN connections running over existing/redundant telephone extension cabling, some of it from possibly as far back as the 1970s. 
Much BT extension cabling is actually two twisted pairs and offhand I think is roughly a Cat 3 specification. And it's much easier to run (and disguise) than Cat5 cable.
As such it will happily run 100mbps  ethernet over domestic distances, I think my longest run is about 30 metres from the (Plusnet Hub One) router to a TV.

And, though I'm sure you know this, your non-standard bell-wire is not going to help if you have abnormal external interference.
If possible you might even want to consider replacing the extension cable with STP (Shielded Twisted Pair).

[Edinburgh_lad]

Thanks.

I had shielded twisted pair, but on this forum the general consensus was that 'shielded' means 'attracting noise', unless grounded (see my post about shielded vs unshielded). So, I now have unshielded, though twisted pair. I don't think there's any difference.

The bell wire is going through the filtered part of the ADSLNation faceplace, so I don't think it matters that much.

Now 'unrecoverable errors' occur on our line on Mondays (around 5pm), Thursdays and Fridays, around the same time. This is probably caused by some kind of equipment. This also tells me there's still some noise on the line, but not as much as there was before.

I generally prefer as fewer cables as possible, hence my original idea to get powerline adaptors. They were ok on ADSL, but VDSL is a different matter altogether. Also, using old copper wiring, VDSL should have never been deployed and more investment should have been made in cable/fibre connections. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

Also, using old copper wiring, VDSL should have never been deployed and more investment should have been made in cable/fibre connections. 

From a business point of view I'd have to disagree.  I mean sure it would have been terrific for the end user, but how long would it take to make their money back?

You have to consider that GPON is old technology, every year they put-off rolling it out, the hardware to support it got cheaper, smaller and more power efficient.  So what it would have cost, the years it would take to make that back on the small margins of residential broadband, will be very different today to what it would have been when FTTC was first rolling out.

Just look at how small the ONT is now compared to early FTTP, that alone will be a huge cost saving.  Plus back then they would have been required to supply Digital Voice or maintain a copper line alongside, but as cell coverage has expanded the requirement to supply POTS was able to be withdrawn by Ofcom.  So there's a lot of factors that made it much cheaper to roll out FTTP now rather than then.  Not to mention the willingness of the government to offset the cost in rural areas.

[j0hn]

I'm with above.
Openreach were indeed late to get their full FTTP rollout properly going but imo FTTC was always required to play a part.

It would have been great if they started going all out on FTTP back in 2010 and you were picked up early in the rollout.
For the majority though that would have meant waiting much much longer to get reasonable speeds.

FTTC was able to cover over 90% of homes with SuperFast speeds within a couple years of the rollout. FTTP would never have got anywhere near that coverage so quick.

The FTTC rollout was done with a future FTTP rollout in mind. The Aggregation Nodes were installed centrally between cabinets for a future FTTP deployment. That meant fibre was already most of the way to most homes.

A little less focus on FTTC with the priority on FTTP a few years earlier would have been ideal however FTTC was always going to be needed as a stop gap.

The funding arrangements and tax breaks also need to be right and the government never introduced the fibre rate relief till late in the decade.

They got it pretty much right imo.

[licquorice]

The only big mistake IMHO was rolling out G.Fast, complete waste of resource.

[Alex Atkin UK]

G.Fast IMO makes more sense in MDUs where getting fibre into the building might be a lot easier than getting it into individual units.

Basically if they had done G.Fast from the DP it would have been far more practical (but presumably not cost effective), from the cabinet seemed a bit of a waste of money considering the short range covered.

[Edinburgh_lad]

Interesting views on the matter.

I think if there was more competition to Openreach, the roll-out of FTTP would have been much better.

[Black Sheep]

Interesting views on the matter.

I think if there was more competition to Openreach, the roll-out of FTTP would have been much better.

That there is what it's all about. Competition is everything.

Back when PIA was first 'made law' by Ofcom, I think we had a maximum of two alt-nets take us up on it.
Fast forward to today and there are 97 alt-nets building FTTP using the PIA scheme.

It's incredibly easy to look back with hindsight and say it should have been done this way, or that way ..... it was done the way it was, based on decision-making at that time. Things, including competition, were different.