Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Dedicated RJ11 socket  (Read 12835 times)

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3909
Dedicated RJ11 socket
« on: December 03, 2009, 05:11:29 PM »

I have a question for our experts, inspired by another current thread that I don't want to hijack...

Since my router is plugged into an extension that isn't used for a phone, can I ...

Q1)  remove the BT phone socket and it's trailing filter, and replace them with a directly connected RJ11 faceplate for the router with no filter at all?  And...
Q2)  am I right in thinking that getting rid of the that filter may, if I'm lucky, make a small but measurable improvement?

As background, the router sits on a high shelf in a built-in cupboard.  I had already reasoned that the existing phone wiring, installed in the wall cavities when the house was built, must pass right behind it.   So I was able to dig a hole in the plasterboard and splice a new socket into the existing wiring, right next to the router.  But there really would never be any sane reason why anybody would ever want a phone in that socket, so replacing it with an RJ11 is a tempting idea.

Anybody with an eye for detail may notice that I'm contradicting myself, since I'd said elsewhere and in other threads that an extra filter seemed, against the odds, to actually improve my line.  That used to be consistently the case but, following some detailed wiring improvements the other day which I won't bore you with, it's no longer the case.  I now find the fewer filters I have, the better it gets.
Logged

HPsauce

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2009, 05:55:54 PM »

1. Yes
2. Probably not
Logged

jeffbb

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2329
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2009, 06:40:47 PM »

Hi
quote : I now find the fewer filters I have, the better it gets.

Just to clarify .How are you measuring the improvements ?, what sort of improvements are you seeing?

Do your tests involve rebooting ?

Regards Jeff
Logged
zen user

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3909
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2009, 08:13:07 PM »

Just to clarify .How are you measuring the improvements ?, what sort of improvements are you seeing?
Do your tests involve rebooting ?

Hi Jeff,

The improvements were measured by just monitoring the SNRM every second, using the Netgear web interface.   Up till a few days ago (my latest wiring mods), plugging in an extra filter consistently gained me about 2dB, and removing it reverted back to where it had been.   That corresponds to something around 400kbps, and occasionally I'd reconnect just to 'prove it' (which it always did).  I know it bucks the trend, but I tried it on countless occasions, different times of day and different times of year, different weather, and the results were 100% consistent - extra filter = +2dB or 400kbps (my choice).

This past few days, I see an SNR degradation of about 1.5dB when I plug in the extra filter. It's too soon to say if that effect will be consistent over time.
Logged

risk_reversal

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2009, 09:39:41 AM »

Quote
sevenlayermuddle said:
Up till a few days ago (my latest wiring mods), plugging in an extra filter consistently gained me about 2dB, and removing it reverted back to where it had been.   

This past few days, I see an SNR degradation of about 1.5dB when I plug in the extra filter. It's too soon to say if that effect will be consistent over time.

Question: I take it the extra filter to which you refer was the same one in both instances where the SNR results were different.

I am still messing around with my connection and did stumble perhaps on some small measure of success. I removed the adsl filter where the router was situated and replaced it with one of the other filters in use and the upstream SNRM gained 2db. I guess filter must wear out over time even though they seem to perform without issues.

I too am mulling over the idea of a dedicated RJ11 socket for the router's situ and looking for one that is surface mounted.

Good Luck
Logged

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3909
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2009, 10:16:13 AM »

Question: I take it the extra filter to which you refer was the same one in both instances where the SNR results were different.

Yes, same filter.  However I've already noticed the results are no longer consistent, the extra filter wasn't making the slightest difference last night.

My best (half-baked) theory is that every time you add or remove a filter it may modify the frequency response of the line.  Perhaps, by some fluke of fortune, when I was 'winning', it was modifying it for me such that it resonated around my best frequency bins.  With my modified wiring the effect would be different.

Other than that, I think Eric's made the point over in your own thread, that each filter must load the line to some small extent, which can't help.  So disregarding my previous fluke, I reckon minimizing the number of filters has to be the safest approach.  By the sound of things though, nobody expects it to make much difference it all, if any. :(

-7LM
Logged

b4dger

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
    • HmmmUK
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2009, 09:57:03 AM »

The ADSL side of a filter goes 'straight through' - i.e. It's the voice that gets filtered.

Adding/removing filters shouldn't cause issues. Double-filtering can also help for SKY boxes etc. using filters from different manufacturers can also help as they may be working on slightly different frequencies.

I would plug directly into the TEST socket and record your results. Then compare other configurations with these and if they aren't as good then you know you can improve things.

The best route to take is to fit an ADSL faceplate filter - I use one from ADSLNation...

Sorry if this is 'sucking eggs'...  :)

Logged

BritBrat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2009, 10:11:40 AM »

I am thinking of doing dedicated lines when I next decorate.

What I was thinking of doing was have a double filtered face plate at the main NTE and from that run Cat5 cable to each phone outlet that would have both phone and ADSL sockets.

Some pairs from the filtered phone side would go to the phone sockets and other pairs to the ADSL in the same outlets.

Basically running two separate connections down one cat 5 wire.

That would then mean I could have the router anywhere there was a phone outlet and it would not need a filter.

I was then also thinking of networking the house to connect any computer to the ports of the router.
(Not quite worked that part out yet)
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 10:19:15 AM by BritBrat »
Logged

HPsauce

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2009, 10:22:17 AM »

If I was running Cat5 everywhere I'd put in a proper small patch panel at a suitable central point, feed the incoming phone line there and probably run at least 2 Cat5's to each outlet. Then you don't have to mix signals down a single cable.
Logged

BritBrat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2009, 10:25:44 AM »

If I was running Cat5 everywhere I'd put in a proper small patch panel at a suitable central point, feed the incoming phone line there and probably run at least 2 Cat5's to each outlet. Then you don't have to mix signals down a single cable.

Can you recommend any patch panels I could look at.

Could I also do the same with phone connections from a panel?

My phone wiring is in series not parallel.

I believe that is the correct way.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 10:28:07 AM by BritBrat »
Logged

b4dger

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
    • HmmmUK
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2009, 10:36:57 AM »

I've used some from the screwfix.com range.

I also keep my ADSL and voice in separate wires...
Logged

HPsauce

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2009, 10:44:19 AM »

Phones don't mind if they're star-wired or in series.
Computer networking (these days) is almost invariably star-wired.
And phones can be used over LAN cable but not conversely.

If your home doesn't suit star-wiring (unlikely TBH) forget a patch panel.

Many newer homes come with structured cabling (as it's known) pre-installed, see if you can have a good look at someones setup. There are an awful lot of options so not easy to describe or recommend.
For example you can have faceplates with separate outlets dedicated to phone and LAN or just have a flexible arrangement with adapters or modular sockets. And many people include audio & video distribution too so the cabling can be quite bulky. We're mostly into professionally designed and installed stuff by now though.
Logged

waltergmw

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2765
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2009, 10:45:18 AM »

Logged

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3909
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2009, 10:50:20 AM »

The best route to take is to fit an ADSL faceplate filter - I use one from ADSLNation...
Sorry if this is 'sucking eggs'...  :)

Hmm, are you suggesting the filtered faceplate that normally goes over the NTE5?   That may work, you know.   I don't want the router near the master (wifi's generally best with the router central within the house), but I could fit the filtered faceplate at the router's extension, thereby effectively isolating at least some of the extension wiring.  Don't know if it would need to be modified though, to fit a normal 'flat fronted' patress box?
[/quote]

I am thinking of doing dedicated lines when I next decorate.

What I was thinking of doing was have a double filtered face plate at the main NTE and from that run Cat5 cable to each phone outlet that would have both phone and ADSL sockets.

-@BritBrat, I'd used CAT5E rather than CAT5, just in case you ever decide to use it for ethernet.  In theory Cat 5 is OK for gigabit, but 5E is dirt cheap so you may as well use it.   I avoided CAT6 as it's overkill and expensive for home us, IMO. I'd also follow B4dger's advice and see what difference there is between your existing extensions and the master socket's test connection.  If there's not much difference between the two, then CAT5 won't help. 

As for patch panels, I actually made some out of flush-mounting  modular outlet boxes, flush mounted onto recessed patress boxes.
Logged

BritBrat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
Re: Dedicated RJ11 socket
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2009, 11:07:51 AM »


-@BritBrat, I'd used CAT5E rather than CAT5, just in case you ever decide to use it for ethernet.  In theory Cat 5 is OK for gigabit, but 5E is dirt cheap so you may as well use it.   I avoided CAT6 as it's overkill and expensive for home us, IMO. I'd also follow B4dger's advice and see what difference there is between your existing extensions and the master socket's test connection.  If there's not much difference between the two, then CAT5 won't help.  

As for patch panels, I actually made some out of flush-mounting  modular outlet boxes, flush mounted onto recessed patress boxes.

I do not have any issues with my current wiring as I wired it up with good cable myself years ago.

Thanks for all the advice very interesting, I am sure from it I can work out a plan for myself now.

I never knew you could wire phones in Star (parallel)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3