Adam's wiring

[Rik]

I must admit it does seem to be less bloated when loading now, though with a 250 Kbps profile I cannot yet evaluate any speed benefits.

Have you removed the ring wire?

[Adam]

Have you removed the ring wire?

Now that you mention it.. my phones don't work when I remove the ring wire. I was baffled when I tried as there is no reason it shouldn't, that said I'm sure if I had of spent more time on it I would of found where the problem was.

[Rik]

The filters should generate any required current. How many phones do you have?

[Adam]

The filters should generate any required current. How many phones do you have?

Just the one DECT base with a few handsets.

[Rik]

That is odd, then. Have you tried swapping the filter it's plugged into?

[Adam]

That is odd, then. Have you tried swapping the filter it's plugged into?

I believe I tried two filters at the time, both were SpeedTouch. The ring wire is removed on a self fitted extension and if I plug a phone into that it works, if I remove the ring wire on any BT fitted socket it won't work.

[Rik]

That's weird. Have you looked at how the BT sockets are wired?

[Adam]

That's weird. Have you looked at how the BT sockets are wired?

I believe it's Orange - 5, Blue - 2, Green - 3, the Brown is disconnected on all but the linebox.

[Rik]

Unless that's the incoming line, it sounds like you have a split pair, which will be putting a lot of noise on the circuit. It shouldn't affect ringing though.

[Adam]

A picture is worth a thousand words; I'll go take a pic of the line box and one of the master socket.

[Rik]

Good idea.

[Adam]

OK, I've taken a few pictures. This is the inside of the linebox (which was updated after voice issues in the early 90s), the linebox goes to a junction box (which is so old it has GPO branding ), then this is a BT fitted socket from the junction box (the other is inactive). The setup actually means I have no master, as the two sockets from the junction box are equal.

My apologies about the image quality and the fact that they are sideways.

(Good idea to split the thread )

[Rik]

You've got a split pair, which is not going to be helping you one bit. Unfortunately, BT won't do anything about it as it doesn't affect voice. Ideally, you want 2 & 5 to be blue/white and white/blue (the standard pair used for the first line). If you've got an IDC tool, I'd suggest having a re-wire.

[Adam]

I have everything but the watertight crimps which are connecting the orange/orange and white/blue cables. Once those arrive should I just renew all cabling from the linebox? Or perhaps even replace the linebox?

[Rik]

That looked like external grade wiring, so the odd colours there are less of an issue. OTOH, if you feel like doing it, starting there and re-wiring completely would give you the greatest benefit, and you could think about fitting a filtered face plate for maximum benefit.

[Adam]

I think I will give it a go, it can't hurt to update it all and I already have most of the parts. I know BT states you shouldn't touch their hardware/cabling but would they really notice if the linebox was replace with an NTE5 socket?

[Rik]

They might notice, but as you don't have a master, the demarcation point is hard to define. Unless you do it wrong, they won't ever know.

[Adam]

They might notice, but as you don't have a master, the demarcation point is hard to define. Unless you do it wrong, they won't ever know.

Fair enough. The NTE5 I have has all the Openreach/BT branding, so I can always put the blame on incompetent BT engineers if there is anything done wrong.

[Rik]

Smart move.

[Adam]

If only IDNet did wireless broadband. I have excellent 3/T-Mobile HSDPA coverage and could probably get similar speeds to my ADSL but I don't trust the providers in the least. T-Mobile has a FUP and 3 isn't best known for their fantastic customer service. The data allowances are also slightly low; T-Mobile does upto "unlimited" (FUP) and 3 has a maximum of 7Gb with £0.10/Mb after that.

[Rik]

Ouch! You'd soon run up a bill with that pricing. Maybe we should start a thread in Improvements, suggesting wireless IDNet?

[Adam]

I was going to start one the other day but from a quick bit of research I don't see any wholesale outfits offering nationwide mobile broadband, so I can't see how IDNet would provide it.

[Rik]

That would be the big problem. I don't think they're big enough to invest in the infrastructure themselves. OTOH, if they can see a demand, I'm sure they'd take a look at whether there was a way for them to fulfil it.

[Adam]

I might drop them an email during the week sometime and suggest the idea as I haven't spoken with Simon or Tim for a while. Thanks for your help with the cabling, I'll let you know how it goes.

[Rik]

I ahev ym ifgnres rcosesd ofr yuo.

[Adam]

As a quick hack I removed the junction box and simply twisted the orange cables together, and blue cables together. It has caused the BT "master" to not be connected, but there is still a connection to the BT fitted extension. Now I'm syncing at 4512 kbps with a SNR fluctuating around 9db - 13db, previously I would sync higher at first but end up at around 3900 kbps after a while and my SNR never made it above 6db.

[Rik]

That seems to demonstrate that a full re-wire will pay dividends. Go for it.

[Adam]

OK, here's my plan. I'm going to run 4-way (2 pair) cabling from the BT demarc to an NTE5 socket, then put in new extensions using 6-way cabling. I decided on continuing the 2 pair cabling to the NTE5 as it only supports 2 pair termination on the demarc point of the NTE5.

[Rik]

Sounds good to me. Run the extensions from the NTE5 with blue/white & white/blue on terminals 2 & 5, then see if you need a ring wire. If you do, usual code is orange/white on 3, but I'd then suggest using a filtered faceplate in place of the standard NTE5, and run a Cat5/6 lead to carry the signal for the router (or move the router to the NTE5 and run ethernet...).

[Adam]

The NTE5 I've got has a filter for the ring wire, so that may help somewhat. I plan on connecting the router to the NTE5 socket then running Cat6 to a few sockets around the house. As for the telephone cabling; does using 6-way instead of 4-way (2 pair) make much of a difference? (I have a large amount of 4-way cable but few of the 6-way)

Thanks in advance.

[Rik]

You only need two wires for a single line, Adam, three at most if you have to connect the ring wire, so a 4-wire cable is more than adequate.

[Adam]

You only need two wires for a single line, Adam, three at most if you have to connect the ring wire, so a 4-wire cable is more than adequate.

Thanks Rik. I've just found that 25m of the 4-way cabling I have is aluminium; that leaves me with 9m of 6-way cable, 6m of 4-way and 30m of Cat6. Luckily I can return the 25m cable as it was from B&Q, back to Maplin for more 4-way I think.

[Rik]

I need about 3.6km of copper, and BT to lay it for me.

[Lance]

Don't you mean fibre, Rik?

[Rik]

Copper would be a good start, Lance, but if they want to go for future proofing, who am I to argue? 

[Adam]

Copper would be a good start, Lance, but if they want to go for future proofing, who am I to argue? 

Then you have a similar problem as aluminium lines... BT will want to run ADSL to the house and will be unable to as it is fibre. I doubt they'll be able to comprehend supplying internet service straight from the fibre.

[Rik]

It will probably come as fibre to the cabinet, and local DSLAMs with a few hundred metres of copper. Wonderful thought, though why not go to the home and just change the modems we use?

[Adam]

Down: 7648 kbps
Line Attenuation: 37 db
Noise Margin: 9 db

[Rik]

That looks a bit better, doesn't it. Hopefully, unless the 9db margin is pinned, things will get better after a 14-day stable sync. I suspect the split pairs have been crippling your speed.

[Adam]

I'm still fitting it and just have the wires twisted together at the moment. Hopefully it'll be the same or better once it's all connected up. I'm using the aluminium cable as I found only 1db difference on the attenuation. If it stays stable and remains synced high I could develop an indifference to BT.

[Rik]

TBH, Adam, with the amount of aluminium you'll be using, I doubt it will have a great impact. A few km, though...

[Adam]

TBH, Adam, with the amount of aluminium you'll be using, I doubt it will have a great impact. A few km, though...

Indeed, I hear MK has had many issues due to aluminium lines. Interestingly I seem to get a better sync with the old cabling running direct from the linebox than I do with the new cabling in the same setup.

[Adam]

Tomorrow I'm going to try running some cable another, shorter, way as I think that is why the old is out performing the new. The old cabling is running about 10m and the new about 20m, and that seems to be taking about 2000 Kbps from the sync and reducing the noise margin to about 3db.

[Rik]

10m shouldn't make that much difference, Adam - is there any mains wiring adjacent to the phone run?

[Adam]

10m shouldn't make that much difference, Adam - is there any mains wiring adjacent to the phone run?

Not that I'm aware of, it passes heating pipes (though it is ran through conduit) but that's about it. The old cabling doesn't either, they both take different paths but neither has any sort of obvious areas that may cause interference.

[Rik]

I've got about 15m running from the NTE5 to a socket here where the router is. There's no detectable difference between the local socket, the master and the test.

For it to have that much impact on sync, there has to be a noise source somewhere along the way. Have you tried testing with a de-tuned AM radio?

[Adam]

I've got about 15m running from the NTE5 to a socket here where the router is. There's no detectable difference between the local socket, the master and the test.

I get different results from each socket, but the older cable seems to offer higher on all. The difference between the sockets is about the same for both cables though.

For it to have that much impact on sync, there has to be a noise source somewhere along the way. Have you tried testing with a de-tuned AM radio?

I can't think where there might be any noise; I tried running the cable direct from the BT linebox fitted to a length of new cable and I get around ~6700 with 5-9db SNR, yet the BT fitted extension with about 13m of old cable yields around ~7400 with an SNR of around 9-13db.

I'm currently connected using old cable (which is just twisted together near the linebox) going from the BT linebox to a BT fitted extension, then to a self fitted extension and I'm syncing at ~7000 with a SNR of -1-5db.

[Rik]

The only thing I can think of, then, is that the older wiring is of lower impedance than the new - but that seems a huge difference for such a short run. Is it the proper CW1308 cable you're using?

[Adam]

The only thing I can think of, then, is that the older wiring is of lower impedance than the new - but that seems a huge difference for such a short run. Is it the proper CW1308 cable you're using?

While the packaging doesn't state it is CW1308 cabling it is identical to the CW1308 cabling I purchased from Maplin, the only difference being it is aluminium. Though the existing cabling doesn't look to be copper either.

[Rik]

The pairs are twisted, I take it?

[Adam]

The pairs are twisted, I take it?

I don't believe so. I've got cable from B&Q, Maplin, and a local store and none of the pairs have been twisted.

[Rik]

In which case, the noise pickup will be higher and sync will be lower.

From the Maplin website:

Telephone Cable Type CW1308

To BT specification CW1308
A high specification cable for use in wiring telephone line outlet sockets. It is also ideal for use in other low voltage, low current applications. The cable contains four solid tinned annealed copper conductors, each 0.5mm diameter, insulated with colour-coded PVC. Overall insulation is in white PVC. The 6-way is also available with black PVC insulation.

Colour-coding:
1. White - blue   2. Blue - white
3. White - orange   4. Orange - white
5. White - green   6. Green - white
Specifications:
Nom. conductor area:   02mm²
Max. working voltage:   80V
Max. current per core:   025A
Overall diameter:   4-core: 36mm

Q) Are these cables actually proper twisted pair cables (as CW1308 would demand) or do they just have parallel cores? Thanks. - Kevin
A) Yes they are.

Part number: XR66W (4 core) or XS04E (6 core).

[Adam]

I have both XR66W and XS04E and don't think that the pairs are twisted.

[Rik]

To meet the spec, they have to be, and if Maplin say they are, then they really have no excuses if they're not. The twisting is only loose, though - you'd need to gently strip 25mm of so of the outer sheath to expose it.

[Adam]

I've just cut both the 4-way and 6-way back and compared it to some Cat6 cut back, there is no way that the cable from Maplin is twisted. Trying to get them to take it back might be a challenge though.

[Rik]

It shouldn't be, Adam, they are mis-selling it if it isn't twisted.

There own website says it is:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/SEODynamicPages/module.asp?ModNo=66

ADSL Nation sell it as twisted pair:

http://www.adslnation.com/phpapps/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=96

I could find lost of people selling the stuff, but not the actual spec.

[Adam]

I also cannot find the spec, and while it may be simple in theory returning it they aren't going to want a few lengths of cut cable back. Just how twisted would it be? Cat5 and Cat6 is pretty tightly twisted, would it be the same or perhaps twisted every 5mm+?

[Rik]

It's quite a loose twist, nothing like Cat5/6. I'd say more like every 10mm on cables I've stripped.

[Adam]

I've cut in by about 50mm and the individual pairs certainly aren't twisted. But then again neither is any of the other.

[Rik]

That doesn't sound right to me, Adam. I'd have a go at taking it back - you shouldn't have to examine it to find out if the pairs are twisted, but the lack of twisting would explain the results, and that's reason enough to complain.

I'm off now - see you later...

[Adam]

That doesn't sound right to me, Adam. I'd have a go at taking it back - you shouldn't have to examine it to find out if the pairs are twisted, but the lack of twisting would explain the results, and that's reason enough to complain.

I'm off now - see you later...

Thanks again for your help, I'll give returning it a try.

[Rik]

Good luck.

[Adam]

I've found some wire that is twisted, I'm going to have to remove the new wiring and install even newer wiring.

[Rik]

Perhaps you should leave it all in place, then you can do a scientific comparison of the qualities of one batch of cable against another! 

[Adam]

The twisted pair makes the sync only be ~5000! Attenuation has also increased 2db.

[Rik]

You have something very weird going on there - I just wish I could work out what. Do you have enough Cat5 cable to try that?

[Adam]

I'm going to give the Cat6 a try just now. I've got the aluminium cable (which I do not believe to be twisted pair) connected at 7648 with a SNR of 9db and attenuation of 36db. If I have any spare I'm going to cut a long length open and check if it is indeed, very loosely, twisted.

[Rik]

By the end of this, you'll know the construction of your cables backwards.

[Adam]

By the end of this, you'll know the construction of your cables backwards.

Indeed and my telephone cabling skill levels have doubled . I can now strip the cabling and connect a socket in under 30 seconds.

The current setup is old cabling from the line box twisted together with some new cabling which is connected in the old master to a cabling leading to a socket with the router attached. It's the best I can do until the gel crimps arrive to replace the old cable between BT and me. My current sync is 6208 kbps with 37db attenuation and 6db SNR. I've achieved 6900-7300 (with about 9db SNR) on the same cabling though so I assume it must be the twisted connections causing some loss.

[Adam]

An update... I'm still waiting for some parts from eBay to complete the job, so I can't get an accurate picture of any improvements. I'm currently synced at 6208 with SNR of 1-4db, which is a small improvement over ~3700.

I've just won a 2700 router on eBay to try (I made three offers, third was accepted), so hopefully everything will come soon and I can see if any real improvement has been made.

[Rik]

That sync speed gain is more than a little worthwhile, Adam, and if your experience of the 2700 is like most of us, you'll see a further gain when that arrives.

[Adam]

That sync speed gain is more than a little worthwhile, Adam, and if your experience of the 2700 is like most of us, you'll see a further gain when that arrives.

For the cost the gain thus far has been good, imho it's been worth it providing I can keep the sync up or get better. Hopefully the 2700 will make the results even better, I'll keep you updated.

[Inactive]

I've just won a 2700 router on eBay to try (I made three offers, third was accepted), so hopefully everything will come soon and I can see if any real improvement has been made.

Care to tell us how much she finally accepted Adam, so that others may benefit, if not I will understand.

[Adam]

Care to tell us how much she finally accepted Adam, so that others may benefit, if not I will understand.

She accepted £17.50, but rejected £15. I'd limited myself to £25 (inc postage) as I knew I could get one cheaper if need be.

[Inactive]

Nice one Adam, that was the figure I had in mind, sort of keeps things tidy.. 

[Adam]

Nice one Adam, that was the figure I had in mind, sort of keeps things tidy.. 

Exactly.

[Adam]

Another update... I've got all the wiring complete now and I'm synced at ~6500 though my SNR won't go below 9db. I suppose I'll need to build a case up to send to IDNet to have the margin lowered. 

[Rik]

Or, hopefully, it will drop in 14 days.

[Lance]

Or just stay synced for 14 days

edit: or what Rik said!

[Sebby]

IMHO, 9dB is actually a better target margin than 6dB, unless you have a very good line. With 9dB, it gives a lot more room for the line to degrade without the sync dropping.

I found that the 14 day thing didn't work, so IDNet go it reset for me.

[Lance]

Maybe it doesn't do it until the 15th day - requiring a full 14 days?

[Adam]

I suppose I could wait a couple of weeks, but I'll build the case up ready for day 15 just in-case.

[Rik]

Routerstats graphs are useful evidence for IDNet to pass to BT, Adam.

[Sebby]

Maybe it doesn't do it until the 15th day - requiring a full 14 days?

It's possible. I should've just left it until 15 to be on the safe side, but I couldn't hold myself back! It would've take a month to get back down to 9dB, which is a long time. It's much quicker to get IDNet to request a drop.  

[Adam]

Routerstats graphs are useful evidence for IDNet to pass to BT, Adam.

Started.

[Rik]

It's much quicker to get IDNet to request a drop. 

They actually need to be able to argue a case to BT though, Sebby. An engineer had fixed a fault at the exchange on your line, but the DLM hadn't reset the margin, hence IDNet were able to get it done almost immediately for you.

[Sebby]

An engineer had fixed a fault at the exchange on your line

Had they? 

[Lance]

They had

[Sebby]

Tell me more; I'd love to know more! All I know is it was reset on Monday 7 January, resync'd once on Wednesday night and the target SNRM shot up to 15dB. Miriam then got it reset again for me, which took effect Thursday 10 January, and seems fine so far.

[Rik]

I can't tell you any more, Sebby, I just know that there had been engineering work on your line to clear a fault and, as a result, IDNet were able to ask for a noise margin change immediately, rather than having to build a case in the normal way.

[Sebby]

Do you know if this the first or second time, Rik? Something strange was going on after the first margin change; the DLM shouldn't push the target SNRM up to 15dB following one resync in about 2 days!

[Rik]

I only know what I've said, Sebby - whenever you asked for the margin to be dropped, there had been work done which allowed IDNet to make an immediate request.

[Sebby]

Ah, with you now, Rik. I thought you meant work was undertaken in relation to the request. 

[Rik]

No, it had already been done, but the margin had not reset in response.