I think he means throughput of 72Mbps, not sync.

oh yea of course sorry i sync at 80/20 with throughput of 73/19 so to me that looks pretty damn good lol for a wrong install

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You said "That's interesting" in response to a post about a user commenting on Kelly accepting an old ADSL1.0 faceplate and using the extension from that.

In short its not the first case of this happening, and given working faceplate and sensible cable then no reason for it to be any worse than the VDSL Interstitial solution.

So that is the long answer to the not really comment.

I found it interesting because effectively 2 filtered faceplates were in use, i.e. one on the NTE5 and one on the dual phone and adsl extension socket

An alternative method might be to use a single filtered faceplate on the NTE5 and utilise from the CAT5 one twisted pair from the A&B terminals and another twisted pair from the filtered voice terminals 2 and 5 on the filtered faceplate to a dual unfiltered adsl and phone extension socket?

In reply to a post by 4M2:

I found it interesting because effectively 2 filtered faceplates were in use, i.e. one on the NTE5 and one on the dual phone and adsl extension socket

It's the same topology as two dangly microfilters connected to the same line, which is a configuration we will start to see once self-install FTTC starts.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

An alternative method might be to use a single filtered faceplate on the NTE5 and utilise from the CAT5 one twisted pair from the A&B terminals and another twisted pair from the filtered voice terminals 2 and 5 on the filtered faceplate to a dual unfiltered adsl and phone extension socket?

You could do that, but I'd run the two pairs in different cables if possible. Having filtered and unfiltered signals in the same cable may be sub-optimal from the point of view of capacitance and crosstalk.

In reply to a post by David_W:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

I found it interesting because effectively 2 filtered faceplates were in use, i.e. one on the NTE5 and one on the dual phone and adsl extension socket

It's the same topology as two dangly microfilters connected to the same line, which is a configuration we will start to see once self-install FTTC starts.

Yes, except the poster is using CAT5 to link the NTE5 and extension sockets

In reply to a post by David_W:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

An alternative method might be to use a single filtered faceplate on the NTE5 and utilise from the CAT5 one twisted pair from the A&B terminals and another twisted pair from the filtered voice terminals 2 and 5 on the filtered faceplate to a dual unfiltered adsl and phone extension socket?

You could do that, but I'd run the two pairs in different cables if possible. Having filtered and unfiltered signals in the same cable may be sub-optimal from the point of view of capacitance and crosstalk.

I agree, it would be no problem to run a separate phone cable (filtered voice) from the terminals 2 and 5 on the back of the filtered faceplate to an extension phone socket and obviously retain the vdsl signal from terminals A&B on the the back of the filtered faceplate via CAT5 to a vdsl socket.

However over a short length maybe it's possible to utilise the CAT5 for both filtered voice and vdsl signals using separate pairs?

Yes people have used CAT5 or even just CW1308 to carry both the filtered voice and the basic ADSL in the same cable bundle on two different pairs.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

However over a short length maybe it's possible to utilise the CAT5 for both filtered voice and vdsl signals using separate pairs?

It's certainly possible and, as MrSaffron acknowledges, will work. All I was saying is that if there's an alternative, I'd avoid filtered and unfiltered signals in the same cable.


The best option for FTTC is to run any extension using Ethernet, though that requires power for the modem at the NTE5. I was wondering last night if a PoE splitter like the TP-LINK TL-POE10R would bring in sufficient power over the Ethernet cable to the modem. If you were to try this, you'd need the other end of the Ethernet cable connected to an 802.3af power source, either a PoE capable switch or midspan injector like the TP-LINK TL-POE150S.

It's a shame that the BT Openreach supplied FTTC modems don't support 802.3af powering without a splitter. If they did, this would allow them to be powered from a router with a WAN port that can act as an 802.3af power source.


Of course, the modems will increasingly become an endangered species once 'wires only' FTTC rolls out, as I expect the majority of ISPs will adopt wires only and supply a single box DSL modem / router / wireless AP.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Yes people have used CAT5 or even just CW1308 to carry both the filtered voice and the basic ADSL in the same cable bundle on two different pairs.

If CAT5 is used for a "data extension" and it proves to be unsatisfactory then it can also be alternatively used as an ethernet connection between the modem/router and the computer if it's convenient to have the modem/router near the NTE5. In that case it would certainly be better to have a separate filtered voice phone cable from the back of the NTE5 filtered faceplate to a phone socket in the computer room if required...

In reply to a post by David_W:

The best option for FTTC is to run any extension using Ethernet, though that requires power for the modem at the NTE5.

Sure

Brain is full of PAC report today, but you can run 100 Mbps Ethernet and use a spare pair (is it centre pair) for carrying the PSTN side too, unless memory has totally fried that is.

Yeap quick check 100Base-TX can run over two pairs.