Is the Billion 7800N necessarily the best choice?

I'm having difficuklty in deciding which router arrangement to use with the FTTC connection that's now available to me, should I wish to proceed. One or two things are casting doubt on the efficacy of the modem/router pairing. For example, I've seen a number of FTTC reviews where apparently the BT-supplied modem overheats after a while and then has to be turned off to cool down. Others say that, for that reason, the BT modem can only be operated vertically. I've horrible visions of moving away from my current very stable but quite slow ADSL2 connection, signing up with one of the half-dozen FTTC ISPs, only to be plagued by thermal problems with the modem. Okay, somebody's been looking into an alternative modem of late - the Fritzbox - but in a number of ways that doesn't meet my requirements, and its use is probably against BT's ruling anyway.

Then there's the Billion 7800N modem-router. Good performance, yes, but as far as I can tell nobody's reported in detail as to how it performs under FTTC, where of course the ADSL2/ADSL2+ aspect of the 7800N will be completely redundant - only the EWAN/router side of it would be used. This would also mean that the fact that it incorporates a Broadcom chip also becomes irrelevant, since presumably the Broadcom chip is a feature of its modem, not of its router. So, is the Billion 7800N necessarily the best choice for a fast PPPoE router with EWAN, rather than RJ11, connectivity to the BT modem?

For FTTC, I'm just wondering if I should hang on to my trusty Netgear DG834 router (I use a wired version) and use that instead. It's configurable to PPPoE and surely one could effectively make an EWAN connection to the BT modem by using one of the four Ethernet ports on it? Couldn't one? Or would there be a problem with that? Presumably, the DG834 can handle Ethernet at 40M bps and thereabouts?

I'd be interested to hear from FTTC users, to find out just what foibles the BT modem has, and also which routers they're now using. The Billion 7800N is, according to many, a superb ADSL router/modem but, at over £100, would be an expensive acquisition, especially since half of it would go unused for FTTC.

Can you get the DG834 to act as a router alone? With an ethernet WAN port?

My experience of the 834 is that the modem part is linked to the DSL WAN port, and that nothing else will do - so even though you can pick PPPoE, it goes over the integrated modem.

Therefore no point in integrating it with the BT Modem (or any other standalone modem).

Wombat,

I half suspected that that was the case, but wasn't sure. (Are you sure?). I guess I'll have no option but to change to a different router, then. Shame, because I've really got to like my DG834.

I've been using the wired version of the 834, as I've no real need for wireless. Being a combined ADSL router-and-modem and using a Broadcom chip in its modem dept., it's worked wonderfully well with the DMT utility, allowing me to almost instantly tailor the line SNR to achieve stable operation on my long line. Sadly, this will not be possible if I move to FTTC. One could argue that, with FTTC, tweaking the SNR will be unnecessary but, knowing my luck, the large amount of spurious noise that gets picked up on my line will turn out to occur within the 700m between my house and the cabinet and so the fibre then won't help in that regard!

Are you yourself already on FTTC, Wombat? If so, which router(s) do you recommend? The Billion 7800N seems the bee's knees for those who normally use wireless operation. However, I personally don't need - at least, for the foreseeable future - a strongly-performing wireless N-type router (since I'll be connecting in wired fashion), or one that also incorporates an ADSL modem (since this will be redundant for FTTC and can't be used as a fallback, not unless there's a complete reversion by the user to ADSL2/+ line operation), these being two of the features of the Billion. So, I've been looking very closely at the Netgear WNR1000, RP614, and WNDR3700 instead. Two of these are wireless. However, they do also provide for wired connection. All three seem to have an RJ45-type connection for a DSL modem.

...(Are you sure?)...

The PPPoE entry on the 834 refers to PPPoE over ATM - it's one of the AAL5 link layer encapsulations and was (I believe) much more common for ISPs t'other side of the pond. Pretty much all the UK ISPs used PPPoA.

Sadly, although the hardware in the dg834g would be ideal for the job it isn't wired up quite the right way - all of the 4 exposed ethernet ports are connected to the internal switch. Had one of the CPU Ethernet interfaces been brought out to serve a DMZ it would not have been difficult to reuse that for a WAN port, but that wasn't done on the 834.

I'm using a WZR-HP-300NH and it's been fine so far.

Edited by mr_bean (Sat 07-May-11 15:17:01)

Well, from what you're all now telling me, sadly I won't be able to use my DG834.

Mr Bean (heh, heh, heh), are you using your Buffalo WZR-HP-300NH in an FTTC setup, or just an ADSL2/+ setup? If you're using FTTC, then what's your view, so far, of the BT modem? Is it stable? To stop the BT modem overheating, can you only use it in one orientation?

Know if anyone's published a picture of the BT modem?

In reply to a post by meditator:

Know if anyone's published a picture of the BT modem?

Several linked to in this post.

are you using your Buffalo WZR-HP-300NH in an FTTC setup, or just an ADSL2/+ setup?

FTTC

what's your view, so far, of the BT modem? Is it stable?

Mine's been fine although the OR engineer said they'd been told to mount them vertically which he did - doesn't seem to get too warm at all like that.

Know if anyone's published a picture of the BT modem?

There's one here

Thanks, everyone, for the pics of the BT OR modem. It looks more like something that belongs in your bathroom, doesn't it? Can't say that I'm at all impressed by it having the connections on the front, either.

I'm intrigued by the new faceplate that BT fits to the master socket. It now appears to have an RJ11 outlet in the upper half, and the usual phone outlet in the lower half. So, does the new upper and lower section still sit over the basic NTE5? That is, is the new lower and upper half faceplate an integrated piece that then plugs into the base NTE5, the latter still having an internal socket situated slightly to the right (seen when you remove the user faceplate)? I ask because I would be fitting an XTE-2005 faceplate over the NTE5 instead. The XTE-2005 would give me unfiltered IDC outputs on its rear, essential for me to make a 12m long connection through the wall and eventually into my computer room. Since I'm wired not wireless, there's no way that a modem and router could remain by the master socket. And, for a variety of reasons, trailing leads would be out of the question. Indeed, I've already re-cabled the extension, using screened Cat5e and an XTF-85 at the end of the extension. This alone has gained me some extra speed at ADSL2 and, with the way I've done it, is aesthetically very good (it's had to pass through a bedroom). Beats anything comparable that BT could ever implement.

In reply to a post by meditator:

Can't say that I'm at all impressed by it having the connections on the front, either.

They're not really on the front... if you have it on the desk or whatever with the connections at the back, the writing is upside down. It's plainly intended to be wall-mounted, and if you mount it with the writing the right way up, the connections come out of the bottom.

BT logic

Ah, I see. That's fair enough, I suppose. But how many other modems (of whatever ilk) on the market at present are designed specifically to be mounted on a wall? It once again indicates to me that BT is not all that savvy about users' wants and needs.

What he said!

I'm not 100% sure, but I've not come across anyone modding an 834 for fibre. I have come across a case where a speedtouch can be reflashed so that one of the LAN ports will act as a WAN port instead... but not a netgear.

My fibre is delayed (thanks to a quirky BT ordering system). I have a WNR1000 waiting for next week, as supplied by PlusNet.

I took a quick look at the Billion, and could be tempted later, when self-install becomes possible. I'll put up with the BT one in the meantime, unless we start seeing some operational faults too.

In reply to a post by billford:

It's plainly intended to be wall-mounted, and if you mount it with the writing the right way up, the connections come out of the bottom.

Mine has rubber feet on the base.

DrT

It's plainly intended to be wall-mounted, and if you mount it with the writing the right way up, the connections come out of the bottom

But if you mount it like that you're not going to get the best cooling.

That said I think I now know why the OR guy paused slightly when fitting the modem - there wasn't room where I wanted it to go for it to be mounted that way (with the Openreach logo the right way up) so he mounted it with the vents top&bottom and the cables to the side, however he must have originally expected to mount it the way you describe. The way it ended up is actually much better for cooling, probably why mine doesn't seem to get very warm at all.

Edit: I was convinced when I wrote the above that both long sides were solid, however checking only the side which carries the LAN & DSL ports is. So, mounted with the Openreach logo the right way up & cables coming out of the bottom ventilation should be fine.

Edited by mr_bean (Sun 08-May-11 22:08:29)

I have no trouble with the Openreach modem sitting normally on a desk, within 1 metre of a central heating radiator and with the sun coming through a large south-facing window. Close to it are my router and a NAS drive with printer attached - both on all day. Sometimes my second laptop which is in on the desk is also on all day. It gets hot in there!

I have a Buffalo Nifiniti WHR-300N/U router. Excellent! A few other people here have one as well - it just doesn't seem to get onto people's lists.

It was suggested to me originally by somone here who ought to know what he is talking about. When I got it the price was £23.56, and it was returnable, so I thought why pay £70-£120 for no apparent benefit without trying this first.

Thanks for the reassurance concerning the thermal performance of the BT OR modem.

I have moved it out of the direct sunlight for the summer though. The router gets a bit of that from mid-afternoon but seems happy.

I found when we used to hear of lots of heat problems with Speedtouch 585s and Netgears that a surprising number of people have routers on soft surfaces, like carpet. Disastrous for cooling. I wonder how many troublesome OR modems are similar. Or in a space where ambient air doesn't reach, ie little air access around them.

With the way that I've planned things for my continued wired connectivity (as opposed to wireless), both the OR modem and the router would sit on top of my 'desktop' machine, which is located under the desk at which I sit, in my computer room. Physically, this is pretty well how I've always connected to the Internet and, with my (self-built) computer dissipating very little heat and the current Netgear DG834 itself never seeming to run especially warm, this is a topology I want to stay with. Indeed, it's ideal, as it results in one long line from the exchange, with no stubs at all. Standing the OR VDSL modem on edge, on top of the computer, would not be at all desirable in my case, as there'd be a high risk that any slight kick of my computer would topple the modem over, stand or no stand. Unfortunately, there's no room left on top of the desk.

Actually, what I'm more concerned about at present is the very real possibility that, because of the manic insistence that the VDSL modem be sited only at the master socket, any engineer that turns up will deconstruct my carefully-installed Cat5e extension/XTE-2005 setup and then leave me with no sensible means to actually connect to the router and/or computer two rooms away. There would be a way of avoiding this situation but only after the engineer will have snipped vitally-needed centimetres off the Cat5e.

With what could go wrong in this scenario, therefore, I'm having second thoughts about going FTTC, even though I definitely need the extra speed and more immunity from EMI between here and the exchange. Ironically, BT phoned me up earlier today, telling me that fibre-optic broadband was available in my area and angling to get me signed up with BT Infinity. Little did they know that I've been following its progress locally with microscopic precision. Although BT Infinity's is the cheapest deal, there are other ISPs around, as you know, who can offer similar but with perhaps better tech support and so forth. Though retired now, I've a background in structured cabling systems and fibre-optic datacomms and am very choosy, not only about the practical considerations of ADSL/FTTC but also the ISP with which I enrol.

Actually, what I'm more concerned about at present is the very real possibility that, because of the manic insistence that the VDSL modem be sited only at the master socket, any engineer that turns up will deconstruct my carefully-installed Cat5e extension/XTE-2005 setup and then leave me with no sensible means to actually connect to the router and/or computer two rooms away. There would be a way of avoiding this situation but only after the engineer will have snipped vitally-needed centimetres off the Cat5e.

The modem can be sited up to 30m from the socket with the BT "data kit". I suspect it will depend on the engineer that does the install but the guy that did mine was happy to drop the modem into my existing set-up with only minimal persuasion. Didn't even fit the faceplate.

Temperature in the modem room is currently 24.3C, peaked during the afternoon at 25.5C. Digital Max-Min sensor a couple of inches from the modem. (Or to be consistent, should I say about 5cm ).

Re the installation, I don't expect there's anything I can add to what was covered in this thread. Where do you pick up the "manic insistence that the VDSL modem be sited only at the master socket ..." bit? The whole purpose of the Data Extension Kit is to allow the modem to be elsewhere, the subject was covered in depth in that thread, and there is one if not two documented cases on these forums as well as Squirrel's where the engineer has happily used existing professional level wiring, (including third-party filtered faceplates), as yours clearly is. I'm not sure mr_bean is one of them, if not then that's another.

I'm sure you have the persuasion skills to manage the situation when he arrives.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 09-May-11 19:08:46)

Thanks for assurances from both of you. Maybe my interpretation of what I've been reading in various different postings in this FTTC forum section is wrong but I've been getting the distinct impression that BT OR engineers are generally only siting the modem at the master socket. I suspect that the FTTC engineers are doing this because they've been trained to perform the tests from that master socket and that, geberally speaking, BT will only guarantee proper functioning from that point back to the exchange. This, if true, will be plainly daft, as not only are many master sockets situated well away from the actual site of any non-mobile PC but also a good many users will be using wired, rather than wireless, router connectivity.

In cases like mine, it'd be no good the engineer leaving me with a modem by my master socket, plus a long trailing lead; the lead would have to straddle four doorways to even begin to get within reach of my PC. It'd both present a safety hazard, as well as being totally unnecessary, given the top-rate permanent cabling I've now installed via a more sensible route.

Once I've left my current ISP and signed up for FTTC, there'll be no going back. If the engineer were to insist on doing it in some standard way, undoing all my hard work, I'd be inclined to tell him/her to leave. I'd rather stay with my ADSL2 setup than have someone come along and make a complete pig's ear of the job. I've nothing personal against OR engineers, it's just that, rightly or wrongly, what I've been reading in these forums has left me somewhat distrustful of what's likely to happen. I suppose all I can do, if I do go ahead, is try to be as charming and persuasive as possible and hope that the engineer hasn't got out of the wrong side of the bed that day.

See this screenshot of an OR document. Note the position of the Data Extension Kit.

You merely need to convince the engineer that your existing wiring is up to the standard of the extension kit. I'm quite sure myself it will exceed it. It would be an unusually obstreperous engineer who wasn't happy to avoid unnecessary work. As you will have seen by now, more than one didn't insist on installing the VDSL faceplate.

I've made a printout of that OR image, so that if I do go ahead and order FTTC, I'll have it to hand to show to any uncooperative OR engineer.

There can be no question at all that, scrutinised on any level and for my particular domestic situation, my newly-devised extension is far superior to anything OR could organise, either short-term or long-term. Once I've the XTE-2005 in place, there'll be no need for the installation to be touched at all. Indeed, the engineer would have the option of either connecting the modem to the RJ45/RJ11 outlet on the XTE faceplate or to the RJ11 cable that's plugged into my extension outlet in my computer room. For all intents and purposes, they're electrically the same point. The arrangement I've now devised is absolutely ideal for my particular set of circumstances.

Incidentally, if any other reader of this thread is thinking of re-wiring their extension, particularly with Cat5e cable, and is concerned about the aesthetics of the cable along its route or of having to regularly pin it, then may I recommend a white plastic skirtingboard conduit called D-Line which I discovered in B&Q. It's available in one or two different profiles and is hinged along its length. It has a prepared adhesive backing, though I personally supplemented this with a few quarter-inch fixing screws on the longer lengths. Comes in 2 X 2m packs with a set of jointing/corner pieces. This has been one of the best DIY products I've ever had the pleasure to use. After fixing the conduit to the wall or skirtingboard, you just lay the cable in it and clip back the hinged cover. Minimum bend radii for the cable are all satisfied. It's reasonably expensive, though, each pack costing around £14. Standard mini-trunking could be used instead, of course, but is more angular and is more of a dust-trap than this D-Line. (I'm absolutely nothing to do with B&Q or D-Line, by the way; I'm a retired engineer/scientist).

Edited by deleted (Wed 11-May-11 12:02:15)

D-line is cheaper at ScrewFix ! For micro £14.38 (4 lengths) at B&Q and for pack of 10 £23 at ScrewFix !

D-line are at http://www.d-line.co.uk/audio-visual.php

I'm puzzled by that. The particular packs I bought had just two 2-metre lengths in each. They weren't 'micro', they were 'semicircular', 3cm diameter, but the pack did cost £14.38. I baulked at the price when I first came across it, especially as I calculated I needed two packs, but I later returned to B&Q and paid out to get what I thought was a good product. After having used it, I was so pleased with the result that the cost didn't matter.

Was I charged anything like the right sort of price by B&Q, even accepting that Screwfix sells the stuff more cheaply, or had B&Q wrongly priced them up?

I see from your link that D-Line do it in five different 'colours'.

Edited by deleted (Wed 11-May-11 18:02:39)

Screwfix have traditionally charged less. I think they are more trade than DIY oriented so need to be more competitive (even though it's now the same parent company).

Not so much down to trade oriented - there are now "Trade Point" counters in B&Q and traders get additional discount in B&Q too, but that SF does not have a showroom and is just purely ordering from the catalogue. But if you know what you want - just the place to go.

Thinking of the fibre route with BT but trying to sort out the setup. Hope you can help me, please.

a) What kind of wire, grade etc, and connectors that run from the new master socket to the modem.

b) From the modem to my new Billion router what wire, grade, do you recommend again what are the connectors - are they RJ45.

Many thanks.

In reply to a post by Allbran:

Thinking of the fibre route with BT but trying to sort out the setup. Hope you can help me, please.

a) What kind of wire, grade etc, and connectors that run from the new master socket to the modem.

RJ11, the one BT supplies is just your bog standard POS. I use this as i had it from before, but the standard one will be fine...

b) From the modem to my new Billion router what wire, grade, do you recommend again what are the connectors - are they RJ45.

Yep, Cat5e minimum IMO.

But if you can get it why not grab some Cat6, especially if, like me you have a Gigabit router with several devices hard wired.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/search_results.php?sor...

Edited by Cruncher (Thu 19-May-11 19:27:58)

Cruncher, Many thanks.

I assume from that it is best to try and keep the modem as close to the master socket as possible so the length of the wire does not degrade the signal too much between the two. And also assume this piece of wire is provided by BT.

From modem to router. Assume I can obtain my own wire (Cat6) and fit prior to the BT man calling � or maybe there some females as well.

In reply to a post by Allbran:

I assume from that it is best to try and keep the modem as close to the master socket as possible so the length of the wire does not degrade the signal too much between the two. And also assume this piece of wire is provided by BT.

Longer runs of RJ45 (Ethernet, between the modem and router) are preferred over RJ11 where possible. (at least thats how it used to be with ADSL, am assuming its still relevant)

Though the engineer can install a 'Data Extension Kit' as in this screenshot
(*Thanks to RobertoS for the cap)

From modem to router. Assume I can obtain my own wire (Cat6) and fit prior to the BT man calling � or maybe there some females as well.

When i had my FTTC installed the engineer said he 'had to use the BT wiring' That said, as soon as he left i ripped it out and used my own higher quality cabling and tidied it all up.... See here

It is complete and utter tosh that the modem has to be within a metre or so of the master socket. The modem effectively connects to the A-B wire pair, unfiltered, coming from outside. Other than a small degree of attenuation, there will be no difference, electrically, between the FTTC signal coming out of the end of an RJ11 lead plugged into the new-faceplated master socket, whether that lead is 1 metre long or 50 metres long - provided there are no long stubs also attached to the line inside your house. By 'stubs', I mean cable or lead attachments directly on to the line that will make the line at your end start to appear like a star configuration. The same is true of the RJ45 Ethernet-type connection between the modem and the router. (You can regard the Ethernet side as being electrically decoupled from the FTTC side). Indeed, BT themselves can provide a 30-metre RJ11 trailing lead at the time of installation, if you need it.

Clearly, the issue that BT are concerned about is to avoid the end-user's wiring having any appreciable detrimental effect on the FTTC signal. This will start to occur if the wiring on the user's side of the master socket includes any 'stubs' or 'spurs', or has poor filtering for phones. So, the safest thing for BT to do, for the install, is to connect straight into the master socket. The fact that the BT OR engineer will be carrying only 1 metre (or, at a stretch, 2 metre) RJ11 leads is probably simply because OR would otherwise have to stock and supply a vast range of lengths. Also, I imagine that, by fitting the new BT user faceplate at the master socket, this is BT's way of eradicating any extension stubs connected via the IDC connectors. This is a bit of a 'one size fits all' approach which I'm sure will lead to friction between skilled, knowledgeable end-users and the BT OR engineers in some cases. Such users may well already be using perfectly-suitable wiring arrangements and, in some cases, superior ones.

Attached phones and the like should be okay, as long as their connections are filtered; each filter should, if it's been designed properly, provide a high impedance to the line and therefore should not load the line at FTTC bitrates.

It's undoubtedly the case that the layout and the quality of the Internet wiring inside the end-user's house can affect the performance of the connection to the exchange. We already know that to be the case with ADSL Max and ADSL2/2+ and it'll be even more so with FTTC. But I would say that as long as the user or the BT engineer can provide a linear topology to the wiring, and to do that with good-quality materials and with good workmanship based on sound transmission-line principles, there'll be no difference resulting from an extra few tens of metres of modem connection to the master socket. The line length from your house to the cabinet is going to be typically a few hundreds of metres by comparison.

Your average BT installation engineer is not going to understand transmission-line theory, which is what this boils down to. (I spent years studying the subject and putting it into practise). Instead, he/she is simply going to install in as standard a way as his/her training for FTTC has equipped him/her. From what I read in these forums, that training is somewhat lacking in certain areas.

One could argue that, provided your wiring meets some absolute basic requirement, why should you not insist on the modem and/or the router being somewhere else in the house? After all, if there's anything at all in the engineer's theory that FTTC will only work properly if the kit is connected at the master socket, then surely you've a right, as the person hiring the kit, to purposely accept a lower performance by connecting somewhere else? After all, we're not compelled to connect only at the master socket with ADSL Max or ADSL2/2+, are we? Personally, if any of us choose to make do with non-ideal wiring and, as a consequence, end up with the line running at 25M bps rather than, say, 30M bps, then surely that's entirely our affair? It's we who pay the monthly fee, not the BT engineer.

If you or others firmly believe that, prior to the engineer visit, your internal wiring is of acceptable topology, uses good-quality components and basically meets the user-end hardware requirements, then there's no earthly reason why it should be dismantled or ripped out by the engineer, as no improvement is likely to result from changing it. Indeed, you may end up with a set of different problems to contend with instead. So, I would advocate that, in such circumstances, you resist any attempt by the engineer to do it 'their way and their way only'.

Edited by deleted (Fri 20-May-11 14:31:28)

Meditator, Your information is very much appreciated and I shall reflect on what you say and add to my knowledge base, which I suppose is like many, littered with many gaps.

I have been down the path of going to night school to learn to build computers, lucky to have sons who are computer astute and over the years have enjoyed having an ever changing computer that is probably way over the top for my needs. Nevertheless, it is a hobby of interest.

Years ago I changed my master socket (probably a stature barred offence by now) to a filtered one and I did that by researching and using my common sense. All worked fine to date.

Fibre comes along and there are new horizons.

My bottom line is to use as much persuasion as reasonably possible with the BT engineer to get what I want � people are people � but I know after he has left and it hasn�t gone all my way I can modify or change, without too much cost, to what I think is best for me.

Years ago I changed my master socket (probably a statutory barred offence by now) to a filtered one and I did that by researching and using my common sense. All worked fine to date.

I'm not aware that BT or OR have ever produced "a filtered one", other than the sort of replacement faceplate that they're now using for FTTC. I can only assume that instead you're referring to the version of NTE5 that BT produced some while ago that has a Ring-wire choke built into the removeable faceplate?

Quite apart from the fact that you're not supposed to meddle with the main body of the NTE5 master socket, are you sure you've fully understood what can and what should be done at the master socket? There are, of course, some approved third-party faceplates around, as well as various plug-in adapters and filters to enable you to connect phones.

There's a saying that goes "A little learning can be a dangerous thing". When users choose to modify their internal wiring (the bit on the user side of the NTE5), they should bear that in mind. Getting it basically right certainly isn't rocket science but some individuals may find that their own wiring schemes may produce weird results because they've misunderstood some quite crucial point.

As an aside, one thing that should be kept in mind when any re-wiring of the faceplate is contemplated is that there may be only a limited amount of cable left at those internal connections. Particularly if a faceplate is being replaced, every IDC disconnect will shorten the lead by another precious half-an-inch or so. Furthermore, if you try to re-use an IDC slot, there's only so many punchdowns you can do, before a further wire will fail to make proper contact. Two is normally the maximum. The correct gauge of wire is important also. If you run out of cable length, you may well be left with being unable to replace the faceplate or to use the cable restraint. The only remedy then might be to completely re-install the entire extension! This could possibly involve days of work and also have a number of knock-on effects. For anyone with, say, an ADSLNation-type faceplate and an extension implemented in Cat5e cable (and particularly for the screened version), the problem will be particularly severe, as the length inside the backbox has to be pared down to the minimum to pack it all in (and to avoid kinking the cable which would ruin its performance). The last thing you'd then want to have happen is for some over-zealous OR engineer to come along and gayly snip it all away, in the mistaken belief that fitting a new OR faceplate will render a 'proper' result.

As I've stated before in the Fibre Broadband forum, if you care about having a decent installation, then it's highly advisable that you assess the existing wiring well before you place your order for FTTC and that, if necessary and you've the appropriate skills, to revamp your extension(s) youself accordingly. Otherwise, leave it all to the OR engineer and just pray that it all goes without a hitch.

Edited by deleted (Fri 20-May-11 16:48:42)

Meditator. Yes I am talking about the face plate as the filter which allows you to plug in your phone and ADSL into an NTE5. Saved putting a filter on every socket, only the faceplate is needed. It isolates the extensions wiring from the DSL connection. Would be silly to admit any more I think.

You stand or fall by the decisions you make in life and I am aware that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous � one reason on here to try improve my knowledge.

I�m more of a half full glass person than a half empty one, will probably meet my Waterloo one day but they will have to hurry up as time is getting short.

Out of interest I let you know how things go � good or bad.

Ah, I see now. You've in fact replaced the lower part of an NTE5 with one of those faceplates that give you both ADSL and telephone connections at the front and a choice of filtered and non-filtered IDC connections on the back. I guess you're referring to the product from either ADSLNation or Clarity. Jolly good faceplates, those. I'm now using one myself. With those, your extension(s) doesn't have to be confined to just phone usage, as using the unfiltered IDC connections, you can extend the ADSL line further around the house. This is often a neater way of extending the ADSL than using the front connection where you'd end up with a trailing lead. Also, by using the IDC connections, you can use much better quality cable than you'd have with a trailing lead.

Anyway, I think we'll have to close the discussion there, as the last half dozen or so postings have rather strayed from the original title of the thread.

I was drawn to this thread because of the prospect of using the Billion 7800n with fibre when I take the step. The routers provided by ISP�s don�t inspire me and having looked at the many options I keep coming back to this Billion router.

A chain is as strong as its weakest link and that is why I asked about the wiring from the master socket. No point getting a top router if the rest of the chain is poor.

Found the discussion around the Billion router on here most informative

Actually, I'm still asking myself the same sort of question about the Billion 7800. Having seen some of the replies and also having done some research on other routers in the interim, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Billion might not necessarily be the best choice.

Speaking generally, if the reason you want something like the Billion is because you're about to switch to FTTC, then certainly it appears to be a good, though expensive, choice from the point of view of wireless range. However, other than being a router suitable for FTTC usage, the Billion also incorporates a separate router-modem for ADSL. The latter would therefore remain redundant and unused. So, you'd be paying quite a lot of money for something for which you'd only half use. I suppose you could argue that the ADSL router-modem part can be regarded as a backup. But what sort of backup, exactly? You're certainly not going to be able to get BT to switch you back to ADSL in just five minutes! The least period you'd have to wait is that for your FTTC contract to expire, and then you'd have to negotiate a new ADSL2/2+ account with the same or a different ISP.

Another plausible choice, in my view, would be the Netgear WNDR3700. This is a dual-band N-type router-only device, which (like most) can be used in either wired or wireless mode. It's reckoned to have fairly good range and also good throughput, though there have been the odd one or two reviewers who've contested that view. It's again quite expensive, but at least the price should in theory reflect the quality of the design/performance which, in this case, is not getting wasted on something you're unlikely to ever use.

I started off my online research with a shortlist of nine, some of which were router-only devices and some of which were router-modems. Seven out of the nine were Netgear models.

In reply to a post by meditator:

as using the unfiltered IDC connections, you can extend the ADSL line further around the house

I don't know if BT are starting to use them but Pressac now make a VDSL faceplate with an unfiltered IDC connection.

You can see it on page seven here: http://www.presscomm.co.uk/pdf/Pressac_Brochure_AW.pdf

I'm going to get the Asus RT-N16, it's not Gigabit or dual band but that doesn't bother me. You can use open source firmware and tweak the wireless strength/attatch bigger antennas if need be. It's got plenty off horsepower for FTTC and can be overclocked aswell if needed.

I was going to get a draytek but can't bring myself to spend that much on something that is ovrerkill for a home enviroment. If I ever need Gigabit then maybe but not atm. It might be something you want to consider though.

Personally, at present I don't need wireless at all. I'm not only a fan of wired router/modems but also I've no special need for wireless comms, as there are no laptops in the house. It's just that all routers these days are wired-plus-wireless by default. Having wireless there, for me, can nonetheless be a standby feature maybe for use at some future date.

I'm quite conscious of the tendency for overkill when selecting a new router and so I agree with you on that point. However, choosing a new router never seems to be straightforward and sometimes in order to get one feature that's implemented particularly well, you have to get the whole shooting match.

If anything, I think the Billion 7800N is most suited to non-fibre usage, since on the ADSL2/2+ side of things it has a modem section which can be user-tweaked via telnet and also the wireless performance is reckoned to be very good, particularly if you fit all of the antennae.