Best Set-up for FTTC (SoGEA) Without Landline

As my landline was disconnected because of an upgrade to FTTC (SoGEA), I would like to know what would be the best set-up for speed and stability? My current set-up is as follows:

BT NTE5C MK2 Master Socket (presumably unfiltered): https://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/bt-line-boxes-and-so...

ADSL/VDSL Patch Lead (BT431A to RJ11): https://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/adsl-vdsl-patch-lead...

I had a BT engineer look at a fault recently and he suggested I use a MK4 VDSL Plate & NTE5C Master Socket: https://www.run-it-direct.co.uk/adsl-vdsl-faceplates... as he thinks you can get interference from a phone mast (which is at the end of my road) emitting 4G and 5G (this is news to me!). Would I be better off sticking with my set-up or using the engineers suggestion?

You still have your landline. FTTC won't work without it. Even if/when you upgrade to FTTP you'll still have a landline it'll just be fibre instead of metal. All you've lost is the voice service that used to share the landline with your FTTC service.

That sharing was carefully designed to keep the two separate so removal of the voice service is of no significance to your FTTC. If you already had an optimised FTTC set up it's unlikely it can be made any better. Certainly any such gain would be a few bits per second and not noticeable. Even if the rules were changed to allow FTTC to be expanded into the frequencies that voice used to occupy (never going to happen) you wouldn't gain more than a few hundred kb/s.

If your FTTC is currently stable then it's probably going as fast as it can.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 17-Sep-25 08:24:03)

Whilst I agree with what you say completely Andrue, I would just add that I would put the SSFP on the NTE (the OP would need an RJ11 to RJ11 lead to reach the router)

My thinking is based on the comment about local interference that the OP says the engineer mentioned.

The SSFP has an RF filter built in, so whilst it will do no harm, it might possibly make the line a little more error free, and allow DLM to tweak a little more performance out of the line.

Just belt and braces, but worth a go in my opinion.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Even if the rules were changed to allow FTTC to be expanded into the frequencies that voice used to occupy (never going to happen) you wouldn't gain more than a few hundred kb/s.

More interesting would be if FTTC were expanded into the frequencies that ADSL occupy. That could give some multi-megabit gains, especially for long lines.

But that won't happen until ADSL is completely switched off, because of interference between the two. That won't happen until exchanges are closed in significant numbers, and by then FTTP coverage will be so widespread that tweaks to FTTC become of very marginal interest.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Even if the rules were changed to allow FTTC to be expanded into the frequencies that voice used to occupy (never going to happen) you wouldn't gain more than a few hundred kb/s.

More interesting would be if FTTC were expanded into the frequencies that ADSL occupy. That could give some multi-megabit gains, especially for long lines.

But that won't happen until ADSL is completely switched off, because of interference between the two. That won't happen until exchanges are closed in significant numbers, and by then FTTP coverage will be so widespread that tweaks to FTTC become of very marginal interest.

And by then it would be longest of lines, that would be in that position and the multi 10k builds for fibre installs. its the like of railway bridges/tunnels and the like where it could be used.

The biggest thing with FTTC/VDSL2 I've found is to disconnect any extensions from your master socket (and be sure it's the master; I've seen weird sockets which aren't always what they seem). They act like an antenna for interference.. I got my speed up by a fair bit by doing this. This applies even if you don't have anything connected to extensions.

In reply to a post by seb:

The biggest thing with FTTC/VDSL2 I've found is to disconnect any extensions from your master socket (and be sure it's the master; I've seen weird sockets which aren't always what they seem). They act like an antenna for interference.. I got my speed up by a fair bit by doing this. This applies even if you don't have anything connected to extensions.

The effect Seb describes ought to be rectified by the use of the SSFP also, unless there’s star wiring from a different point of view, say the external feed.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

In reply to a post by seb:

The biggest thing with FTTC/VDSL2 I've found is to disconnect any extensions from your master socket (and be sure it's the master; I've seen weird sockets which aren't always what they seem). They act like an antenna for interference.. I got my speed up by a fair bit by doing this. This applies even if you don't have anything connected to extensions.

The effect Seb describes ought to be rectified by the use of the SSFP also, unless there’s star wiring from a different point of view, say the external feed.

Indeed. I didn't need the extensions so it was quicker to remove.
I think your star wiring may refer to this but sometimes extensions are in the back socket which they *shouldn't* be .. i.e. the "BT side" of things.. you're not supposed to play with those really, technically.. but

I think your star wiring may refer to this but sometimes extensions are in the back socket which they *shouldn't* be .. i.e. the "BT side" of things.. you're not supposed to play with those really, technically.. but smile

Yes, that would be star wiring … a veritable cornucopia of other points it might occur too.
Favourites include in the BT66 on the UG feed, a junction box or ‘sausage’ on the dropwire, in the BT78, wherever they may be ….. etc, etc, etc.

My "master socket" doesn't look like one.. and not that old so quite odd