I think you misunderstand that last bit .

An NTE5 is a master socket, with hidden circuitry of some sort - behind the test socket. It's duplicating that circuitry that is to be avoided.

A normal faceplate is an NTE5A to fit on an NTE5. A filtered faceplate can be fitted instead, as we all know.

The XTE-68/85 I linked to is the equivalent replacement at an unfiltered extension of a filtered faceplate on an NTE5. It replaces a standard extension phone socket with a DSL socket and a filtered phone socket, in exactly the same way as a filtered faceplate at the NTE5 replaces the NTE5A.

It is perfectly acceptable to use that sort of thing for the setup you describe. That's what it is designed for.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think you misunderstand that last bit .

An NTE5 is a master socket, with hidden circuitry of some sort - behind the test socket. It's duplicating that circuitry that is to be avoided.

A normal faceplate is an NTE5A to fit on an NTE5. A filtered faceplate can be fitted instead, as we all know.

The XTE-68/85 I linked to is the equivalent replacement at an unfiltered extension of a filtered faceplate on an NTE5. It replaces a standard extension phone socket with a DSL socket and a filtered phone socket, in exactly the same way as a filtered faceplate at the NTE5 replaces the NTE5A.

It is perfectly acceptable to use that sort of thing for the setup you describe. That's what it is designed for.

Would a phone that normally requires a bell wire, connected in the extension, still ring if using the XTE-68/85 fitted to a standard extension socket where the bell wire is not used, i.e. does it contain a capacitor?

So rather than use an additional NTE5 you are suggesting the use of a standard extension socket with a XTE-68/85 faceplate fitted in the set up that I described.

However I possibly foresee (?) the unfiltered xDSL twisted pair connection from the A&B connections on the back of the master NTE5 filtered faceplate to the extension socket (fitted with a XTE-68/85) to be more susceptible to noise than a "normal" filtered voice extension from the back of the master filtered faceplate to a standard extension socket that is used for a phone only...in other words the convenience of having two locations in a premises where both a phone and router can be connected to a filtered faceplate may be outweighed by the disadvantage of having an unfiltered extension.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Would a phone that normally requires a bell wire, connected in the extension, still ring if using the XTE-68/85 fitted to a standard extension socket where the bell wire is not used, i.e. does it contain a capacitor?

IIRC I asked them this a few years back and the answer was yes. Both the XTE-2005 and XTF-68/85 contain the same circuitry as the XF-1e.

Note - these are "active" DSL filters, not passive. I confess I don't know the difference. There seems to be a groundswell of opinion on these forums in favour of passive.

So rather than use an additional NTE5 you are suggesting the use of a standard extension socket with a XTE-68/85 faceplate fitted in the set up that I described.

Yes. That is the correct way of doing it.

However I possibly foresee (?) the unfiltered xDSL twisted pair connection from the A&B connections on the back of the master NTE5 filtered faceplate to the extension socket (fitted with a XTE-68/85) to be more susceptible to noise than a "normal" filtered voice extension from the back of the master filtered faceplate to a standard extension socket that is used for a phone only...in other words the convenience of having two locations in a premises where both a phone and router can be connected to a filtered faceplate may be outweighed by the disadvantage of having an unfiltered extension.

You a seem to be combining two different aspects there.

If you run a filtered extension for phone only you can't achieve your wish. If you use the way we have discussed that is the same as a normal installation with dangly filters at every "in use" extension, just neater.

Given decent quality twisted pair extension cable the noise fom an unfiltered pair should be minimal. That's partly what twisted pair is about. The noise created in each wire of the pair cancels out the other. Back to why a single bell wire is liable to pick up and transmit noise - there isn't anything on the other wire of the pair to cancel it.

Similarly, that's why it is essential in wiring to use a matched pair of wires, e.g. blue/white with white/blue, not blue/white with orange. The first case has self-cancellation of noise. The second has two accumulative sources of it.

Should DSL ever be available at an extension? That's a different question altogether, worthy of a new thread. My own opinion is that as long as decent extension cabling is used there should be negligible impact for ADSLx, but for VDSL2 Openreach seem quite concerned. Though they are willing to install the data extension kit to move the NTE5.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

If you run a filtered extension for phone only you can't achieve your wish. If you use the way we have discussed that is the same as a normal installation with dangly filters at every "in use" extension, just neater.

Given decent quality twisted pair extension cable the noise fom an unfiltered pair should be minimal. That's partly what twisted pair is about. The noise created in each wire of the pair cancels out the other. Back to why a single bell wire is liable to pick up and transmit noise - there isn't anything on the other wire of the pair to cancel it.

Similarly, that's why it is essential in wiring to use a matched pair of wires, e.g. blue/white with white/blue, not blue/white with orange. The first case has self-cancellation of noise. The second has two accumulative sources of it.

Should DSL ever be available at an extension? That's a different question altogether, worthy of a new thread. My own opinion is that as long as decent extension cabling is used there should be negligible impact for ADSLx, but for VDSL2 Openreach seem quite concerned. Though they are willing to install the data extension kit to move the NTE5.

That's a great summary

RE: OR data extension kit can be up to 30 metres in length so I guess that can be considered OK...

In reply to a post by 4M2:

RE: OR data extension kit can be up to 30 metres in length so I guess that can be considered OK...

Yes, but it isn't standard CW1308 telephone extension cable. It was posted what it is, a while ago, but I didn't bookmark or note it. As I understand it, the 30m is not a maximum either. It's just the standard issue length.

Not like this http://www.clarity.it/xcart/product.php?productid=16... then?

Looks OK to me for ADSLx. Whether it is the same as is used for VDSL2 (FTTC) data extensions I don't know, but currently FTTC is single VDSL2-enabled socket anyway.

In that situation it could certainly be used to carry the ethernet output from the modem to the extension, with another pair carrying the phone connection. So the (cable) router could be at either. Making you reasonably future-proofed.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Looks OK to me for ADSLx. Whether it is the same as is used for VDSL2 (FTTC) data extensions I don't know, but currently FTTC is single VDSL2-enabled socket anyway.

In that situation it could certainly be used to carry the ethernet output from the modem to the extension, with another pair carrying the phone connection. So the (cable) router could be at either. Making you reasonably future-proofed.

That certainly would be my preference