OT, Period internet connections?

[Flyfisher]

I know that Hull has a different telephone system history to the rest of the UK, but I don't know if there are any technical differences - though I doubt it. Once upon a time, the telephone company had sole responsibility for all telephone wiring and subscribers were not allowed to add any extensions etc. Deregulation changed all that, causing some confusion, and led to the introduction of a 'master socket' whereby BT would terminate their exchange wiring inside the home with a 'master' socket.

This master socket is the 'demarcation point' between BT and the customer. BT is responsible for all wiring on the exchange side and the customer is then responsible for all the extension wiring inside the home on the other side of the master socket. When ever there is a problem, BT will advise the customer to plug a telephone (or router) into the master socket. This isolates all the internal wiring and shoudl identify where the fault is located. If the telephone/router doesn;t work when plugged into the master socket then it's BT's responsibility and they will come out and fix it free of charge. If the problem is on the 'house side' of the master socket then BT will still offer to help but will charge the customer because that wiring is not BT's responsibility.

Two friends in recent years have had broadband problems (one was just last month) due to very old telephone wiring inside their houses but BT's solution in both cases was simply to install a modern-style master socket and then test the line from that socket back to the exchange. This left my friends (well, me actually!) to install the new extension cables they wanted within the house.

All of which is a long-winded way of suggesting that you arrange to have a modern master socket installed by your telephone company and add your new extension sockets from there. Kits are available for this and the work is very easy to do - certainly within the capability of anyone who can read and is reasonably 'handy'. This approach will ensure your telephone wiring is to the latest standards and is the best starting point for sorting out any broadband noise or filtering problems.

 

[AMc]

wobs - I would start with KC and get them to install a proper termination at a new master socket then you can work out what to do with the other sockets & wiring.
In general you're recommended to plug your router into the master socket to minimise the amount of interference from extensions.

 

[Penners]

wobs - I would start with KC and get them to install a proper termination at a new master socket then you can work out what to do with the other sockets & wiring.
In general you're recommended to plug your router into the master socket to minimise the amount of interference from extensions.

I quite agree. Your present installation sounds like a lash-up. Get KC to do the job properly. While they're doing it, you might find it worthwhile/cheap to get the technician to install your sockets as you want them. I once had an engineer in for some line repairs and he was amenable to a... ahem... "private arrangement" in exchange* for a piece of paper or two.

* No pun intended, but I'll take the credit. :wink:

 

[wobs]

Thank you all. Knowledgable as ever.

Further investigations reveal the following links regarding phone socket arrangements:
http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/line_jacks.htm
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/socket.htm
http://www.rob-r.co.uk/other/UKphonecatwiring.htm
http://www.britishtelephones.com/pst1.htm

Seems that having the router plugged into an adsl filtered NTE5 faceplate is the best arrangement.
Just hope I can work out a flexible arrangement to acheive something like this.

KC are coming to have a look, but its good to get a bit of background info first.

 

[Flyfisher]

When I had a second phone line installed at a previous house, the BT engineer was quite happy to put the master socket in any room I wanted by running their wire around the outside of the house and drilling through the wall as required. In our current house, I had the master socket installed in an attic, next to a patch panel that allows me to connect it to any (or many) data outlet(s) around the house.

I only mention this to highlight that they are quite flexible, so don't just assume they can only put the master socket just inside the door or wherever the existing exchange wiring enters the house.

I also wouldn't worry too much about having an inconvenient position for the router just to enable it to be connected directly to the master socket. A few extra metres of cable compared to the length of wiring to the local exchange won't make much difference to performance as long as decent extension cable is used and solid connections are made. Anyway, it would be very easy to check the broadband speed with the router connected to the master socket and also when connected to an extension point. I'd be extremely surprised if they are any different.

But whatever you do, a master socket installation is the best way to start. Good luck!

 

[Penners]

don't just assume they can only put the master socket just inside the door or wherever the existing exchange wiring enters the house....

...and don't let a hurried engineer who's anxious to get home for his tea persuade you that this is the only place he can put it!



I'm such a cynic.

 

[AMc]

I agree with Flyfisher that I think the use of the master socket vs. an extension for ADSL is over emphasised BUT if you get the opportunity to get it moved to a sensible location then I would.

If you use WiFi, putting the wireless access point/router in a central location will ensure good coverage through most houses but make sure there is power near by.

If you have or think you may get a new TV/PVR/games console etc. then having the router in the room behind the TV will provide some ethernet sockets that will allow you to use a wired connection which is cheaper than buying WiFi dongles for TVs and is more stable for video streaming etc.

 

[Flyfisher]

We're getting perilously close to mentioning the advantages of having cat5/6 data wiring throughout the house . . . a hobby horse of mine that I've been resisting taking out for another canter around PPUK. :wink:

 

[Penners]

FF - I can't remember whether I've asked you this before, but is dedicated Cat 5/6 data cabling a faster solution than using powerline units? Given that not all of us have the opportunity to incorporate your ideal solution into the building, I wondered how satisfactory an alternative powerline would be.

 

[rogerh]

Cat 5e/6 has theoretical maximum speeds of 1000 Mbit/s whereas the latest power line type, e.g. HomePlug, offer 500 Mbit/s (and older ones 200 Mbit/s), although unless you're file sharing across your own network you're unlikely to make use of the extra speed.

 

[Flyfisher]

Dedicated cat5/6 data wiring will be reliably faster than powerline networking because (properly installed) it will not be at the mercy of interference on the mains wiring. In this respect, powerline networking is a bit like wi-fi - performance can be affected by outside influences and will also degrade (slow down) quite quickly as the distance increases.

I use a mixture of dedicated data wiring, powerline units and wi-fi and, with the single exception of streaming video, powerline and wi-fi perform 'well enough' in practice. If you have particularly demanding requirements (e.g. copying very large files between two PCs perhaps) then dedicated data wiring will perform best, but for most general purpose domestic applications such as internet access, music streaming, file access between multiple PCS etc, then powerline devices will almost certainly suffice - unless you have particularly atrocious mains wiring or live next door to an industrial electric motor test facility.

Dedicated wiring is probably only worth installing if other major works are in progress. Otherwise, powerline units are a very simple and non-invasive solution to home networking.

NB: my comments about video streaming over powerline are based on some old, first-generation, 85Mbps units. As Rogerh has pointed out, the standards have been uprated in recent years and performance of the latest units might be far better. However, be aware that the 'headline' speeds will almost certainly only be achieved in short bursts and that the average speed will almost certainly be far lower - which is the decisive factor for applications such as video streaming.

 

[AMc]

Powerline units are a pretty good alternative but there are a few limitations. If you have 3 phase power or multiple consumer units you may not be able to get them to work at all. If you have electrically noisy mains devices, pumps etc. then they can generate interference that degrades the performance.

I have seen some discussion about powerline units causing radio interference and the fastest ones even causing problems for FM but how serious this is I don't honestly know.

When we did the big work I stuck cat6 grade cable and faceplates all over the house and I have 3 WiFi access points to cope with the thick brick partition walls. The cabled connections are great but then I have a multiple computers, one set up as Sky+ style TV recorder, game consoles, network music players, laptops and smart phones so I think probably atypical. But as more and more modern TVs come with iPlayer etc. built in I can see having wired networking becoming more desirable.

If you want a bit of information on WiFi and Homeplugs then the FAQ at this forum is a good place to start and a reasonable place to ask questions too. I post there with the same username.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/networking-nas/

PS. If you only want to connect a single wired device then running a long RJ45 to RJ45 cable around the skirting board to the router/modem will provide a very cheap and efficient connection.

The videos here are also quite clear and informative
http://www.solwise.co.uk/reference-articles.htm

 

[Penners]

Thanks to all of you for those views.

FF, you say that you use a mixture of dedicated data wiring, powerline units and wi-fi. Just out of interest, if my computer is connected to my router by both ethernet and wi-fi (assuming that's possible - I've never tried!) is the bandwidth between the two devices the sum of the two - thus increasing the speed? And will the two data streams be suitably synchronised?

Or am I completely misunderstanding some basic principle?

 

[Flyfisher]

Although I use various networking methods, the connected devices are only connected to one at a time. My PCs and router are connected to the fixed data wiring, the powerline units extend the network to a music streamer located where there is no nearby fixed wiring outlet and the wi-fi is used for my laptop, which I only use for email and web browsing.

I've occasionally connected the laptop to fixed wiring if wi-fi reception has been poor and performance has definitely improved, though I suspect that's soley because of the superiority of the direct 100Mbps ethernet connection than because of an increased bandwidth.

The precise behaviour of a device connected to fixed wiring and (say) wi-fi will depend entirely on the device driver of the connected device. My laptop has a networking driver that 'bridges' the physical ethernet port and the physical wi-fi port into a single 'logical' network connection. I don't know exactly how it handles the two connections but I suspect it uses one at a time depending on what's being asked of it or, more likely, the fastest one whenever possible. For example, if a wi-fi router was used for internet access and the fixed wiring was used to connect to another PC, then a file could be accessed on the other PC from the fixed wiring at the same time that internet access was obtained over the wi-fi link. Having said that, the networking software also maintains 'routing tables' by which it 'learns' about the various network connection, so the recent history of connections will also have an effect.

But, because network traffic is broken into 'packets' for transmission, it would certainly be possible to send parts of a message over both network connections, and it is the job of the network software to divide the message (or file) into small chunks (packets), to correctly address each packet, ensure they are sent with no errors (or resend if there is an error) then reassemble them in the correct order and pass them to the receiving application. Because the message is sent in packets, there is no reason for every packet to follow the same route through the network. Indeed, a different route through the internet may be used each day (or hour, or minute) depending on other traffic. This is the beauty of the internet and what gives it resilience to failures.

Basically, it's all very complex and because of this complexity, it's almost impossible to determine the precise traffic behaviour on a network segment without some very sophisticated network monitoring and analysis software, which the network operators use all the time of course to manage their networks, and optimising network performance is a highly skilled job - which can pay very well indeed if you can get a job with a multi-national company that is dependent on its networks for its very existence (investment banking for example).

Fortunately, most home networks 'just work' when plugged together so we don't have to worry about such complexity!

 

[skier-hughes]

We have BT vision, where all off air transmissions come to us via powerline adaptors, works fine. Also extends the network to the log cabin, which the wireless doesn't reach, pretty darn good in the summer.

 

[Penners]

Fortunately, most home networks 'just work' when plugged together so we don't have to worry about such complexity!

Amen to that! Having read your briefing in answer to my question, I'm exceedingly glad that I don't have to do much other than 'plug it together'!

Many thanks for taking the trouble to explain.

 

[AMc]

FF, you say that you use a mixture of dedicated data wiring, powerline units and wi-fi. Just out of interest, if my computer is connected to my router by both ethernet and wi-fi (assuming that's possible - I've never tried!) is the bandwidth between the two devices the sum of the two - thus increasing the speed? And will the two data streams be suitably synchronised?

An important factor in this is that many (most?) domestic networks are used for internet access over a cable or ADSL line and not much else.

As 'g' WiFi is theoretically "up to 54Mbits/second" (in practice lower) and the average domestic ADSL connection "is up to 20Mbit/sec" (in practice averaging around 6Mbit/sec) then even a slow WiFi connection is still faster than a domestic internet connection. Getting data to and from the router faster won't improve your internet experience at all.

If you want to move large files - especially video - around the local network then wired connections are substantially faster 100Mbit/sec or even 1000Mbit/sec.
That's why I went to the time and trouble of cabling the house.

I did have the PC I built as a TV recorder connected through a WiFi USB dongle and an ethernet cable at the same time. Both network interfaces were given their own IP address which was annoying as I was trying to fix the wired connection to the same IP as the wireless one which was only there as a stop gap.
I'm not 100% sure but from memory but all the data was routed through the faster ethernet connection. This was WIndows7 I dare say that other Operating Systems will work differently.

 

[rogerh]

With OS X it'll default to wired Ethernet although you can override this.

Internet speeds will, of course, get faster and already Virgin offers 50 Mbit/s and BT Infinity 40 Mbit/s (with 300 Mbit/s promised for six exchanges next year). 802.11n wireless claims to be able to handle speeds of 100 to 140 Mbit/s.

 

[Penners]

Our village is talking seriously to a provider of something called a Community Internet Service. It is, in effect, a large wi-fi network, where each house is connected via an antenna to a Community Access Point. Depending on what you're prepared to pay as a subscription, you can get up to 35 Mbps download and 100GB data allowance. Those top-rate specs are expensive (£64.99/mth), but for £14.99/mth you can get 12 Mbps and 20GB - more than enough for most domestic needs.

There's an initial premium to pay for the infrastructure, but provided 50% of the households in the area subscribe, it's not exhorbitant.

It'll be interesting to see whether it receives enough support to go ahead.

 

[Flyfisher]

An important factor in this is that many (most?) domestic networks are used for internet access over a cable or ADSL line and not much else.

As 'g' WiFi is theoretically "up to 54Mbits/second" (in practice lower) and the average domestic ADSL connection "is up to 20Mbit/sec" (in practice averaging around 6Mbit/sec) then even a slow WiFi connection is still faster than a domestic internet connection. Getting data to and from the router faster won't improve your internet experience at all.

Yes, that's certainly the case at present, though there are a lot of things happening that will put pressure on the 'need' for faster internet connections.

But even with 100Mbps (or more) to the home, I feel sure that no one will really feel too constrained by a 'slow' wi-fi connection as far as email and web browsing is concerned. However, if it ever becomes the norm to access all 'television' via the web and if 'cloud computing' really does catch on (which it won't in my house!) then faster home networks will be a distinct advantage. But by then I'd expect a new wi-fi standard will have increased speeds yet again.