A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Extending FTTC from a master socket



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 18th 18, 11:05 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
news
On 16/05/2018 11:24, NY wrote:
One of the problems is that Cat 5 is a lot thicker than standard
telephone extension wiring, so it is harder to tuck down the side of a
carpet or to run through a doorway under the metal strip that divides the
carpet in one room from that another room. It may require unsightly
surface-mounted wiring and maybe even holes drilled through walls and
ceilings.


All his ceilings and a lot of the internal walls are missing. This will
make the electrical rewire easier, and was necessary because rewiring a
house covered in asbestos-rich Artex was perhaps a little more dangerous
than one would wish.

He's also putting a load of Cat5 (grade1 geek, as are most of us) so using
some of that won't be a problem.



It would be a good idea if modern houses were wired for Ethernet back to a
central point for the router (preferably in a central upstairs room with the
master socket in it, for best wifi coverage). I've used wifi enough to know
that I only want to use it as a last resort, and always to prefer Ethernet
if there's a socket and my device has Ethernet. Wifi is slow for large
PC-to-PC transfers and has a habit of failing occasionally, requiring either
PC or router to be rebooted, which is a bugger if I'm away from home and
trying to connect to my home PC using Teamserver...

  #22  
Old May 18th 18, 11:17 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

On Fri, 18 May 2018 22:05:33 +0100, NY wrote:

It would be a good idea if modern houses were wired for Ethernet back to
a central point for the router (preferably in a central upstairs room
with the master socket in it, for best wifi coverage). I've used wifi
enough to know that I only want to use it as a last resort, and always
to prefer Ethernet if there's a socket and my device has Ethernet. Wifi
is slow for large PC-to-PC transfers and has a habit of failing
occasionally, requiring either PC or router to be rebooted, which is a
bugger if I'm away from home and trying to connect to my home PC using
Teamserver...


Of course, if there is wiring, you can put the wireless access point
where you like anyway, and put the router etc. anywhere convenient.

Our telephone line, for historical reasons, comes in upstairs, into what
was a large bedroom and is now the 'office'. There is a rack beside it,
with all ethernet cabling coming back to that. The router and two
switches are all in the rack.

The wireless access points are central both upstairs and downstairs,
plugged into convenient sockets.
  #23  
Old May 19th 18, 12:13 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Roderick Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 527
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

On Fri, 18 May 2018 22:05:33 +0100, "NY" wrote:

It would be a good idea if modern houses were wired for Ethernet back to a
central point for the router (preferably in a central upstairs room with the
master socket in it, for best wifi coverage).
[...]


I'm glad I'm not the only person who has thought this. It's well over
half a century since television and telephones began to become
commonplace, yet houses are still being built with no provision for
the attendant wiring. It's quite usual to see it draped over roof
tiles and nailed down the outside walls like an afterthought, through
holes drilled in window frames, and along the tops of skirting boards.

Surprisingly, other utilities like gas, water, sewage disposal and
electrical power haven't been around a great deal longer, and yet all
these things generally are built in. The Victorians even managed to
conceal the pipework for their mechanical cable-operated doorbells and
servant bells.

It shouldn't be very difficult or expensive to incorporate some sort
of service ducting into the basic design of a house, perhaps as you
suggest from each room to a common point, and another one to some high
point outside for aerials, or wires to telephone poles. They have
service ducting in commercial properties, so why not houses? It could
be done quite neatly, perhaps with extra ducting within rooms in the
form of hollow skirting boards with removable covers so connection
points for anything you want can be placed anywhere in the room.
Hardly anybody does this, but with the increasing use of various
electrical services all requiring different wiring, and perhaps
optical fibres soon, there's a good argument for making service
ducting part of building regulations so it gets included in all new
houses as standard.

I'd be happy to connect my PC to the router by ethernet, but I'd have
to dig up a concrete floor to do it, or perhaps tack the wiring along
skirting boards, or chase it through the plaster (and redecorate
afterwards) all of them such awkward methods that I have to dismiss
them. I've had to opt instead for the only readily available solution,
which is to use wiring that's already present. I know that some people
don't like those powerline devices, but they work. Maybe in another
hundred years they'll be building houses with service ducting for
communications and AV systems and the like, and maybe some of my
distant descendants will get the benefit of it, but that's no use to
me right now, so I'll stick with what I've got.

Rod.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #24  
Old May 19th 18, 06:04 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket



"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2018 22:05:33 +0100, "NY" wrote:

It would be a good idea if modern houses were wired for Ethernet back to a
central point for the router (preferably in a central upstairs room with
the
master socket in it, for best wifi coverage).


It shouldn't be very difficult or expensive to incorporate some sort
of service ducting into the basic design of a house, perhaps as you
suggest from each room to a common point, and another one to some high
point outside for aerials, or wires to telephone poles. They have
service ducting in commercial properties, so why not houses? It could
be done quite neatly, perhaps with extra ducting within rooms in the
form of hollow skirting boards with removable covers so connection
points for anything you want can be placed anywhere in the room.
Hardly anybody does this, but with the increasing use of various
electrical services all requiring different wiring, and perhaps
optical fibres soon, there's a good argument for making service
ducting part of building regulations so it gets included in all new
houses as standard.


The problem would be deciding the common point to which the Ethenet cable
would feed. You'd probably find that most builders would feed it to a
ridiculous location which had very poor wifi coverage, so you'd need to buy
a separate wifi access point and disable the one in your router which would
be frustrating to have a perfectly good access point in the router that
couldn't be used to its full potential because the common point for the
Ethernet was in a cupboard under the stairs.

  #25  
Old May 19th 18, 09:56 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Roderick Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 527
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

On Sat, 19 May 2018 17:04:34 +0100, "NY" wrote:

It would be a good idea if modern houses were wired for Ethernet back to a
central point for the router (preferably in a central upstairs room with
the
master socket in it, for best wifi coverage).


It shouldn't be very difficult or expensive to incorporate some sort
of service ducting into the basic design of a house, perhaps as you
suggest from each room to a common point, and another one to some high
point outside for aerials, or wires to telephone poles. They have
service ducting in commercial properties, so why not houses? It could
be done quite neatly, perhaps with extra ducting within rooms in the
form of hollow skirting boards with removable covers so connection
points for anything you want can be placed anywhere in the room.
Hardly anybody does this, but with the increasing use of various
electrical services all requiring different wiring, and perhaps
optical fibres soon, there's a good argument for making service
ducting part of building regulations so it gets included in all new
houses as standard.


The problem would be deciding the common point to which the Ethenet cable
would feed. You'd probably find that most builders would feed it to a
ridiculous location which had very poor wifi coverage, so you'd need to buy
a separate wifi access point and disable the one in your router which would
be frustrating to have a perfectly good access point in the router that
couldn't be used to its full potential because the common point for the
Ethernet was in a cupboard under the stairs.


Not a major problem if one of the service ducts went to a suitable
position in the house for a wireless access point. The cost of the
electronics would be trivial compared with the cost of recabling the
house to enable a combined modem/router/wireless unit to be placed
there. If this became a popular arrangement, I daresay there might be
more of a market for modem/routers without wireless, which you can
actually buy now if that's what you want, though it would probably
still be cheaper for manufacturers to make all internet boxes the
same, with all facilities, and for the customer simply to disable what
they didn't need, much the same as we do with most domestic
electronics now. Does anybody actually use all the adjustments and
facilities on anything?

My guess is that the internet and phone equipment would probably end
up wherever the electricity meter is placed, as it would be tidiest to
keep all the gubbins together, except for anything that for some
technical reason has to go somewhere else, e.g. a wireless point.

As for the ducting, it should be supplied by the builders with
drawstrings, so that the customers can install what they want. The
first computer network I ever saw - not that long ago - used a pair of
coaxial cables from a central server to each workstation, then there
was a system with a single coaxial cable looped round all the
workstations, then there was 10Mb/s Ethernet, then 100Mb/s, then
Gigabit, all within about half a human lifetime, so who knows what
will be next or how soon it will be here.

Rod.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #26  
Old May 20th 18, 10:32 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2018 22:05:33 +0100, "NY" wrote:

It would be a good idea if modern houses were wired for Ethernet back to a
central point for the router (preferably in a central upstairs room with the
master socket in it, for best wifi coverage).
[...]


I'm glad I'm not the only person who has thought this. It's well over
half a century since television and telephones began to become
commonplace, yet houses are still being built with no provision for
the attendant wiring. It's quite usual to see it draped over roof
tiles and nailed down the outside walls like an afterthought, through
holes drilled in window frames, and along the tops of skirting boards.

Surprisingly, other utilities like gas, water, sewage disposal and
electrical power haven't been around a great deal longer, and yet all
these things generally are built in. The Victorians even managed to
conceal the pipework for their mechanical cable-operated doorbells and
servant bells.


[snip]

Builders certainly haven't got other ustilities right! Consider the
water pipes used to connect radiators - they are usually laid in the
concrete floor. While the house is being built, some pipes are laid and
covered with concrete, then later the rest are connected and the system
filled with water. So any leaks under the floor already involve digging
up the concrete! Such faults are usually noticed by the new householder
a week after moving in, and all the new carpets and furniture have to
moved to allow for the repair.

Later, the pipes chafe against sharp grains of sand and eventually wear
through, so there are more leaks several years down the line.

I don't know whether the fault lies with architects, builders, or
building control; but you would think that competence on the part of any
one of these entities would avoid such problems.

--
Graham J


  #27  
Old May 20th 18, 12:56 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
The first computer network I ever saw - not that long ago - used a pair of
coaxial cables from a central server to each workstation, then there
was a system with a single coaxial cable looped round all the
workstations, then there was 10Mb/s Ethernet, then 100Mb/s, then
Gigabit, all within about half a human lifetime, so who knows what
will be next or how soon it will be here.


I remember "thick Ethernet" which used a fat coaxial cable with a terminator
at the far end (to stop reflections) and tapping devices that you clamped
onto the cable (only at specific locations) which were connected to the
computers by another fat cable with a MIDI-style D connector. Manipulating
the LAN cable or a drop cable to a computer, to route it around the room,
was like wrestling a snake.

That was then supplanted by "thin Ethernet" which used a thinner coaxial
cable (about the thickness of TV aerial cable) which was daisy-chained from
one computer to the next: each computer had a BNC connector that was
connected to a T piece to join together lengths of the coax. Againt there
was a terminator at the far end of the LAN. Thin Ethernet was very sensitive
to connection problems: if you broke the cable anywhere, to insert another
TV piece for connecting another computer, the LAN (rather obviously!) was
affected. However even if you unplugged a T-piece from an computer's network
card, keeping the continuity of the LAN, there would often be problems.

Modern RJ45 connectors and Cat5 cable, with a separate cable back to the
router/switch/hub for every connected computer, uses a *lot* more cable, but
it does mean that you can unplug and replug devices without affecting the
rest of the traffic on the LAN.

However you can still cause havoc if you make networking howlers like
connecting a computer which is programmed to be a DHCP server, in
competition with the one built into the router or the building's master DHCP
server. I mention this last point because I once did this, unwittingly. I
was working in a lab where we were installing servers which were designed to
be used on self-contained LANs, so that had DHCP server turned on. As such,
they had to be tested on a private LAN which was totally separate from the
company LAN. Transferring files (eg software) onto a test computer was a
problem if you'd developed it on your desktop PC on the company LAN - it had
to be done by memory stick or external HDD so as not to connect your PC (on
the company LAN) to the test server (on the private LAN). Without thinking
(a mortal sin!) I connected the server to the company LAN to copy a file,
and then almost immediately unplugged it again when I realised what I'd
done. Even in the time that it took to copy the file and then disconnect the
server, the support desk were getting loads of calls. Anyone who turned on
their PC after that, anywhere in the building, stood a 50:50 chance of being
supplied with a network address that related to the test server's subnet
instead of the company LAN's subnet. An email went round the following day
saying that the outage was caused by a rogue DHCP server that had briefly
been detected on the network. Fortunately my manager could see that it was a
genuine brain-fade moment and shielded me from the flak that Support
directed my way. But our department received a memo warning us about the
risk of doing things like this, and apparently a few other people confessed
that they had carelessly done the same thing in the past.

  #28  
Old May 20th 18, 12:58 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

"Graham J" wrote in message
news
Later, the pipes chafe against sharp grains of sand and eventually wear
through, so there are more leaks several years down the line.

I don't know whether the fault lies with architects, builders, or building
control; but you would think that competence on the part of any one of
these entities would avoid such problems.


Yes, it's a matter of testing the system before committing to laying the
concrete floor, and surrounding the pipes in plastic sleeve, especially at
the point where it emerges from the floor to each radiator, to avoid
chafing. But that is never done...

  #29  
Old May 20th 18, 02:05 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

NY wrote:
"Graham J" wrote in message
news
Later, the pipes chafe against sharp grains of sand and eventually
wear through, so there are more leaks several years down the line.

I don't know whether the fault lies with architects, builders, or
building control; but you would think that competence on the part of
any one of these entities would avoid such problems.


Yes, it's a matter of testing the system before committing to laying the
concrete floor, and surrounding the pipes in plastic sleeve, especially
at the point where it emerges from the floor to each radiator, to avoid
chafing. But that is never done...


But why lay the pipes in the concrete floor at all? One way or another,
it is doomed to failure. Much better to have them in service ducts
where they can be replaced.

The same would apply to electricity cables. Proper ducting would mean
that re-wiring a house would not necessitate remedial work on the walls
and complete redecoration - having said that, it tends only to be houses
up to about 1960 that were built with rubber-insulated cables that need
re-wiring. But proper ducting would allow for modification or
extension. Houses are never built with enough power sockets anyway.

--
Graham J

  #30  
Old May 20th 18, 02:13 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Extending FTTC from a master socket

NY wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...


[snip]


However you can still cause havoc if you make networking howlers like
connecting a computer which is programmed to be a DHCP server, in
competition with the one built into the router or the building's master
DHCP server. I mention this last point because I once did this,
unwittingly. I was working in a lab where we were installing servers
which were designed to be used on self-contained LANs, so that had DHCP
server turned on. As such, they had to be tested on a private LAN which
was totally separate from the company LAN. Transferring files (eg
software) onto a test computer was a problem if you'd developed it on
your desktop PC on the company LAN - it had to be done by memory stick
or external HDD so as not to connect your PC (on the company LAN) to the
test server (on the private LAN).


[snip]

This is easily avoided. Connect an Ethernet router between the company
LAN and the test LAN. This is what I've always done when setting up a
new server for a client. No problem getting internet access, or copying
necessary files from the company LAN. And with the correct ports open
in the router, the new system can be managed from the company LAN (so
the server can be headless). This also can replicate the ultimate
installation, where the server at the client site is managed from my
company LAN via a LAN-to-LAN VPN. Need to ensure the "private" LAN is
on a different subnet otherwise the router or LAN-to-LAN VPN can't cope ...


--
Graham J


 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Test socket on Master Socket not working Kevin Cowans uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 14 November 15th 06 11:17 PM
Master Socket ADSL AMX uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 16 October 5th 05 01:04 AM
Will ADSL signal be affected by length of an extension from the BT master socket? km uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 June 4th 05 04:33 PM
New BB install and BT "Master" socket Peter Crosland uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 1 February 21st 05 07:42 PM
bt master socket and dsl extension - sorry long enquiry LHW uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 February 10th 05 10:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.