David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
> In message <598e0bbc44see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>
> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid> wrote:
> > I have been trying to get my head around this too.
> >
> > I understand that in future I can plug a phone into an adaptor that plugs
> > into the router (it does not have its own adaptor built in).
>
> I'd like to read some information about such an adaptor.

I assume Russell is referring to an Analogue Telephone Adapter (ATA), which
is how to convert regular analogue phones to VOIP.

That's easy to do for a third-party phone company, who offer their service
via VOIP. It's unclear how to do so for your broadband provider, since
typically those operate through a socket on your router and they won't let
you have the login details to use your own ATA.

It may be that some ISPs (Orpheus perhaps?) are more enlightened and let you
use your own, I don't know.

There are good reasons to port your number to a third party provider and
have it as a separate service to your broadband - you aren't stuck with
substandard phone deals from your broadband provider.

> > How, though, do I connect the rest of the phone sockets in the house to the
> > system?
>
> That's a purely mechanical problem.

It's called Voice Re-injection and you can get a special faceplate for your
master socket to do it:
https://community.bt.com/t5/Home-phone-including-Digital/NTE5c-Faceplate-for-Digital-Voice/td-p/2171638
https://support.aa.net.uk/VoIP_How_to:_Voice_reinjection

You plug a phone cable from your router or ATA into the green socket, and
that pipes analogue phone signals to your extensions.

On the question about battery backup, you can get small 12v lithium ion UPSes
designed for powering routers rather than to allow safe shutdown of PCs.
Random example:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TalentCell-Rechargeable-3000mAh-Lithium-External/dp/B072HR211P
(*not* a recommendation)
Because there's no inverter, they can run as long as they have battery power
for, rather than a heavy standby load just to run the inverter which makes
a traditional UPS unsuitable for this role.

(these are essentially a few 18650 lithium ion cells in a box with a small
management circuit, so can be made fairly cheaply. I'd expect them to
become much more common as demand ramps up)

Theo

In article <598e0bbc44see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>,
Russell Hafter News <see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid> wrote:
> In article <6ca4568d59.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David
> Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
> > In message <598c889fb6dave@davenoise.co.uk> "Dave Plowman
> > (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Next door went full fibre recently. She says they
> > > simply plugged their existing house phone wiring into
> > > the new router, so all their cordless base stations (4,
> > > I think) worked as before. The problem would likely be
> > > with older phones that needed 48v DC and ringing volts.

> > All analogue phones, and all DECT base stations that
> > connect to analogue phone lines, require the 48V DC and
> > the ringing voltage. The DC is required to signal on/off
> > hook; the ringing voltage is to, well, cause the "ringer"
> > to "ring". So there's no difference, and no problem.

> I have been trying to get my head around this too.

> I understand that in future I can plug a phone into an
> adaptor that plugs into the router (it does not have its own
> adaptor built in).

> How, though, do I connect the rest of the phone sockets in
> the house to the system? I much prefer the sound quality of
> a wired handset over a DECT one.

As I understand it, you can plug the existing phone wiring into the router
phone outlet.

What I'm not clear about is whether an existing old style phone -
completely powered off the phone line - will still work and ring. DECT
should be OK.

> Another point that just seems to be completely ignored:- the
> battery backup for router, adaptor, etc is, I believe,
> considered to be OK if the power is off for just one hour.
> Here we routinely have planned power cuts with the mains
> power off for a full working day - 6 hours. Mobiles are
> unusable for voice calls inside the house.

> I have my own UPSs - but they usually do not last for
> anything like 6 hours.

--
*The statement below is true.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message <aPf*upJzy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>> In message <598e0bbc44see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>
>> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid> wrote:
>>> I have been trying to get my head around this too.
>>>
>>> I understand that in future I can plug a phone into an adaptor that plugs
>>> into the router (it does not have its own adaptor built in).
>>
>> I'd like to read some information about such an adaptor.

> I assume Russell is referring to an Analogue Telephone Adapter (ATA), which
> is how to convert regular analogue phones to VOIP.

> That's easy to do for a third-party phone company, who offer their service
> via VOIP. It's unclear how to do so for your broadband provider, since
> typically those operate through a socket on your router and they won't let
> you have the login details to use your own ATA.

BT seem to be only ones at the moment insisting in you using their system,
and will not generally supply the necessary information to use your own
kit.

> It may be that some ISPs (Orpheus perhaps?) are more enlightened and let you
> use your own, I don't know.

> There are good reasons to port your number to a third party provider and
> have it as a separate service to your broadband - you aren't stuck with
> substandard phone deals from your broadband provider.

Organisations like SIPGate provide alternative VoIP system and give you
the needed info to use your own kit. You usually transfer your existing
line number to them as well.

[snip]

--
Chris Hughes

In message <c0260f8e59.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>
David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> In message <598e0bbc44see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>
> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid> wrote:

>> In article <6ca4568d59.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
>> <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <598c889fb6dave@davenoise.co.uk> "Dave Plowman (News)"
>>> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Next door went full fibre recently. She says they simply plugged their
>>>> existing house phone wiring into the new router, so all their cordless
>>>> base stations (4, I think) worked as before. The problem would likely
>>>> be with older phones that needed 48v DC and ringing volts.
>>
>>> All analogue phones, and all DECT base stations that connect to analogue
>>> phone lines, require the 48V DC and the ringing voltage. The DC is
>>> required to signal on/off hook; the ringing voltage is to, well, cause
>>> the "ringer" to "ring". So there's no difference, and no problem.
>>
>> I have been trying to get my head around this too.
>>
>> I understand that in future I can plug a phone into an adaptor that plugs
>> into the router (it does not have its own adaptor built in).

> I'd like to read some information about such an adaptor.

Theo in another post has given some info on this.

>> How, though, do I connect the rest of the phone sockets in the house to the
>> system?

> That's a purely mechanical problem.

Theo has explained how this can be done in his posting.

>> I much prefer the sound quality of a wired handset over a DECT one.

> I'd be interested to know if the up-market DECT handset that BT offer
> can actually provide sound quality better than an analogue phone. It's
> entirely possible, since BT tell you to pair it with the router (which
> has a DECT base station in it), and it is in theory possible to get an
> end to end connection via (for example) G.729a. DECT has a bandwidth
> of 32 kb/s, so, *IF* it's not tied to the old ADPCM codec traditionally
> used by DECT, that's enough for high quality audio.

The link below give various information on BT's Digital Voice and the
phones they supply, apparently the Digital Voice phones are HD quality

https://kenstechtips.com/index.php/bt-digital-voice

--
Chris Hughes

In article <598bd51238dave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk>
wrote:
> G'day folks, I've been trying to read up about the BT move (Now in
> action) to dump copper wire connections and only have cable, but the
> info I've read is not very illuminating.

> I'm wondering if anyone here can illuminate a couple of points for me?

> 1) If they use FTTC and the BT cabinet is some way down the road as it
> is here, How do they then connect to my house?

> 2) If they connect FTTP and bring the cable right to the wall of my
> house, what happens from their (I guess junction box) to connect inside
> the house to the Networking Router and phones?

I have read all the posts issuing from this.

My router is at the top back of the house, a long way from where the BT
phone line enters the front of the house. I get good coverage from there
so I don't want to move it to the front of the house.
Presumably, my best option is Fibre to the Cabinet so I can keep all my
internal wiring as is. No taking up of floorboards etc.

Who decides if I get FTTC or FTTP: BT or me?

--
Chris Newman

On 20 Nov, Chris Newman wrote in message
<598e6dd3d5cvjazz@waitrose.com>:

> My router is at the top back of the house, a long way from where the BT
> phone line enters the front of the house. I get good coverage from there
> so I don't want to move it to the front of the house.

The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network traffic from
your LAN to your ISP's WAN.

If your concern is WiFi, it's entirely possible to have a separate Wireless
Access Point that's not in the router -- I've got that here, with the AP
pretty much in the centre of the property. The AP in the router, which is
tucked into the front-top-corner of the house by the ONT, is configured to
be off. (Although there's actually no reason why the ONT and router need to
be side by side -- they just need an ethernet cable between them, of
whatever length you choose.)

> Presumably, my best option is Fibre to the Cabinet so I can keep all my
> internal wiring as is. No taking up of floorboards etc.

To be honest, if you're changing product and FTTP is available, I'd go for
it. It's a better service, and not doing so just pushes the problem out by a
year or so.
> Who decides if I get FTTC or FTTP: BT or me?

Probably neither: it will ultimately come down to what Openreach are selling
in your area.

If both FTTP and FTTC are available, it may be your choice. But, if FTTP is
available in your area, and you're not currently on either, then you will
only be able to get FTTC if you're in an area that hasn't put a stop on the
sale of non-FTTP connections. Parts of Leeds are FTTP or nothing now, I
believe, even if FTTC is still running in the area for existing connections.

https://www.openreach.co.uk/cpportal/products/product-withdrawal/stop-sells-updates

If you're already on FTTC and FTTP is also available, then your service will
presumably be phased out at some point and you'll be migrated to FTTP.
However, that's probably over the next decade -- Openreach will presumably
have a priority order for decommissioning the PSTN/FTTC infrastructure based
on what's costing them the most to keep running.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network
> traffic from your LAN to your ISP's WAN.

That is true ... but If you are on ADSL or VDSL (ie FTTC) then ithe
router is connected to the BT Master Socket by telephone wiring. The
strong recommendation is that is a short as possible. I had my master
socket moved round the back of the house to avoid a long extension,
and help improve my speed slightly.

However, for FTTP the ONT (ie BT box) needs to be connected to the
router by Ethernet cable (which can be long) not telephone cable. The
router also needs to be capable of connecting to ethernet WAN (which
many modern ones are). A new suitable router may be provided by your
ISP, but a long connecting cable is up to you.

I recently installed a new router which copes with FTTC now (and FTTP
sometime?), and control a WiFi mesh with high-speed repeaters (which
has improved my WiFi coverage). It also includes a DECT station for
'landline' phones, and can have analogue phones plugged in as well,
all going over VOIP.

Martin

--
Martin Avison
Note that unfortunately this email address will become invalid
without notice if (when) any spam is received.

In article <598e757e6bNews03@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote:

[Snippy]
> However, for FTTP the ONT (ie BT box) needs to be connected to the
> router by Ethernet cable (which can be long) not telephone cable. The
> router also needs to be capable of connecting to ethernet WAN (which
> many modern ones are). A new suitable router may be provided by your
> ISP, but a long connecting cable is up to you.

Anyone have any idea how long the (Say Cat5e) cable from the ONT can be
before it needs a booster?

Thanks
Dave

--

Dave Triffid

In article <598e80d3e0dave@triffid.co.uk>,
Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <598e757e6bNews03@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
> Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote:

> [Snippy]
> > However, for FTTP the ONT (ie BT box) needs to be connected to the
> > router by Ethernet cable (which can be long) not telephone cable. The
> > router also needs to be capable of connecting to ethernet WAN (which
> > many modern ones are). A new suitable router may be provided by your
> > ISP, but a long connecting cable is up to you.

> Anyone have any idea how long the (Say Cat5e) cable from the ONT can be
> before it needs a booster?

> Thanks
> Dave

I've just questioned Mr Google and it informs 100 metres.

Dave

--

Dave Triffid

On 20 Nov, Dave wrote in message
<598e80d3e0dave@triffid.co.uk>:

> Anyone have any idea how long the (Say Cat5e) cable from the ONT can be
> before it needs a booster?

100m is the figure in the Ethernet spec, I think.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > My router is at the top back of the house, a long way from where the BT
> > phone line enters the front of the house. I get good coverage from there
> > so I don't want to move it to the front of the house.

> The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network traffic from
> your LAN to your ISP's WAN.

But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes into the house?

Didn't matter before, as a few more feet of copper likely to make little
difference.
That of course assumes the fibre plugs into the new router without an
intermediate box.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes into the house?
>
> Didn't matter before, as a few more feet of copper likely to make little
> difference.
> That of course assumes the fibre plugs into the new router without an
> intermediate box.

No, the ONT is placed where the fibre comes in, from there it's copper
(ethernet) and you can run that to wherever you want the router.

Some other fibre networks (altnets) merge the router and ONT into a single
box and that does need to be near the fibre ingress. Although you can get
fibre extension cables and it's possible to 'unofficially' extend the fibre,
but I'd be ready to put everything back as it was installed if you needed to
report a fault.

There's a lot to be said for disaggregating functions: the ONT goes where is
most convenient for the fibre, the router goes where you want the ethernet
and phone ports, and separate wireless access point(s) go where is best for
wifi signal.

Theo

In message <598e961255dave@davenoise.co.uk>
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
> Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>>> My router is at the top back of the house, a long way from where the BT
>>> phone line enters the front of the house. I get good coverage from there
>>> so I don't want to move it to the front of the house.

>> The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network traffic from
>> your LAN to your ISP's WAN.

> But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes into the house?

No the router can be elsewhere within reason, depends on your setup.

> Didn't matter before, as a few more feet of copper likely to make little
> difference.

Openreach will install the Full Fibre within reason (ask nicely) in
another location, but the ONT must be near a power supply.

> That of course assumes the fibre plugs into the new router without an
> intermediate box.

The router is linked to the ONT box which brings the full fibre into your
property and the ONT is linked to your router by Ethernet cable (Cat 5e
cable which can support 1000Mbps can be up to 100 metre long)

--
Chris Hughes

On 21 Nov, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
<598e961255dave@davenoise.co.uk>:

> In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
> Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network traffic
> > from your LAN to your ISP's WAN.
>
> But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes into the
> house?

No, as I keep writing here: the Optical Network Terminator (ONT) is what
turns the fibre into copper, and /that/ needs to be wherever the Openreach
installer will place it.

The router connects to the ONT via a standard ethernet cable with RJ45s on
the ends, and can be wherever you want it to be (within 100m, as already
discussed). It could be right next to the ONT, or it could be exactly where
your ADSL modem/router was, with CAT5 between it and the ONT.

> Didn't matter before, as a few more feet of copper likely to make little
> difference.

It matters even less now. "A few feet of copper" could easily be a very big
deal to an ADSL signal, whereas it will make minimal difference to the
ethernet data.

> That of course assumes the fibre plugs into the new router without an
> intermediate box.

Unless the hardware has changed again, it doesn't.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

In article <037fc88e59.chris@mytarbis.plus.com>,
Chris Hughes <news13@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <598e961255dave@davenoise.co.uk>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
> > Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> My router is at the top back of the house, a long way from where the BT
> >>> phone line enters the front of the house. I get good coverage from there
> >>> so I don't want to move it to the front of the house.

> >> The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network traffic from
> >> your LAN to your ISP's WAN.

> > But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes into the house?

> No the router can be elsewhere within reason, depends on your setup.

> > Didn't matter before, as a few more feet of copper likely to make little
> > difference.

> Openreach will install the Full Fibre within reason (ask nicely) in
> another location, but the ONT must be near a power supply.

> > That of course assumes the fibre plugs into the new router without an
> > intermediate box.

> The router is linked to the ONT box which brings the full fibre into your
> property and the ONT is linked to your router by Ethernet cable (Cat 5e
> cable which can support 1000Mbps can be up to 100 metre long)

Ah - right. Thought they might have produced an all in one unit.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <mpro.r2x1v000s2jbz037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > Didn't matter before, as a few more feet of copper likely to make little
> > difference.

> It matters even less now. "A few feet of copper" could easily be a very big
> deal to an ADSL signal, whereas it will make minimal difference to the
> ethernet data.

I get about 80 MBPS with copper from the cabinet to the house - a couple
of hundred yards. Extending that properly within your house is going to
make a big difference?

--
*Welcome to Shit Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <mpro.r2x1v000s2jbz037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
<news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 21 Nov, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
> <598e961255dave@davenoise.co.uk>:

> > In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
> > Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes network
> > > traffic from your LAN to your ISP's WAN.
> >
> > But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes into the
> > house?

> No, as I keep writing here: the Optical Network Terminator (ONT) is
> what turns the fibre into copper, and /that/ needs to be wherever the
> Openreach installer will place it.

> The router connects to the ONT via a standard ethernet cable with RJ45s
> on the ends, and can be wherever you want it to be (within 100m, as
> already discussed). It could be right next to the ONT, or it could be
> exactly where your ADSL modem/router was, with CAT5 between it and the
> ONT.

Conflicting statements here.

Steve & others say I have to tear up floorboards to run a CAT cable, Theo
says No, the ONT is placed where the fibre comes in, from there it's
copper (ethernet) and you can run that to wherever you want the router so
I can use the existing copper.

Who is correct?

--
Chris Newman

In article <598ed8ba8dcvjazz@waitrose.com>,
Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:
> In article <mpro.r2x1v000s2jbz037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
> Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 21 Nov, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
> > <598e961255dave@davenoise.co.uk>:

> > > In article <mpro.r2vtq405nk2xe038n.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
> > > Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The router can be anywhere in the house: it just passes
> > > > network traffic from your LAN to your ISP's WAN.
> > >
> > > But with fibre, I assume it has to be where the cable comes
> > > into the house?

> > No, as I keep writing here: the Optical Network Terminator (ONT)
> > is what turns the fibre into copper, and /that/ needs to be
> > wherever the Openreach installer will place it.

> > The router connects to the ONT via a standard ethernet cable with
> > RJ45s on the ends, and can be wherever you want it to be (within
> > 100m, as already discussed). It could be right next to the ONT,
> > or it could be exactly where your ADSL modem/router was, with
> > CAT5 between it and the ONT.

> Conflicting statements here.

> Steve & others say I have to tear up floorboards to run a CAT
> cable, Theo says No, the ONT is placed where the fibre comes in,
> from there it's copper (ethernet) and you can run that to wherever
> you want the router so I can use the existing copper.

You can use the existing copper ... *if* it is a CAT5 cable. But it it
is normal telephone extension cable, then no, because that is not
(normally) CAT5 cable and cannot carry ethernet (or might, but not
very well). All AFAIK.

Many years ago when I installed a long telephone extension cable here
from front to back (via loft) I *really* *Really* wish I had put in
CAT5 cable. It would have made future options much easier!

--
Martin Avison
Note that unfortunately this email address will become invalid
without notice if (when) any spam is received.

In article <598ed8ba8dcvjazz@waitrose.com>,
Chris Newman <cvjazz@waitrose.com> wrote:

> Conflicting statements here.

> Steve & others say I have to tear up floorboards to run a CAT
> cable, Theo says No, the ONT is placed where the fibre comes in,
> from there it's copper (ethernet) and you can run that to wherever
> you want the router so I can use the existing copper.

Depends what you mean by existing copper.

If it's cat5e or cat 6 then fine, If it's old telephone wiring then
it will not do.

Bob.

On 21 Nov, Chris Newman wrote in message
<598ed8ba8dcvjazz@waitrose.com>:

> Steve & others say I have to tear up floorboards to run a CAT cable, Theo
> says No, the ONT is placed where the fibre comes in, from there it's
> copper (ethernet) and you can run that to wherever you want the router so
> I can use the existing copper.

I'm unsure where the conflict is? I've also said (many times, now) that the
ONT goes where the fibre comes into the property.

If you've wired your existing internal phone extension for the ADSL in CAT5,
then you can, indeed, reuse that cable to get the network connection from
the ONT to your existing router location. However, if you've used standard
UK phone twisted pair, which is what I suspect most ADSL extensions will be,
then you'll need to replace that with CAT5 or better.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

In article
<mpro.r2xe9b0372mtq037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

> If you've wired your existing internal phone extension
> for the ADSL in CAT5, then you can, indeed, reuse that
> cable to get the network connection from the ONT to your
> existing router location. However, if you've used
> standard UK phone twisted pair, which is what I suspect
> most ADSL extensions will be, then you'll need to replace
> that with CAT5 or better.

I would imagine that many people's phone extensions pre-date
ADSL? Mine certainly do, so yes, phone extensions are wired
with standard UK phone twisted pair.

I am pretty familiar with wiring phone extensions, but no
idea how you would do phone wiring with CAT5 cable and RJ45
sockets when the phone has a standard BT plug?

Not sure that I would want CAT5 cables (very much thicker
than BT wire) running all around the house without trunking
(which is often ugly) or chasing it into the wall and
redecorating (which is a skilled job and potentially very
expensive.

I need to look at Theo's links about Voice Re-injection.

--
Russell
Russell Hafter
E-mail to russell at russellhafter dot me dot uk
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Friendly web hosting <https://www.xencentrichosting.uk/billing/aff.php?aff=7>

In article <aPf*upJzy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> > > I understand that in future I can plug a phone into an
> > > adaptor that plugs into the router (it does not have
> > > its own adaptor built in).

> > I'd like to read some information about such an adaptor.

> I assume Russell is referring to an Analogue Telephone
> Adapter (ATA), which is how to convert regular analogue
> phones to VOIP.

Yes, though I know next to nothing about them. Just read
about them. No idea as to what they cost either.

My brand new router does not have a phone socket - I had
thought that they were only for use with the likes of
Sipgate? TBH I did not see any (at a half reasonable price)
that did and were available to buy...

I have checked Sipgate and others pricing, but there is no
advantage pricewise against what I am paying now, and the
VOIP handsets seem to be expensive too.

I have ADSL at present, and we do not at present see any
advantage to changing to FTTC or FTTP - indeed I would see
it as just an extra expense.

> You plug a phone cable from your router or ATA into the
> green socket, and that pipes analogue phone signals to
> your extensions.

So it will not be just a matter of plugging a wire into one
of the ethernet sockets (RJ45) on the router and the other
end into the green socket?

Instead I am going to need an ATA to plug into the router
and then plug that back into the existing wiring?

It all looks expensive!

--
Russell
Russell Hafter
E-mail to russell at russellhafter dot me dot uk
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
Friendly web hosting <https://www.xencentrichosting.uk/billing/aff.php?aff=7>

On 21 Nov, Russell Hafter News wrote in message
<598f0a28bcsee.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>:

> In article <mpro.r2xe9b0372mtq037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
> <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > If you've wired your existing internal phone extension for the ADSL in
> > CAT5

[snip]

> I would imagine that many people's phone extensions pre-date ADSL? Mine
> certainly do, so yes, phone extensions are wired with standard UK phone
> twisted pair.

Many people have run a new AB pair from the unfiltered side of a filtered
master socket, specifically for ADSL -- that way, all of the old phone
extensions can be filtered at the master socket, and there's no need for
filters on each phone.

Such an installation will probably still use three-pair phone wire, not
CAT5, but it could depend on what cable was to hand. Three-pair phone wire
is surprisingly hard to find in places like Homebase, and can't be used for
much else.

> I am pretty familiar with wiring phone extensions, but no idea how you
> would do phone wiring with CAT5 cable and RJ45 sockets when the phone has
> a standard BT plug?

You wouldn't use RJ45 plugs? I'm fairly sure that you could terminate
solid-core CAT5 into UK phone sockets; the push-down tool is certainly
exchangeable with RJ11 and RJ45 sockets.

That said, RJ45 plug to UK phone socket adapters are a common thing: in
offices (before the days of IP phones), you'd just plug the phones into
spare network drops and patch the end in the comms room back to the PABX
accordingly.

> Not sure that I would want CAT5 cables (very much thicker than BT wire)
> running all around the house without trunking (which is often ugly) or
> chasing it into the wall and redecorating (which is a skilled job and
> potentially very expensive.

The two reels that I have here, of three-pair phone cable and CAT5, are
similar ODs. We're not talking significantly different sizes.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

On 21 Nov, Russell Hafter News wrote in message
<598f0cc96dsee.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>:

> In article <aPf*upJzy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > You plug a phone cable from your router or ATA into the green socket,
> > and that pipes analogue phone signals to your extensions.
>
> So it will not be just a matter of plugging a wire into one of the
> ethernet sockets (RJ45) on the router and the other end into the green
> socket?

No, but it might just be a case of plugging it into the phone socket on the
router instead. The ONT here has a UK phone socket on the bottom, next to
the ethernet socket that goes to the router, but it isn't used as I still
have a copper pair coming into the house.

There's been a suggestion here (from Doug?) that the ONTs on offer now by
Openreach don't have the phone connection, so it will presumably be in the
router instead.

Aha. Something like this:

https://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7590/technical-specifications/

On an FTTP setup, the ONT plugs into the WAN port, your local network into
the 4 LAN ports, and your phones into the 2 analog ports.

It doesn't say if more than one phone can go into each of the two ports, but
since they're just AB connections, presumably they could so long as you
don't have several high REN devices. Presumably one port could go to the
aforementioned green socket.

> Instead I am going to need an ATA to plug into the router and then plug
> that back into the existing wiring?

I would assume that depends on what your provider offers.

> It all looks expensive!

It probably can be, but for the average user, I'd expect that everything
would be supplied as part of the package. The discussion that we're having
here is definitely not "average".

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

In message <mpro.r2y5fa08oqavt037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>
Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

> There's been a suggestion here (from Doug?) that the ONTs on offer now by
> Openreach don't have the phone connection, so it will presumably be in the
> router instead.

Don't recall saying that and looking back at the thread I can't see any
mention of it by me, but as ever happy to be corrected.

But just to help here are the ones that Openreach use:

https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/whats-an-openreach-modem-ont

The only thing I mentioned was the issues around Full fibre delivery of
broadband whilst retaining copper for the phone service that is being
withdrawn as well and the issues around that highlighted last year.

> It probably can be, but for the average user, I'd expect that everything
> would be supplied as part of the package. The discussion that we're having
> here is definitely not "average".

Yep and thats why most companies will go for their packaged solution as it
helps the migration and don't mention the lock in benefits :-)

If someone wants to go their own way then there are plenty of Voip
solution providers out there now that can be used.

--
Experience the future using ARM Technology - ARMBook,BeagleBoard -xM,
PandaBoard,Raspberry Pi,iMX6/ARMX6,IGEPv5 & Titanium powered by RISC OS
5.28.