Doug Webb <doug.j.webb@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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 withdrawn as well and the issues around that highlighted last year.

They've gone through several iterations, including providing a new copper
pair for voice only, and running voice through the ONT. Those are all EOL
now. New installs are getting the one-port modem without battery backup -
the last picture on that page (not necessarily in that hinged outer cover as
they depict, instead directly mounted on the wall). There's no phone socket
because the new world order is that all voice is run from your ISP through
their router. Openreach will no longer handle any voice services, it's all
data from their point of view.

> > 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.

While there are some upfront costs involved in switching to independent
VOIP, they're not unlike buying your own router or DECT phone - kind of £40
territory. You don't notice those on a conventional broadband contract
because the 'free' router they supply is spread over the 12/18/24 months of
your contract and you don't notice the £2-3 a month.

For example, I have one of these VOIP to DECT bridges:
https://www.internetvoipphone.co.uk/gigaset-n300ip.html
and then my existing (Gigaset) DECT phones connect to that. It looks like a
regular DECT setup, just the uplink is ethernet not analogue phone. I use
Andrews and Arnold who offer 'line rental' for £1.20 a month and then calls
are on a PAYG basis (eg 1.5p/min to landlines)

That replaced a Linksys PAP2T box for plugging in wired phones - I'll sell
that for £25 including UK post if anyone wants it.

Theo

In article <mpro.r2y4ql07izwp4037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Just like to add for emphasis: my understanding is that the only new
CAT5 Ethernet cable required will be from the FTTP Openreach ONT
(modem) to your Router, which is no problem when the Router is next to
the ONT.

However, if they are some way apart and currently connected by phone
wiring for ADSL or VDSL (FTTC), then that connection will have to be
replaced by CAT5 cable. When The FTTP ONT is installed, you may be
able to influence where it goes.

I have read several reports that newer ONTs do not have a phone
socket, and it seems that existing analog phones will be connected to
the Router. Any internal phone wiring does not have to change to CAT5,
but it may need adjusting so your phones work connected to the Router
- opinions seems to vary, and things are still changing. Also
suppliers other than Openreach may also be different, as will
phone-line-only premises.

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

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

> They've gone through several iterations, including providing a new copper
> pair for voice only, and running voice through the ONT. Those are all EOL
> now. New installs are getting the one-port modem without battery backup -
> the last picture on that page (not necessarily in that hinged outer cover as
> they depict, instead directly mounted on the wall). There's no phone socket
> because the new world order is that all voice is run from your ISP through
> their router. Openreach will no longer handle any voice services, it's all
> data from their point of view.

That makes sense and when I looked at the site I couldn't see a phone port
on the Nokia modem and fits in with the PSTN closure freeing Openreach of
the obligation to provide any phone service.

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

In article
<mpro.r2y4ql07izwp4037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

I have never heard of that one! I thought that you had to
use CAT5 for the ADSL side. Presumably the phone cable still
ends in an RJ11 socket?

> 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.

Never seen three-pair phone wire (blue, orange and green) on
sale anywhere, though the original extensions in this house
are all three-pair. But I had never seen that until I moved
into it.

I have only ever seen two-pair (blue and orange) for sale,
and that is what I have always bought and used.

What was the point of the extra (green) pair? All the phone
instructions, even when there were six terminals, always
only referred to 4 wires.

> > 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.

Again, never seen RJ45 to BT adaptors, only RJ11 socket to
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.

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

I was comparing the thickness of two-pair phone cable, which
is significantly thinner than the old three-pair here, with
ethernet cables. Do not have measuring calipers to had, but
I would guess that the ethernet cables are at least 3x
thicker than two-pair phone wire.

--
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 message <598f7292a3see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid>
Russell Hafter News <see.sig@russellhafter.me.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <mpro.r2y4ql07izwp4037c.news@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
> Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.

> I have never heard of that one! I thought that you had to
> use CAT5 for the ADSL side.

It's just a phone cable, so no: any twisted pair should be fine.

With a filtered faceplate on the master socket, you take one pair from the
"incoming" side of the filter (usually green) and the usual filtered pair
plus ring from the other. That way, the existing domestic extensions on the
(usually) blue and orange pairs don't change at all, and don't need any
filters at the extension sockets. (It also means that you can't plug the
modem into a phone extension, but that's kind-of the point.)

> Presumably the phone cable still ends in an RJ11 socket?

That's usually how it's done. There's still one on the wall under the desk
here, even though the router is now in the other room, by the ONT, on the
other end of a length of CAT5. I suspect the other end is probably
disconnected in the master socket, though.

>> 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.

> Never seen three-pair phone wire (blue, orange and green) on
> sale anywhere, though the original extensions in this house
> are all three-pair. But I had never seen that until I moved
> into it.

Mine has all come from CPC or Farnell, I think.

> What was the point of the extra (green) pair? All the phone
> instructions, even when there were six terminals, always
> only referred to 4 wires.

I don't know -- maybe just "future expansion". It might have has a use in
PABX type setups?

These days, it's more commonly found not connected to the phone sockets but
carrying the unfiltered ADSL signal.

>> 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.

> Again, never seen RJ45 to BT adaptors, only RJ11 socket to
> BT plug.

They're an "office" thing, I think. Every place I've worked with
"traditional" phones has used them, so that the phone wiring to desks can be
done over a second network drop -- which simplifies the cabling a lot.

That said, I've not seen such a phone in an office for many years, either --
it's all IP or DECT (or Teams Calling, these days).

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

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

This has been an interesting thread, and I'm now illuminated...
So thanks for that.

Having read here and done some reading online, it has become apparent that
as per usual the BT implimentation of this major change is somewhat of a
farce...

[Self edited the rest]...

Dave

--

Dave Triffid

In message <598e500e96dave@davenoise.co.uk>
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

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

I don't understand why you should imagine it won't. The analogue
telephone interface is well specified in this country. Everything
sold has to comply.

However, just for you, I dug out an old telephone (Mybelle Spotlight
753), with a mechanical ringer and REN of 1.5. I had to work my way
through numerous cables to find one that worked - it needs 4 cores
wired - but incoming calls produced a brisk ringing sound from the
bell, after an initial "ting", and the audio worked. The rubbish
audio quality is entirely the fault of the crap design of the phone's
electronics. Evidently designed before any EMC regulations came into
force.

I hope this calms your fears.

David