New Fibre/changed master

[TonyW2]

The original set up was incoming cable to NTE5 master then cable to extension 1 and ongoing cable to extension 2.

BT (subcontracted from Opal telecoms) changed to fibre supply and (as requested) made extension 1 point the new master. I am assuming the fibre is only upto the cabinet as the incoming cable was not touched.
They did this by disabling the original master point and using the existing internal cable to continue the new fibre upto the extension 1 point. Extension 2 was disconnected. Therefore there is now only one master socket.

Will the utilisation of the "old" internal extension cabling have an effect on the fibre speed available?

Could the unused pairs in the cables be used to connect the front half of the master back to the original master point so it could be used as a phone extension? And could the extension 2 be reconnected to the master to bring it back into use. I can't see why not but the BT guy advised against this.

 

[Lectrician]

If the internal cable is short, and CW1308, there will be no speed issues.

If your cable is 3 pair, you could use the other two pairs to take an extension back to the old master, leaving the first pair intact at this point.

FTTC, Fibre to the cabinet, sold as BT infinity is presented on a different faceplate to what most are used to. Your extension wiring would connect to the removable lower half as usual, and will already be filtered.

Red circled here is UNFILTERED.

Edited to reduce pic in size.

 

[Europlex]

Why have the connections highlighted in red been soldered?

If connected correctly (punched down) through the sheathing, the correct way, there is no problem.

I would suggest that now there is the possibility of the terminals being damaged.

 

[TonyW2]

Thanks lectrician. That's just what I wanted to hear.

 

[Lectrician]

Why have the connections highlighted in red been soldered?

If connected correctly (punched down) through the sheathing, the correct way, there is no problem.

I would suggest that now there is the possibility of the terminals being damaged.

No idea. It's a googled image.

To me, it looks like a reflection of the angled IDC contacts, not solder.

 

[SimonH2]

I am assuming the fibre is only upto the cabinet as the incoming cable was not touched.

Correct.
With ADSL, there is a piece of equipment called a DSLAM in the phone exchange. Your phone line is routed via this where the ADSL service is added.

With FTTC, you do not get a fibre broadband - contrary to what so many ISPs (and Bt themselves) claim ! Your phone line is routed out to the nearest main distribution point from where it would normally be jumpered directly to ongoing cabling that takes the service to your house. With FTTC, a new cabinet is located close to the distribution cabinet - and your phone line is now routed out to this new cabinet, then back and onto the cabling out to your house. This new box adds the "fibre" service which uses VDSL (Very high speed DSL). Because the DSL service only travels over a shorted cable, it can run at a higher speed.

 

[plugwash]

With FTTC, you do not get a fibre broadband - contrary to what so many ISPs (and Bt themselves) claim !

Of course it was virgin media who started the dubious practice of advertising systems with fiber to the cabinet and then copper to the house as "fiber optic". Given that advertising standards let virgin get away with it can you really blame their competitors for doing the same?

 

[bernardgreen]

FTTC requires that the cabinet in the street has a power supply to the fibre to copper translation equipment. So in a prolonged power cut you may lose broadband while others on the old fashioned copper to exchange connections will still have working broadband.

Floods also can knock the translators in the street cabinets.

 

[cajar]

If the internal cable is short, and CW1308, there will be no speed issues.

If your cable is 3 pair, you could use the other two pairs to take an extension back to the old master, leaving the first pair intact at this point.

This will work, but BT are not allowed to do it because the boffins at adastral park say this has a negative effect on the DSL signal. It's called 'back wiring' and a technician will fail an audit if he has done it. Couple of times that I've tried it it appears to make no difference to the speed but worth checking, with the phone in use too. Suspect it has more to do with demarcation / ownership issues to do with extension wiring and network wiring being in the same sheath than actual technical limitations.

fwiw, the technician was supposed to run a new cable from the incoming point to put the master where you wanted it, and then feed off the filtered signal to your existing 2 extensions so all 3 points worked without back wiring.

 

[SimonH2]

This will work, but BT are not allowed to do it because the boffins at adastral park say this has a negative effect on the DSL signal. It's called 'back wiring' and a technician will fail an audit if he has done it.

Hmm, so running the CDSL signal for a few yards in a pair of a cable shared with <something else> causes problems, but running it a few hundred yards in a service cable alongside other services doesn't. Can't see the difference myself.

Suspect it has more to do with demarcation / ownership issues to do with extension wiring and network wiring being in the same sheath than actual technical limitations.

That's more likely to be the issue.

 

[cajar]

not alongside something else but alongside another transmission of the same signal, filtered and unfiltered on adjacent pairs causing something similar to noise cancellation as it was claimed. as I said though I have never been able to verify any detriment to the line from it in real life but it must have some basis even if only in theory, for it to come from adastral park