Removing pin 3 bell wire from phone extensions.

I have noticed that an incoming call sometimes makes my ADSl drop out (see below).

I read somewhere that the wire daisy chaining pin 3 from the master socket to all extensions is not needed because the BT filter has a ring capacitor anyway.

Has anyone else removed their bell wire connection, leaving just the A and B lines connected to pins 2 and 5 ?.

10:53:02, 12 May. (55977.290000) PPP IPCP Receive Configuration ACK 10:53:01, 12 May.(55976.770000) PPP IPCP Send Configuration Request 10:53:01, 12 May.(55976.770000) PPP IPCP Receive Configuration NAK 10:53:00, 12 May.(55975.810000) PPP IPCP Send Configuration ACK 10:53:00, 12 May.(55975.810000) PPP IPCP Receive Configuration Request 10:53:00, 12 May.(55975.070000) PPP IPCP Send Configuration Request 10:53:00, 12 May.(55975.070000) WAN operating mode is DSL 10:53:00, 12 May.(55975.070000) Last WAN operating mode was DSL 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.890000) PPPoA is up - VPI: 0, VCI:38 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.860000) CHAP authentication successful 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.450000) CHAP Receive Challenge 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.450000) Starting CHAP authentication with peer 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.450000) PPP LCP Receive Configuration ACK 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.330000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.330000) PPP LCP Receive Configuration Reject 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.330000) PPP LCP Send Configuration ACK 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.330000) PPP LCP Receive Configuration Request 10:52:57, 12 May.(55972.070000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:54, 12 May.(55968.980000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:51, 12 May.(55965.980000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:48, 12 May.(55962.980000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:45, 12 May.(55959.980000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:42, 12 May.(55956.980000) PPP LCP Send Configuration Request 10:52:39, 12 May.(55953.990000) ETHoA is up - VPI: 0, VCI:35 10:52:39, 12 May.(55953.990000) DSL is up 10:52:38, 12 May.(55953.110000) DSL noise margin: 6.00 dB upstream, 6.10 dB downstream 10:52:36, 12 May.(55951.130000) DSL line rate: 1247 Kbps upstream, 17847 Kbps downstream 10:51:45, 12 May.(55900.620000) DSL is down after 930 minutes uptime 10:51:45, 12 May.(55900.620000) ETHoA is down after 930 minutes uptime 10:51:45, 12 May.(55900.290000) PPPoA is down after 929 minutes uptime [Waiting for Underlying Connection (WAN DSL - Up)] 10:51:42, 12 May.(55897.760000) PPP LCP Send Termination Request [User request]
Reply to
Andrew
Loading thread data ...

If filters are correctly in play that shouldn't happen

You are right to suspect the bell wire BUT I have also had this with a bad (BT) line connection. The ring current when it starts creating micro arcs can spread dissent up to the RF where ADSL lives...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

rather than having internal wiring with filters at each extension, you'd be better off having a single faceplate filter at the point of the master socket, and then take phone extensions and one xDSL extension from the rear of the master ... depending how new your master is you're likely to have to replace it with one that allows that.

Yes, I just run 2+5 to phones, anything new enough that it doesn't say 'GPO' on it should ring anyway

Reply to
Andy Burns

or if it doesn't just install another master face plate.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

+1

Reply to
Richard

You'd be far better off to situate your router at the master socket and cable to your computers with CAT 5/6. Or just use Wi-Fi, if cabling is a problem. And leave the phones to themselves.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I thought the reason it was not needed was because modern phones don't need a bell wire. I thought the reason for removing it was to stop it acting as an aerial. I could be entirely wrong.

Reply to
Scott

This is indeed the reason to remove it.

When we first moved here I was getting about 3.5Mbps. Once I'd had the lads in to tidy up the phone wiring and remove the bell wire it went up to more than 6Mbps.

That went down to around 4.5Mbps after some scroats removed 400 metres of cable between us and the exchange (Openreach fixed this and patched in a new 400 pair cable within 24 hours).

Reply to
Tim Streater

I thought it would go down to 0.0Mbps in that event.

Reply to
Scott

I have done. A single run of cat5e runs from the BT home hub gigabit socket to a netgear GS105 that feeds TV and computer.

The only BT phone I have is marked BT relate 80, about 20 years old, but that is all that is plugged into an extension next to my computer (with a BT caller display 30 inline).

Reply to
Andrew

That's what I thought, but what constitutes a 'modern' phone ?. Is it anything with a keypad that generates tones ?.

Reply to
Andrew

Oh how witty. Oddly enough I meant after they'd spliced the new cable in.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Yes, I thought so too :-)

Reply to
Scott

In general its any phone with a bit of electronics inside it.

Run off the line voltage Or batteries.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

In article , Scott writes

I think you are correct on both counts.

Reply to
bert

Anything that doesn't use pin 3.

Reply to
bert

No, you're pretty well correct. Modern handsets have the bell capacitor built in and don't rely upon a third bell wire to complete a bell circuit. This means that the bell wire connection at the master socket can be disconnected if all the plug in phones are of the modern high impedance low capacitance incorporated sounder type (an old fashioned BT phone would still ring to incoming calls if plugged into the master socket).

Disconnecting the bell wire circuit on the extension socket wiring eliminates the imbalance otherwise introduced by the bell wire connection. Since any imbalance of the line impairs its rejection of strong MW broadcast signals, the presence of a bell wire connection can effect the levels of such interference to a greater or lesser degree, affecting the performance of any ADSL connections which also depends on the line length.

If the line length is only two or three Km and you only have 20 or 30 metres of extension wiring, it probably won't make any noticeable difference. However, if you have a very large property with 50 metres or more of extension wiring and you're on the end of a 7Km line with two or more spans of overhead feed to a hilltop property, eliminating the bell wire connection will almost certainly improve the speed of your ADSL connection to a noticeable degree.

Unless you have a houseful of antique phones adapted to the plug and socket standard, you can safely disconnect the bell circuit wire at the master socket connection. If in doubt, it's unlikely to do any harm and may provide a surprising improvement of your broadband connection speed (especially in the case of longer lines).

Reply to
Johnny B Good

One real concern is the amount of interference which can be picked up on house telephone wiring. All sorts in the average house, from SMPS, dimmers, etc. Hence it making sense to separate the phone and broadband signals as early as possible - and properly balanced cable to feed the broadband round the house. That should have better immunity to interference than telephone stuff.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

And be aware that filters are not created equal. I bought a faceplate filter to "tidy things up" based on good reviews etc. And yes during the day it did give a small increase in speed over the "soap on a rope" BT badged MF50 filter. But come night time that day light rate couldn't be sustained and it would drop back below the normal rate that the MF50 would allow and not recover the next day.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.