Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
on each station set).
Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
a challenge in the TNI!
> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
> on each station set).
> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
> a challenge in the TNI!
> Thx,
> --don
It will work fine, I do this as a matter of course. I disassemble the
filter and solder in CAT3 wires so that I can punch the filter
into the circuit on a 66 block.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---
> "Don Y"<t...@isnotme.com> wrote in message
>> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
>> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
>> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
>> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
>> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
>> on each station set).
>> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
>> a challenge in the TNI!
> It will work fine, I do this as a matter of course. I disassemble the
> filter and solder in CAT3 wires so that I can punch the filter
> into the circuit on a 66 block.
To be clear, you are doing this *outdoors*? What sort of
temperature extremes?
> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
> on each station set).
> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
> a challenge in the TNI!
> Thx,
> --don
When our phone company installed the service at our new location (there was no service there previously as it was formerly an undeveloped lot) I had the tech install a DSL filter in the NID. I ran CAT5e (as i had a bunch of it already) and used the blue-blue/white pair for voice and the brown-brown/white pair for the DSL. I installed a jack with only the br-br/wh pair connected just for the DSL modem. Works like a charm.
Thomas <royalhear...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
>> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
>> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
>> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
>> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
>> on each station set).
>> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
>> a challenge in the TNI!
>When our phone company installed the service at our new location (there was no >service there previously as it was formerly an undeveloped lot) I had the tech >install a DSL filter in the NID. I ran CAT5e (as i had a bunch of it already) >and used the blue-blue/white pair for voice and the brown-brown/white pair for >the DSL. I installed a jack with only the br-br/wh pair connected just for the >DSL modem. Works like a charm.
Yes... there are DSL filters which are specifically designed for
outdoor installation at the demarc... that's the way our DSL service
was wired up when we had it installed originally. My sense is that
they may be better filters, electrically, than the small in-line
"microfilter" types... more stages? In any case, I doubt that the
tempcos are going to be a problem... they're basically just LC
low-pass filters intended to block a wide-spectrum (ultrasonic +
LF/HF) signal from getting into the phones and I don't believe they're
terribly critical.
-- Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
> Don Y wrote:
>> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
>> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
>> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
>> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
>> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
>> on each station set).
>> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
>> a challenge in the TNI!
> When our phone company installed the service at our new location (there
> was no service there previously as it was formerly an undeveloped lot) I
> had the tech install a DSL filter in the NID.
Was this filter designed for packaging (and, presumably, also
for that environment) *in* the network interface? Or, just a
"household filter" CRAMMED into it?
> I ran CAT5e (as i had a
> bunch of it already) and used the blue-blue/white pair for voice and the
> brown-brown/white pair for the DSL. I installed a jack with only the
> br-br/wh pair connected just for the DSL modem. Works like a charm.
I ran two lengths of CAT5 (instead of two lengths of "quad") -- one
for each of two lines (figuring the extra conductors were "cheap
insurance" against a future break -- *or* the potential of "fiber
to the home" at some point in the future!).
[I wouldn't want POTS and ethernet in the same cable, in that case]
Currently, those two cables run to an "electronics closet". From
there, two OTHER cables run to the traditional punchdown blocks
(which feed the various telco drops throughout the house).
So, in theory, I could install the filter in that first closet
alongside the DSL modem (which has power and ethernet drops
available nearby). Then, run the filtered line back out to
the punchdown blocks for distribution as POTS.
[The second line/cable could be handled similarly or differently]
The alternative is to move the filter "outside" and treat the
line entering the house as "DSL".
It seems like the first option might be more flexible (at the
expense of another "wart" on the wall).
> In article<lFbXq.3605$_q4.2...@newsfe21.iad>,
> Thomas<royalhear...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
>>> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
>>> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
>>> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
>>> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
>>> on each station set).
>>> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
>>> a challenge in the TNI!
>> When our phone company installed the service at our new location (there was no
>> service there previously as it was formerly an undeveloped lot) I had the tech
>> install a DSL filter in the NID. I ran CAT5e (as i had a bunch of it already)
>> and used the blue-blue/white pair for voice and the brown-brown/white pair for
>> the DSL. I installed a jack with only the br-br/wh pair connected just for the
>> DSL modem. Works like a charm.
> Yes... there are DSL filters which are specifically designed for
> outdoor installation at the demarc... that's the way our DSL service
> was wired up when we had it installed originally. My sense is that
Ah, OK. I was leary of the cheap little solvent-welded blob
that is intended for use "inline" with each station set.
> they may be better filters, electrically, than the small in-line
> "microfilter" types... more stages? In any case, I doubt that the
> tempcos are going to be a problem... they're basically just LC
> low-pass filters intended to block a wide-spectrum (ultrasonic +
> LF/HF) signal from getting into the phones and I don't believe they're
> terribly critical.
OK. I haven't explored the frequency ranges used for the carrier.
I just figured the ~100+ degree temperature range encountered outdoors
was considerably more than what one would expect in a "living space".
>> When our phone company installed the service at our new location (there
>> was no service there previously as it was formerly an undeveloped lot) I
>> had the tech install a DSL filter in the NID.
> Was this filter designed for packaging (and, presumably, also
> for that environment) *in* the network interface? Or, just a
> "household filter" CRAMMED into it?
Sorry for the delay - computer problems here.
Yes, it was specifically designed for the NID. Snapped right in. Basically it is the normal terminal block with a built-in filter and extra terminals for the DSL pair.
>> I ran CAT5e (as i had a
>> bunch of it already) and used the blue-blue/white pair for voice and the
>> brown-brown/white pair for the DSL. I installed a jack with only the
>> br-br/wh pair connected just for the DSL modem. Works like a charm.
> I ran two lengths of CAT5 (instead of two lengths of "quad") -- one
> for each of two lines (figuring the extra conductors were "cheap
> insurance" against a future break -- *or* the potential of "fiber
> to the home" at some point in the future!).
> [I wouldn't want POTS and ethernet in the same cable, in that case]
I didn't say I ran ethernet over the same cable. The DSL line is the unfiltered signal from the NID. The voice pair is the filtered signal from the NID.
Nowhere in my post did I mention ethernet *from the NID*.
> Currently, those two cables run to an "electronics closet". From
> there, two OTHER cables run to the traditional punchdown blocks
> (which feed the various telco drops throughout the house).
> So, in theory, I could install the filter in that first closet
> alongside the DSL modem (which has power and ethernet drops
> available nearby). Then, run the filtered line back out to
> the punchdown blocks for distribution as POTS.
> [The second line/cable could be handled similarly or differently]
> The alternative is to move the filter "outside" and treat the
> line entering the house as "DSL".
> It seems like the first option might be more flexible (at the
> expense of another "wart" on the wall).
I have only two of the four pairs used in my Cat5e run from the NID: one (filtered) for voice, the other (unfiltered) for the DSL.
>>> When our phone company installed the service at our new location (there
>>> was no service there previously as it was formerly an undeveloped lot) I
>>> had the tech install a DSL filter in the NID.
>> Was this filter designed for packaging (and, presumably, also
>> for that environment) *in* the network interface? Or, just a
>> "household filter" CRAMMED into it?
> Sorry for the delay - computer problems here.
> Yes, it was specifically designed for the NID. Snapped right in.
> Basically it is the normal terminal block with a built-in filter and
> extra terminals for the DSL pair.
I will have to grab one of the local linemen and see if they
have anything similar that could "fall off their truck"!
>>> I ran CAT5e (as i had a
>>> bunch of it already) and used the blue-blue/white pair for voice and the
>>> brown-brown/white pair for the DSL. I installed a jack with only the
>>> br-br/wh pair connected just for the DSL modem. Works like a charm.
>> I ran two lengths of CAT5 (instead of two lengths of "quad") -- one
>> for each of two lines (figuring the extra conductors were "cheap
>> insurance" against a future break -- *or* the potential of "fiber
>> to the home" at some point in the future!).
>> [I wouldn't want POTS and ethernet in the same cable, in that case]
> I didn't say I ran ethernet over the same cable. The DSL line is the
> unfiltered signal from the NID. The voice pair is the filtered signal
> from the NID.
> Nowhere in my post did I mention ethernet *from the NID*.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you did!
Note my reference to "the potential of 'fiber to the home' at some
point in the future". I.e., when/if truly high speed interfaces
become available to the home (like other countries), I don't want
to be stuck with a single length of CAT5 that is carrying my POTS
*and* try to squeeze the high speed (fiber) connection over that
same cable. "I wouldn't want POTS and ethernet in the same cable,
in that case" -- hence the appeal of having run *two* cables.
>> Currently, those two cables run to an "electronics closet". From
>> there, two OTHER cables run to the traditional punchdown blocks
>> (which feed the various telco drops throughout the house).
>> So, in theory, I could install the filter in that first closet
>> alongside the DSL modem (which has power and ethernet drops
>> available nearby). Then, run the filtered line back out to
>> the punchdown blocks for distribution as POTS.
>> [The second line/cable could be handled similarly or differently]
>> The alternative is to move the filter "outside" and treat the
>> line entering the house as "DSL".
>> It seems like the first option might be more flexible (at the
>> expense of another "wart" on the wall).
> I have only two of the four pairs used in my Cat5e run from the NID: one
> (filtered) for voice, the other (unfiltered) for the DSL.
Understood. Currently I have *one* pair in *one* of the cables
with any sort of signal on it. The rest is there because "wire
is cheap" (and a LOT cheaper than having to run a new drop LATER!)
>>> [I wouldn't want POTS and ethernet in the same cable, in that case]
>> I didn't say I ran ethernet over the same cable. The DSL line is the
>> unfiltered signal from the NID. The voice pair is the filtered signal
>> from the NID.
>> Nowhere in my post did I mention ethernet *from the NID*.
> Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you did!
> Note my reference to "the potential of 'fiber to the home' at some
> point in the future". I.e., when/if truly high speed interfaces
> become available to the home (like other countries), I don't want
> to be stuck with a single length of CAT5 that is carrying my POTS
> *and* try to squeeze the high speed (fiber) connection over that
> same cable. "I wouldn't want POTS and ethernet in the same cable,
> in that case" -- hence the appeal of having run *two* cables.
I missed that memo. Been duking it out for three days with three different computers here at the fort. All three now running openSUSE 12.1. Wife wanted to set up a her tower with Windows XP running in a virtual machine (there's only two programs she needs that have no Linux equal...yet). Installed VirtualBox, and during the setup and several attempts to install XP, glitches occurred all over the place, with all three systems. Networking problems, laptop decided to take a vacation (several times), and my tower developed a bad spot on the /home partition...*SIGH* Finally got everything sorted out. Be nice to know what exactly happened that started the snowball rolling downhill.
Now You know why i was a bit short there towards you, for which I apologize.
>> I have only two of the four pairs used in my Cat5e run from the NID: one
>> (filtered) for voice, the other (unfiltered) for the DSL.
> Understood. Currently I have *one* pair in *one* of the cables
> with any sort of signal on it. The rest is there because "wire
> is cheap" (and a LOT cheaper than having to run a new drop LATER!)
I ran our cable, from the NID to a weatherproof box next to the camper, in 1/2" RNC (PVC conduit). More expensive, yes, but if I ever have to replace the cable for whatever reason, i have a chase in the ground. Just remove the old one and pull in a new one (one reason I own a 300-foot fish tape).
Dig up the yard as few times as possible. (First time I dug the ditch with a mini-excavator; next time might be by hand.) (See my reply in the other thread on this topic as to what I did.)
On Friday, February 3, 2012 8:17:21 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
> Hi,
> Any idea what sort of tempco's are involved in the components
> in the "single node" DSL filters? I'm wondering how well
> one would survive *in* the TNI (i.e., running the line-side
> of the service in on one pair and the "filtered" side in on
> another pair -- instead of installing the silly things
> on each station set).
> Waterproofing is easy. But, hot/cold-proofing gets to be
> a challenge in the TNI!
> --don
The components are more sensitive to heat than cold, but high ambient temperatures outdoors are usually not a problem unless the TNI is in direct sunlight in Tucson, Arizona. I'd be more concerned about moisture condensing on the circuits and eventually causing a short with accumulated dust.
I recently switched from DSL to cable service, but for the roughly four years that I had DSL, I had an old DSL filter purchased at an electronics surplus store mounted in the TNI so that the filtered (voice-only) signal went out on the CAT-5 Line 1 pair to all the house phone jacks and the unfiltered (voice + DSL carrier) went out on the CAT-5 Line 2 pair just to the room where the computer is. I then used an L1+L2 splitter adapter in the wall jack so I could plug the phone by the computer into the L1 port and the DSL modem into L2. (This L1+L2 splitter looks very much like the ones that allow you to plug multiple phones, or a phone plus other device like a FAX into the same wall outlet, except the latter type only multiplies L1 connections.) The setup worked like a charm. I left the filter in the TNI and the house phones all still work fine.
The reason I used an old surplus filter was because the filters that came with the DSL self-install kit were potted and had modular phone connectors at the input and output. I wanted a filter that could be hard-wired into the punch-down terminal block in the TNI, so I selected one where I could discard the housing and solder on flying solid AWG #24 copper wire leads. Being surplus, it was cheap, too.
