I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
one doesn't.

I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
routers et al)

I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
will be level along its length!

Thus, I have found this site : 

http://www.tlc-
direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/

(http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)

.... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)

Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
consideration to ADSL filtering etc?

To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.

Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
extension aren't they?

TIA.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:40:03 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>
>I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>one doesn't.
>
>I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>routers et al)
>

[snip]

It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.

I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
could be very easily be damaged.

David Bradley

In article ,
	RolYat  writes:

>
>I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>one doesn't.
>
>I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>routers et al)


What sort of distance are we talking about here?


>I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
>house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
>cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
>type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
>consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
>fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
>will be level along its length!


Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).


>Thus, I have found this site : 
>
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>
>(http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>
>.... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>
>Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
>have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
>consideration to ADSL filtering etc?


It should work OK.


>To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
>for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
>into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>
>Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>extension aren't they?


Actually, you should run only 1-pair per extension over a shared
cable like this, interconnecting pins 2 and 5 only, and use master
sockets rather than extension sockets at the far end to recreate
the bell wire on pin 3.

You need to think where your ADSL filter(s) go. You could have one
filter at the BT master socket handling all the extensions and
carry the ADSL signal in a 3rd pair, although the premises cable
total length might degrade the ADSL signal more than multiple ADSL
filters would.

However, as I said earlier, I would run a number of Cat5e cables
rather than running any Cat 3.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:40:03 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>
>I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>one doesn't.
>
>I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>routers et al)
>

[snip]

It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.

I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
could be very easily be damaged.

David Bradley

In article ,
	RolYat  writes:

>
>I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>one doesn't.
>
>I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>routers et al)


What sort of distance are we talking about here?


>I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
>house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
>cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
>type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
>consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
>fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
>will be level along its length!


Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).


>Thus, I have found this site : 
>
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>
>(http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>
>.... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>
>Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
>have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
>consideration to ADSL filtering etc?


It should work OK.


>To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
>for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
>into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>
>Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>extension aren't they?


Actually, you should run only 1-pair per extension over a shared
cable like this, interconnecting pins 2 and 5 only, and use master
sockets rather than extension sockets at the far end to recreate
the bell wire on pin 3.

You need to think where your ADSL filter(s) go. You could have one
filter at the BT master socket handling all the extensions and
carry the ADSL signal in a 3rd pair, although the premises cable
total length might degrade the ADSL signal more than multiple ADSL
filters would.

However, as I said earlier, I would run a number of Cat5e cables
rather than running any Cat 3.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:40:03 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>
>I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>one doesn't.
>
>I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>routers et al)
>

[snip]

It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.

I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
could be very easily be damaged.

David Bradley

In article ,
	RolYat  writes:

>
>I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>one doesn't.
>
>I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>routers et al)


What sort of distance are we talking about here?


>I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
>house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
>cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
>type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
>consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
>fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
>will be level along its length!


Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).


>Thus, I have found this site : 
>
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>
>(http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>
>.... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>
>Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
>have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
>consideration to ADSL filtering etc?


It should work OK.


>To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
>for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
>into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>
>Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>extension aren't they?


Actually, you should run only 1-pair per extension over a shared
cable like this, interconnecting pins 2 and 5 only, and use master
sockets rather than extension sockets at the far end to recreate
the bell wire on pin 3.

You need to think where your ADSL filter(s) go. You could have one
filter at the BT master socket handling all the extensions and
carry the ADSL signal in a 3rd pair, although the premises cable
total length might degrade the ADSL signal more than multiple ADSL
filters would.

However, as I said earlier, I would run a number of Cat5e cables
rather than running any Cat 3.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

"RolYat"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...

>
> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it,
> one doesn't.
>
> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do
> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks,
> routers et al)
>
> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the
> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the
> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT
> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time
> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and
> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit
> will be level along its length!
>
> Thus, I have found this site :
>
> http://www.tlc-
> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>
> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>
> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>
> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not
> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due
> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
>
> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension
> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken
> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>
> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per
> extension aren't they?
>
> TIA.
>

You need a good quality twisted-pair cable, or CAT5 if you can get it, and
make sure that all connections are tight.  Try not to make tight bends in
the cable if a natural bend can be made.  So don't hammer it in to corners.

Twisted pair cable can be any amount of pairs, and the best one to choose is
up to you on price.  If wiring as an extension from the master sockets, then
you will need ringer wiring to the two new sockets as well as line wiring.
Which means three wires instead of two.  So it might be best to buy two
master sockets from Screwfix or other, and wire the new extensions as direct
line from the original master sockets.

For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the pairs
the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white and blue/white are
the closest together, then use both of these pairs.  Wire them as if two
individual pairs, but wire them to the same connections in the boxes, if you
get my meaning.  Don't separate the single wires of the pairs.

The telephone voice line can be left on one pair.  So it depends on what you
mean to do at the extension site, and if you want to wire as direct line
from the master sockets (recommended), or as completely separate extensions
with ringer wiring.

Search the web for "UK telephone wiring standard" for a few good hits on the
subject.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:40:03 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:



>Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>extension aren't they?


Indeed it is - but I'd be inclined to use only one pair per line
(using terminals 2 and 5) and put master sockets at the end.  On the
ADSL line the ADSL filter will probably include a ringing capacitor
anyway so a normal slave socket will probably be sufficient.  

The reason for using only a single pair per line is that the single
pair balanced line is quite immune to interference, adding the third
ringing line makes it a bit more susceptible to noise/crosstalk.

-- 
Peter Parry.   
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article , newsaccount@-
removethis-hotmail.co.uk says...

> 
> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
> one doesn't.
> 
> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
> routers et al)
> 
> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
> will be level along its length!
> 
> Thus, I have found this site : 
> 
> http://www.tlc-
> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
> 
> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
> 
> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
> 
> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
> 
> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
> 
> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
> extension aren't they?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Not quite a solution, but a suggestion might be to get yourself an SOHO 
pbx, such as the BT Revelation which will take both lines into it, and 
give you 6 extensions to play with. Then you need only run one extension 
to the summerhouse, and 5 more to other parts of the house.

The fax detection stuff is kind of handy as well if one of those lines 
is predominatley used to recieve faxes on as it can redirect it to your 
fax machine without ringing the other extensions.
-- 
  Alex Threlfall
Cyberprog New Media
 www.cyberprog.net
tel - 0870 446 0789
fax - 0870 446 1789

"RolYat"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...

>
> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it,
> one doesn't.
>
> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do
> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks,
> routers et al)
>
> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the
> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the
> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT
> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time
> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and
> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit
> will be level along its length!
>
> Thus, I have found this site :
>
> http://www.tlc-
> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>
> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>
> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>
> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not
> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due
> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
>
> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension
> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken
> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>
> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per
> extension aren't they?
>
> TIA.
>

You need a good quality twisted-pair cable, or CAT5 if you can get it, and
make sure that all connections are tight.  Try not to make tight bends in
the cable if a natural bend can be made.  So don't hammer it in to corners.

Twisted pair cable can be any amount of pairs, and the best one to choose is
up to you on price.  If wiring as an extension from the master sockets, then
you will need ringer wiring to the two new sockets as well as line wiring.
Which means three wires instead of two.  So it might be best to buy two
master sockets from Screwfix or other, and wire the new extensions as direct
line from the original master sockets.

For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the pairs
the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white and blue/white are
the closest together, then use both of these pairs.  Wire them as if two
individual pairs, but wire them to the same connections in the boxes, if you
get my meaning.  Don't separate the single wires of the pairs.

The telephone voice line can be left on one pair.  So it depends on what you
mean to do at the extension site, and if you want to wire as direct line
from the master sockets (recommended), or as completely separate extensions
with ringer wiring.

Search the web for "UK telephone wiring standard" for a few good hits on the
subject.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:40:03 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:



>Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>extension aren't they?


Indeed it is - but I'd be inclined to use only one pair per line
(using terminals 2 and 5) and put master sockets at the end.  On the
ADSL line the ADSL filter will probably include a ringing capacitor
anyway so a normal slave socket will probably be sufficient.  

The reason for using only a single pair per line is that the single
pair balanced line is quite immune to interference, adding the third
ringing line makes it a bit more susceptible to noise/crosstalk.

-- 
Peter Parry.   
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article , newsaccount@-
removethis-hotmail.co.uk says...

> 
> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
> one doesn't.
> 
> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
> routers et al)
> 
> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
> will be level along its length!
> 
> Thus, I have found this site : 
> 
> http://www.tlc-
> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
> 
> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
> 
> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
> 
> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
> 
> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
> 
> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
> extension aren't they?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Not quite a solution, but a suggestion might be to get yourself an SOHO 
pbx, such as the BT Revelation which will take both lines into it, and 
give you 6 extensions to play with. Then you need only run one extension 
to the summerhouse, and 5 more to other parts of the house.

The fax detection stuff is kind of handy as well if one of those lines 
is predominatley used to recieve faxes on as it can redirect it to your 
fax machine without ringing the other extensions.
-- 
  Alex Threlfall
Cyberprog New Media
 www.cyberprog.net
tel - 0870 446 0789
fax - 0870 446 1789

"RolYat"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...

>
> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it,
> one doesn't.
>
> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do
> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks,
> routers et al)
>
> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the
> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the
> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT
> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time
> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and
> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit
> will be level along its length!
>
> Thus, I have found this site :
>
> http://www.tlc-
> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>
> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>
> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>
> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not
> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due
> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
>
> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension
> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken
> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>
> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per
> extension aren't they?
>
> TIA.
>

You need a good quality twisted-pair cable, or CAT5 if you can get it, and
make sure that all connections are tight.  Try not to make tight bends in
the cable if a natural bend can be made.  So don't hammer it in to corners.

Twisted pair cable can be any amount of pairs, and the best one to choose is
up to you on price.  If wiring as an extension from the master sockets, then
you will need ringer wiring to the two new sockets as well as line wiring.
Which means three wires instead of two.  So it might be best to buy two
master sockets from Screwfix or other, and wire the new extensions as direct
line from the original master sockets.

For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the pairs
the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white and blue/white are
the closest together, then use both of these pairs.  Wire them as if two
individual pairs, but wire them to the same connections in the boxes, if you
get my meaning.  Don't separate the single wires of the pairs.

The telephone voice line can be left on one pair.  So it depends on what you
mean to do at the extension site, and if you want to wire as direct line
from the master sockets (recommended), or as completely separate extensions
with ringer wiring.

Search the web for "UK telephone wiring standard" for a few good hits on the
subject.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:40:03 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:



>Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>extension aren't they?


Indeed it is - but I'd be inclined to use only one pair per line
(using terminals 2 and 5) and put master sockets at the end.  On the
ADSL line the ADSL filter will probably include a ringing capacitor
anyway so a normal slave socket will probably be sufficient.  

The reason for using only a single pair per line is that the single
pair balanced line is quite immune to interference, adding the third
ringing line makes it a bit more susceptible to noise/crosstalk.

-- 
Peter Parry.   
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article , newsaccount@-
removethis-hotmail.co.uk says...

> 
> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
> one doesn't.
> 
> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
> routers et al)
> 
> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
> will be level along its length!
> 
> Thus, I have found this site : 
> 
> http://www.tlc-
> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
> 
> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
> 
> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
> 
> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
> 
> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
> 
> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
> extension aren't they?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Not quite a solution, but a suggestion might be to get yourself an SOHO 
pbx, such as the BT Revelation which will take both lines into it, and 
give you 6 extensions to play with. Then you need only run one extension 
to the summerhouse, and 5 more to other parts of the house.

The fax detection stuff is kind of handy as well if one of those lines 
is predominatley used to recieve faxes on as it can redirect it to your 
fax machine without ringing the other extensions.
-- 
  Alex Threlfall
Cyberprog New Media
 www.cyberprog.net
tel - 0870 446 0789
fax - 0870 446 1789

In article , 
trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
 

> It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
> summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
> a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
> consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.


The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the 
summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.

I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the 
PC.

The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there 
is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance 
away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm 
afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.


> I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
> is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
> is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
> could be very easily be damaged.


It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and 
then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and 
very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.

If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage 
issues, then is it the right one?

In article , 
trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
 

> It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
> summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
> a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
> consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.


The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the 
summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.

I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the 
PC.

The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there 
is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance 
away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm 
afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.


> I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
> is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
> is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
> could be very easily be damaged.


It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and 
then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and 
very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.

If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage 
issues, then is it the right one?

In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...



> What sort of distance are we talking about here?


Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.


> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).


The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
No networking at all. 

Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.


> Actually, you should run only 1-pair per extension over a shared
> cable like this, interconnecting pins 2 and 5 only, and use master
> sockets rather than extension sockets at the far end to recreate
> the bell wire on pin 3.


ah .... enter confusion.


> You need to think where your ADSL filter(s) go. You could have one
> filter at the BT master socket handling all the extensions and
> carry the ADSL signal in a 3rd pair, although the premises cable
> total length might degrade the ADSL signal more than multiple ADSL
> filters would.
> 
> However, as I said earlier, I would run a number of Cat5e cables
> rather than running any Cat 3.


Multiple cables .... messy, conduit, costly. maybe?

In article <YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
spam.guard@_spam_guard.com ...

> 
> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
> >
> > I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it,
> > one doesn't.
> >
> > I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do
> > not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks,
> > routers et al)
> >
> > I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the
> > house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the
> > cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT
> > type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time
> > consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and
> > fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit
> > will be level along its length!
> >
> > Thus, I have found this site :
> >
> > http://www.tlc-
> > direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
> >
> > (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
> >
> > ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
> >
> > Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not
> > have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due
> > consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
> >
> > To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension
> > for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken
> > into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
> >
> > Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per
> > extension aren't they?
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> You need a good quality twisted-pair cable, or CAT5 if you can get it, and
> make sure that all connections are tight.  Try not to make tight bends in
> the cable if a natural bend can be made.  So don't hammer it in to corners.
> 
> Twisted pair cable can be any amount of pairs, and the best one to choose is
> up to you on price.  If wiring as an extension from the master sockets, then
> you will need ringer wiring to the two new sockets as well as line wiring.
> Which means three wires instead of two.  So it might be best to buy two
> master sockets from Screwfix or other, and wire the new extensions as direct
> line from the original master sockets.
> 
> For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the pairs
> the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white and blue/white are
> the closest together, then use both of these pairs.  Wire them as if two
> individual pairs, but wire them to the same connections in the boxes, if you
> get my meaning.  Don't separate the single wires of the pairs.
> 
> The telephone voice line can be left on one pair.  So it depends on what you
> mean to do at the extension site, and if you want to wire as direct line
> from the master sockets (recommended), or as completely separate extensions
> with ringer wiring.
> 
> Search the web for "UK telephone wiring standard" for a few good hits on the
> subject.


These are extensions, as in what is currently six foot away from the 
current master sockets via two cables. I want to run the same down one 
cable, over a greater distance ...... do I truly have to be *that* 
fussy?

In article , 
trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
 

> It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
> summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
> a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
> consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.


The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the 
summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.

I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the 
PC.

The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there 
is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance 
away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm 
afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.


> I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
> is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
> is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
> could be very easily be damaged.


It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and 
then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and 
very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.

If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage 
issues, then is it the right one?

In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...



> What sort of distance are we talking about here?


Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.


> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).


The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
No networking at all. 

Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.


> Actually, you should run only 1-pair per extension over a shared
> cable like this, interconnecting pins 2 and 5 only, and use master
> sockets rather than extension sockets at the far end to recreate
> the bell wire on pin 3.


ah .... enter confusion.


> You need to think where your ADSL filter(s) go. You could have one
> filter at the BT master socket handling all the extensions and
> carry the ADSL signal in a 3rd pair, although the premises cable
> total length might degrade the ADSL signal more than multiple ADSL
> filters would.
> 
> However, as I said earlier, I would run a number of Cat5e cables
> rather than running any Cat 3.


Multiple cables .... messy, conduit, costly. maybe?

In article <YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
spam.guard@_spam_guard.com ...

> 
> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
> >
> > I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it,
> > one doesn't.
> >
> > I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do
> > not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks,
> > routers et al)
> >
> > I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the
> > house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the
> > cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT
> > type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time
> > consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and
> > fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit
> > will be level along its length!
> >
> > Thus, I have found this site :
> >
> > http://www.tlc-
> > direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
> >
> > (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
> >
> > ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
> >
> > Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not
> > have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due
> > consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
> >
> > To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension
> > for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken
> > into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
> >
> > Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per
> > extension aren't they?
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> You need a good quality twisted-pair cable, or CAT5 if you can get it, and
> make sure that all connections are tight.  Try not to make tight bends in
> the cable if a natural bend can be made.  So don't hammer it in to corners.
> 
> Twisted pair cable can be any amount of pairs, and the best one to choose is
> up to you on price.  If wiring as an extension from the master sockets, then
> you will need ringer wiring to the two new sockets as well as line wiring.
> Which means three wires instead of two.  So it might be best to buy two
> master sockets from Screwfix or other, and wire the new extensions as direct
> line from the original master sockets.
> 
> For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the pairs
> the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white and blue/white are
> the closest together, then use both of these pairs.  Wire them as if two
> individual pairs, but wire them to the same connections in the boxes, if you
> get my meaning.  Don't separate the single wires of the pairs.
> 
> The telephone voice line can be left on one pair.  So it depends on what you
> mean to do at the extension site, and if you want to wire as direct line
> from the master sockets (recommended), or as completely separate extensions
> with ringer wiring.
> 
> Search the web for "UK telephone wiring standard" for a few good hits on the
> subject.


These are extensions, as in what is currently six foot away from the 
current master sockets via two cables. I want to run the same down one 
cable, over a greater distance ...... do I truly have to be *that* 
fussy?

In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...



> What sort of distance are we talking about here?


Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.


> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).


The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
No networking at all. 

Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.


> Actually, you should run only 1-pair per extension over a shared
> cable like this, interconnecting pins 2 and 5 only, and use master
> sockets rather than extension sockets at the far end to recreate
> the bell wire on pin 3.


ah .... enter confusion.


> You need to think where your ADSL filter(s) go. You could have one
> filter at the BT master socket handling all the extensions and
> carry the ADSL signal in a 3rd pair, although the premises cable
> total length might degrade the ADSL signal more than multiple ADSL
> filters would.
> 
> However, as I said earlier, I would run a number of Cat5e cables
> rather than running any Cat 3.


Multiple cables .... messy, conduit, costly. maybe?

In article <YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
spam.guard@_spam_guard.com ...

> 
> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
> >
> > I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it,
> > one doesn't.
> >
> > I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do
> > not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks,
> > routers et al)
> >
> > I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the
> > house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the
> > cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT
> > type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time
> > consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and
> > fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit
> > will be level along its length!
> >
> > Thus, I have found this site :
> >
> > http://www.tlc-
> > direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
> >
> > (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
> >
> > ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
> >
> > Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not
> > have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due
> > consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
> >
> > To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension
> > for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken
> > into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
> >
> > Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per
> > extension aren't they?
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> You need a good quality twisted-pair cable, or CAT5 if you can get it, and
> make sure that all connections are tight.  Try not to make tight bends in
> the cable if a natural bend can be made.  So don't hammer it in to corners.
> 
> Twisted pair cable can be any amount of pairs, and the best one to choose is
> up to you on price.  If wiring as an extension from the master sockets, then
> you will need ringer wiring to the two new sockets as well as line wiring.
> Which means three wires instead of two.  So it might be best to buy two
> master sockets from Screwfix or other, and wire the new extensions as direct
> line from the original master sockets.
> 
> For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the pairs
> the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white and blue/white are
> the closest together, then use both of these pairs.  Wire them as if two
> individual pairs, but wire them to the same connections in the boxes, if you
> get my meaning.  Don't separate the single wires of the pairs.
> 
> The telephone voice line can be left on one pair.  So it depends on what you
> mean to do at the extension site, and if you want to wire as direct line
> from the master sockets (recommended), or as completely separate extensions
> with ringer wiring.
> 
> Search the web for "UK telephone wiring standard" for a few good hits on the
> subject.


These are extensions, as in what is currently six foot away from the 
current master sockets via two cables. I want to run the same down one 
cable, over a greater distance ...... do I truly have to be *that* 
fussy?

"BigWallop"  wrote in message 
news:YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
>>
> For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the 
> pairs
> the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white


You were doing well until the "red/white" pair...a wee brainfreeze? 
(orange/white Shirley?)

"BigWallop"  wrote in message 
news:YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
>>
> For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the 
> pairs
> the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white


You were doing well until the "red/white" pair...a wee brainfreeze? 
(orange/white Shirley?)

"BigWallop"  wrote in message 
news:YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
>>
> For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the 
> pairs
> the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white


You were doing well until the "red/white" pair...a wee brainfreeze? 
(orange/white Shirley?)

"RolYat"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d05bbb163ff413a989778@news.plus.net...

> In article ,
> trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
>
>> It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in 
>> the
>> summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to 
>> connect
>> a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you 
>> won't
>> consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.
>
> The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the
> summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.
>
> I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the
> PC.
>
> The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there
> is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance
> away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm
> afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.
>
>> I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that 
>> there
>> is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest 
>> that it
>> is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply 
>> it
>> could be very easily be damaged.
>
> It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and
> then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and
> very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.
>
> If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage
> issues, then is it the right one?


Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..? You 
can use the spare pairs in a CAT5 cable for a phone, so a couple of runs 
will give you two computer outlets and two phone outlets.

Ivor

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:05 GMT, Alex Threlfall 
wrote:


>In article , newsaccount@-
>removethis-hotmail.co.uk says...
>> 
>> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>> one doesn't.
>> 
>> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>> routers et al)
>> 
>> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
>> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
>> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
>> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
>> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
>> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
>> will be level along its length!
>> 
>> Thus, I have found this site : 
>> 
>> http://www.tlc-
>> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>> 
>> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>> 
>> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>> 
>> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
>> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
>> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
>> 
>> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
>> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
>> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>> 
>> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>> extension aren't they?
>> 
>> TIA.
>> 

[snip]

This has been an interesting thread and has demonstrated that the OP had
choosen the right cable for the installation in mind and could possibly go
down to a lesser number of wires, say just 2 pairs terminating into master
sockets?

A small flaw is that eventually it might be desired to run a network back to
the main house/building.  If that were the case I seem to remember that there
was equipment around that places a 'box' on each end of four core telephone
cable to which CAT5 cable can be connected; are such pieces of equipment still
arround?  But there again I see there is now available a couple of plugs that
can be plugged into the electricity supply to do the same thing.  Is one
method better than the other?

David Bradley

"RolYat"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d05bbb163ff413a989778@news.plus.net...

> In article ,
> trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
>
>> It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in 
>> the
>> summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to 
>> connect
>> a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you 
>> won't
>> consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.
>
> The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the
> summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.
>
> I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the
> PC.
>
> The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there
> is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance
> away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm
> afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.
>
>> I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that 
>> there
>> is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest 
>> that it
>> is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply 
>> it
>> could be very easily be damaged.
>
> It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and
> then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and
> very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.
>
> If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage
> issues, then is it the right one?


Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..? You 
can use the spare pairs in a CAT5 cable for a phone, so a couple of runs 
will give you two computer outlets and two phone outlets.

Ivor

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:05 GMT, Alex Threlfall 
wrote:


>In article , newsaccount@-
>removethis-hotmail.co.uk says...
>> 
>> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>> one doesn't.
>> 
>> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>> routers et al)
>> 
>> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
>> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
>> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
>> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
>> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
>> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
>> will be level along its length!
>> 
>> Thus, I have found this site : 
>> 
>> http://www.tlc-
>> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>> 
>> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>> 
>> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>> 
>> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
>> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
>> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
>> 
>> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
>> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
>> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>> 
>> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>> extension aren't they?
>> 
>> TIA.
>> 

[snip]

This has been an interesting thread and has demonstrated that the OP had
choosen the right cable for the installation in mind and could possibly go
down to a lesser number of wires, say just 2 pairs terminating into master
sockets?

A small flaw is that eventually it might be desired to run a network back to
the main house/building.  If that were the case I seem to remember that there
was equipment around that places a 'box' on each end of four core telephone
cable to which CAT5 cable can be connected; are such pieces of equipment still
arround?  But there again I see there is now available a couple of plugs that
can be plugged into the electricity supply to do the same thing.  Is one
method better than the other?

David Bradley

"RolYat"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d05bbb163ff413a989778@news.plus.net...

> In article ,
> trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
>
>> It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in 
>> the
>> summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to 
>> connect
>> a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you 
>> won't
>> consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.
>
> The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the
> summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.
>
> I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the
> PC.
>
> The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there
> is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance
> away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm
> afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.
>
>> I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that 
>> there
>> is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest 
>> that it
>> is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply 
>> it
>> could be very easily be damaged.
>
> It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and
> then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and
> very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.
>
> If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage
> issues, then is it the right one?


Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..? You 
can use the spare pairs in a CAT5 cable for a phone, so a couple of runs 
will give you two computer outlets and two phone outlets.

Ivor

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:02:05 GMT, Alex Threlfall 
wrote:


>In article , newsaccount@-
>removethis-hotmail.co.uk says...
>> 
>> I have 2 BT lines/numbers into my house .... one has ADSL enabled on it, 
>> one doesn't.
>> 
>> I need to run both lines out to a new summerhouse in the garden, I _do 
>> not_ want to go down any wireless options (DECT, wireless networks, 
>> routers et al)
>> 
>> I can of course run 2 separate cables from each BT Master Socket in the 
>> house (which are literally side by side) conduited along the route the 
>> cable needs to take, terminating in the usual (B&Q, Homebase etc) BT 
>> type sockets at the other end, however, I fear this will be both time 
>> consuming and more costly, as I have to consider conduit purchase and 
>> fixing. Given my DIY drilling skills, I can't also imagine the conduit 
>> will be level along its length!
>> 
>> Thus, I have found this site : 
>> 
>> http://www.tlc-
>> direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>> 
>> (http://tinyurl.com/ajkjk)
>> 
>> ... which shows (as I see it) 10 different wires (5 pairs)
>> 
>> Am I right I could effectively wire both lines down this cable, and not 
>> have any issues with my voice or ADSL lines, so long as I give due 
>> consideration to ADSL filtering etc?
>> 
>> To all intents and purposes, I'm just adding another telephone extension 
>> for each line (not adding any more kit incidentally, REN value taken 
>> into consideration) which I would like to run down one specific cable.
>> 
>> Is this that cable? Is 5 pairs enough? Only 3 wires are used per 
>> extension aren't they?
>> 
>> TIA.
>> 

[snip]

This has been an interesting thread and has demonstrated that the OP had
choosen the right cable for the installation in mind and could possibly go
down to a lesser number of wires, say just 2 pairs terminating into master
sockets?

A small flaw is that eventually it might be desired to run a network back to
the main house/building.  If that were the case I seem to remember that there
was equipment around that places a 'box' on each end of four core telephone
cable to which CAT5 cable can be connected; are such pieces of equipment still
arround?  But there again I see there is now available a couple of plugs that
can be plugged into the electricity supply to do the same thing.  Is one
method better than the other?

David Bradley

In article ,
	David Bradley  writes:

>
>A small flaw is that eventually it might be desired to run a network back to
>the main house/building.  If that were the case I seem to remember that there
>was equipment around that places a 'box' on each end of four core telephone
>cable to which CAT5 cable can be connected; are such pieces of equipment still
>arround?


Well there was 100base-VG ethernet, which HP pushed as a technology
to pass 100Mbit ethernet over Cat 3 (regular voice grade wiring)
using 2 pairs, but it never caught on. Might find some old kit around,
but no one makes it anymore.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
	David Bradley  writes:

>
>A small flaw is that eventually it might be desired to run a network back to
>the main house/building.  If that were the case I seem to remember that there
>was equipment around that places a 'box' on each end of four core telephone
>cable to which CAT5 cable can be connected; are such pieces of equipment still
>arround?


Well there was 100base-VG ethernet, which HP pushed as a technology
to pass 100Mbit ethernet over Cat 3 (regular voice grade wiring)
using 2 pairs, but it never caught on. Might find some old kit around,
but no one makes it anymore.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
	David Bradley  writes:

>
>A small flaw is that eventually it might be desired to run a network back to
>the main house/building.  If that were the case I seem to remember that there
>was equipment around that places a 'box' on each end of four core telephone
>cable to which CAT5 cable can be connected; are such pieces of equipment still
>arround?


Well there was 100base-VG ethernet, which HP pushed as a technology
to pass 100Mbit ethernet over Cat 3 (regular voice grade wiring)
using 2 pairs, but it never caught on. Might find some old kit around,
but no one makes it anymore.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

In article <429c50d8$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
	andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:

>
>Well there was 100base-VG ethernet, which HP pushed as a technology
>to pass 100Mbit ethernet over Cat 3 (regular voice grade wiring)
>using 2 pairs, but it never caught on. Might find some old kit around,


oops, I mean 4 pairs...


>but no one makes it anymore.


-- 
Andrew Gabriel

In article <429c50d8$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
	andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:

>
>Well there was 100base-VG ethernet, which HP pushed as a technology
>to pass 100Mbit ethernet over Cat 3 (regular voice grade wiring)
>using 2 pairs, but it never caught on. Might find some old kit around,


oops, I mean 4 pairs...


>but no one makes it anymore.


-- 
Andrew Gabriel

In article <429c50d8$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
	andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:

>
>Well there was 100base-VG ethernet, which HP pushed as a technology
>to pass 100Mbit ethernet over Cat 3 (regular voice grade wiring)
>using 2 pairs, but it never caught on. Might find some old kit around,


oops, I mean 4 pairs...


>but no one makes it anymore.


-- 
Andrew Gabriel

RolYat wrote:

> In article , 
> trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
>  
> 
>>It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
>>summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
>>a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
>>consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.
> 
> 
> The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the 
> summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.
> 
> I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the 
> PC.
> 
> The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there 
> is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance 
> away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm 
> afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.
> 
> 
>>I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
>>is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
>>is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
>>could be very easily be damaged.
> 
> 
> It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and 
> then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and 
> very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.
> 
> If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage 
> issues, then is it the right one?


CW1128 is designed for installation in underground ducts, protected from 
mechanical damage but prone to waterlogging.  I don't know how resistant 
to UV the polyethylene insulation would be in an exposed location, but I 
guess it should last a few years at least. If you wanted to be safe, you 
could put it into plastic conduit, which is fairly cheap: you could then 
get away with using internal cable.

CW1378 is normally used for above-ground "drop-wire" but I don't think 
it comes above 3 pair.

The line for ADSL would be run straight from the house outlet without 
filtering.  If you want a telephone outside, either use another filter 
in the summerhouse or run a line from the house's filter over another 
cable pair, so you have both filtered and unfiltered extensions.

The fax line wouldn't need a master socket or 3rd wire if it's outgoing 
only, so 2 wires (1 pair) to a secondary would be OK, though it would be 
wise to allow for a change of use later.

RolYat wrote:

> In article , 
> trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
>  
> 
>>It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
>>summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
>>a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
>>consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.
> 
> 
> The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the 
> summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.
> 
> I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the 
> PC.
> 
> The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there 
> is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance 
> away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm 
> afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.
> 
> 
>>I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
>>is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
>>is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
>>could be very easily be damaged.
> 
> 
> It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and 
> then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and 
> very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.
> 
> If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage 
> issues, then is it the right one?


CW1128 is designed for installation in underground ducts, protected from 
mechanical damage but prone to waterlogging.  I don't know how resistant 
to UV the polyethylene insulation would be in an exposed location, but I 
guess it should last a few years at least. If you wanted to be safe, you 
could put it into plastic conduit, which is fairly cheap: you could then 
get away with using internal cable.

CW1378 is normally used for above-ground "drop-wire" but I don't think 
it comes above 3 pair.

The line for ADSL would be run straight from the house outlet without 
filtering.  If you want a telephone outside, either use another filter 
in the summerhouse or run a line from the house's filter over another 
cable pair, so you have both filtered and unfiltered extensions.

The fax line wouldn't need a master socket or 3rd wire if it's outgoing 
only, so 2 wires (1 pair) to a secondary would be OK, though it would be 
wise to allow for a change of use later.

RolYat wrote:

> In article , 
> trolley@spamless.co.uk ...
>  
> 
>>It is assumed that only a couple of telephones are to be installed in the
>>summerhouse and that you don't intend to use the telephone service to connect
>>a modem at the remote end.  In which case it seems suprising that you won't
>>consider the use of DECT phones which seem the obvious solution.
> 
> 
> The problem is .... the ADSL line is the line that *must* run to the 
> summerhouse, as this is into what the router will plug.
> 
> I will also be using one of the lines for a FAX sending service via the 
> PC.
> 
> The 2nd line /could/ be DECT, but this would mean the base unit (there 
> is only the base and one handset) would remain indoors some distance 
> away. Convenience factor equals put it on the desk in front of me i'm 
> afraid, and running it down the same cable seemed a good idea.
> 
> 
>>I wonder about the telephone cable you have selected; it seems odd that there
>>is no mechnical protection to the "service wires" which would suggest that it
>>is not designed to be burried. If  it was not buried relatively deeply it
>>could be very easily be damaged.
> 
> 
> It won't be buried ... it will be 'pinned' to the side of a house, and 
> then run along the side bearer of some decking. Very inaccessible, and 
> very unlikely to suffer damage from digging et al.
> 
> If it is a suited cable that will be sited away from potential damage 
> issues, then is it the right one?


CW1128 is designed for installation in underground ducts, protected from 
mechanical damage but prone to waterlogging.  I don't know how resistant 
to UV the polyethylene insulation would be in an exposed location, but I 
guess it should last a few years at least. If you wanted to be safe, you 
could put it into plastic conduit, which is fairly cheap: you could then 
get away with using internal cable.

CW1378 is normally used for above-ground "drop-wire" but I don't think 
it comes above 3 pair.

The line for ADSL would be run straight from the house outlet without 
filtering.  If you want a telephone outside, either use another filter 
in the summerhouse or run a line from the house's filter over another 
cable pair, so you have both filtered and unfiltered extensions.

The fax line wouldn't need a master socket or 3rd wire if it's outgoing 
only, so 2 wires (1 pair) to a secondary would be OK, though it would be 
wise to allow for a change of use later.

"Zomaar"  wrote in message
news:429bb2dd$0$535$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

>
> "BigWallop"  wrote in message
> news:YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "RolYat"  wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
> >>
> > For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the
> > pairs
> > the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white
>
> You were doing well until the "red/white" pair...a wee brainfreeze?
> (orange/white Shirley?)
>

LOL!!!  You know what I meant.  LOL!!!  And stop calling me Surely.  :-)

"Zomaar"  wrote in message
news:429bb2dd$0$535$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

>
> "BigWallop"  wrote in message
> news:YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "RolYat"  wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
> >>
> > For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the
> > pairs
> > the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white
>
> You were doing well until the "red/white" pair...a wee brainfreeze?
> (orange/white Shirley?)
>

LOL!!!  You know what I meant.  LOL!!!  And stop calling me Surely.  :-)

"Zomaar"  wrote in message
news:429bb2dd$0$535$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

>
> "BigWallop"  wrote in message
> news:YYLme.42475$G8.41461@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "RolYat"  wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d058a81c5ddac92989775@news.plus.net...
> >>
> > For the ADSL, try to make the wiring in two of the pairs, and make the
> > pairs
> > the closest together in the bundle.  So, if the red/white
>
> You were doing well until the "red/white" pair...a wee brainfreeze?
> (orange/white Shirley?)
>

LOL!!!  You know what I meant.  LOL!!!  And stop calling me Surely.  :-)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:17:04 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
>andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...
>
>
>> What sort of distance are we talking about here?
>
>Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.
>
>> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
>> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
>> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).
>
>The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
>No networking at all. 


today. Tomorrow, who knows: :-)


>Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
>want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.


Cat5e is good for this - four twisted pairs in one sheath, and low
interference by design.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:17:04 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
>andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...
>
>
>> What sort of distance are we talking about here?
>
>Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.
>
>> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
>> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
>> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).
>
>The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
>No networking at all. 


today. Tomorrow, who knows: :-)


>Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
>want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.


Cat5e is good for this - four twisted pairs in one sheath, and low
interference by design.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:17:04 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
>andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...
>
>
>> What sort of distance are we talking about here?
>
>Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.
>
>> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
>> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
>> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).
>
>The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
>No networking at all. 


today. Tomorrow, who knows: :-)


>Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
>want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.


Cat5e is good for this - four twisted pairs in one sheath, and low
interference by design.

In article , ivor@despammed.invalid ...

 

> Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?


when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router 
conveniently where I am situated?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less 
cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the 
need for conduit etc to keep costs down.

Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?

In article , 
markmcintyre@spamcop.net ...

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:17:04 +0100, RolYat
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
> >andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...
> >
> >
> >> What sort of distance are we talking about here?
> >
> >Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.
> >
> >> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
> >> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
> >> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).
> >
> >The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
> >No networking at all. 
> 
> today. Tomorrow, who knows: :-)


Any further networking - back to the house - will be wireless. I know I 
could do it the other way, house to garden, but for my own reasons, I 
want wired to the summerhouse, and then anything requiring access in the 
house (my laptop) would connect wirelessly from a wireless access point 
mounted in the summerhouse.

Unless someone knows of a stand alone wireless access point that has a 
built in hub?



> >Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
> >want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.
> 
> Cat5e is good for this - four twisted pairs in one sheath, and low
> interference by design. 
> 
> 
> 

"RolYat"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d07c9a013f86f6098977f@news.plus.net...

> In article , ivor@despammed.invalid ...
>
>
> > Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?
>
> when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router
> conveniently where I am situated?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less
> cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the
> need for conduit etc to keep costs down.
>
> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>


Weather proof as long as the outer casing isn't damaged, and the open ends
aren't exposed to the elements.  Good quality Grey insulated CAT5 is pretty
well resistant to UV light as well, so it does stand up to being outside OK.

In article , ivor@despammed.invalid ...

 

> Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?


when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router 
conveniently where I am situated?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less 
cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the 
need for conduit etc to keep costs down.

Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?

In article , 
markmcintyre@spamcop.net ...

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:17:04 +0100, RolYat
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
> >andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...
> >
> >
> >> What sort of distance are we talking about here?
> >
> >Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.
> >
> >> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
> >> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
> >> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).
> >
> >The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
> >No networking at all. 
> 
> today. Tomorrow, who knows: :-)


Any further networking - back to the house - will be wireless. I know I 
could do it the other way, house to garden, but for my own reasons, I 
want wired to the summerhouse, and then anything requiring access in the 
house (my laptop) would connect wirelessly from a wireless access point 
mounted in the summerhouse.

Unless someone knows of a stand alone wireless access point that has a 
built in hub?



> >Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
> >want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.
> 
> Cat5e is good for this - four twisted pairs in one sheath, and low
> interference by design. 
> 
> 
> 

"RolYat"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d07c9a013f86f6098977f@news.plus.net...

> In article , ivor@despammed.invalid ...
>
>
> > Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?
>
> when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router
> conveniently where I am situated?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less
> cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the
> need for conduit etc to keep costs down.
>
> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>


Weather proof as long as the outer casing isn't damaged, and the open ends
aren't exposed to the elements.  Good quality Grey insulated CAT5 is pretty
well resistant to UV light as well, so it does stand up to being outside OK.

In article , ivor@despammed.invalid ...

 

> Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?


when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router 
conveniently where I am situated?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less 
cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the 
need for conduit etc to keep costs down.

Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?

In article , 
markmcintyre@spamcop.net ...

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:17:04 +0100, RolYat
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article <429b85d4$0$38038$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, 
> >andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk ...
> >
> >
> >> What sort of distance are we talking about here?
> >
> >Pass. I haven't measured accurately, but less than 50 metres.
> >
> >> Personally, I would not run any Cat 3 cable anywhere nowadays.
> >> I would put in a number of Cat 5e runs, which you can use for
> >> phone or network (and an increasing number of other purposes).
> >
> >The proposed cable is for phone, albeit ADSL as well.
> >No networking at all. 
> 
> today. Tomorrow, who knows: :-)


Any further networking - back to the house - will be wireless. I know I 
could do it the other way, house to garden, but for my own reasons, I 
want wired to the summerhouse, and then anything requiring access in the 
house (my laptop) would connect wirelessly from a wireless access point 
mounted in the summerhouse.

Unless someone knows of a stand alone wireless access point that has a 
built in hub?



> >Simple telephone extensions, but to an outside location, hence why I 
> >want the right cable, and cable I can hopefully run 2 lines down.
> 
> Cat5e is good for this - four twisted pairs in one sheath, and low
> interference by design. 
> 
> 
> 

"RolYat"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d07c9a013f86f6098977f@news.plus.net...

> In article , ivor@despammed.invalid ...
>
>
> > Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?
>
> when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router
> conveniently where I am situated?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less
> cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the
> need for conduit etc to keep costs down.
>
> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>


Weather proof as long as the outer casing isn't damaged, and the open ends
aren't exposed to the elements.  Good quality Grey insulated CAT5 is pretty
well resistant to UV light as well, so it does stand up to being outside OK.

BigWallop wrote:

> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d07c9a013f86f6098977f@news.plus.net...
>> In article , ivor@despammed.invalid
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?
>>
>> when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router
>> conveniently where I am situated?
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less
>> cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the
>> need for conduit etc to keep costs down.
>>
>> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>>
>
> Weather proof as long as the outer casing isn't damaged, and the open
> ends aren't exposed to the elements.  Good quality Grey insulated
> CAT5 is pretty well resistant to UV light as well, so it does stand
> up to being outside OK.


Depends on how long it's outside & which way the wall is facing.  Unless the 
cable is actually labelled external then the colour doesn't make any 
difference...

BigWallop wrote:

> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d07c9a013f86f6098977f@news.plus.net...
>> In article , ivor@despammed.invalid
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?
>>
>> when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router
>> conveniently where I am situated?
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less
>> cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the
>> need for conduit etc to keep costs down.
>>
>> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>>
>
> Weather proof as long as the outer casing isn't damaged, and the open
> ends aren't exposed to the elements.  Good quality Grey insulated
> CAT5 is pretty well resistant to UV light as well, so it does stand
> up to being outside OK.


Depends on how long it's outside & which way the wall is facing.  Unless the 
cable is actually labelled external then the colour doesn't make any 
difference...

BigWallop wrote:

> "RolYat"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d07c9a013f86f6098977f@news.plus.net...
>> In article , ivor@despammed.invalid
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Why not put the router in the house and run a few lengths of CAT5..?
>>
>> when I can have one cable, with 2 lines 'in' it and the router
>> conveniently where I am situated?
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, but I am trying to achieve having as less
>> cable running along the side of the house as is possible, without the
>> need for conduit etc to keep costs down.
>>
>> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>>
>
> Weather proof as long as the outer casing isn't damaged, and the open
> ends aren't exposed to the elements.  Good quality Grey insulated
> CAT5 is pretty well resistant to UV light as well, so it does stand
> up to being outside OK.


Depends on how long it's outside & which way the wall is facing.  Unless the 
cable is actually labelled external then the colour doesn't make any 
difference...

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?


I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
to RJ45 faceplates).

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:37:20 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>Unless someone knows of a stand alone wireless access point that has a 
>built in hub?


Any cheap wireless router will do this. Just ignore the WAN side of
it. I'm using an old actiontec router for this purpose.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?


I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
to RJ45 faceplates).

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:37:20 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>Unless someone knows of a stand alone wireless access point that has a 
>built in hub?


Any cheap wireless router will do this. Just ignore the WAN side of
it. I'm using an old actiontec router for this purpose.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?


I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
to RJ45 faceplates).

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:37:20 +0100, RolYat
 wrote:


>Unless someone knows of a stand alone wireless access point that has a 
>built in hub?


Any cheap wireless router will do this. Just ignore the WAN side of
it. I'm using an old actiontec router for this purpose.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:7r7s91hn00nubbdd4s2n2jicv1khps53io@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
>  wrote:
>
>>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>
> I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
> my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
> It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
> I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
> in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
> to RJ45 faceplates).


OK, question answered, but i am, after all, only trying to actually get 2 
telephone line extensions outside and not specifically network PC's.

However, thereafter, I will/would like to plug the router into one of the 
extensions, as i do now inside the house, which will enable me to run a PC 
in the SOHO on ADSL, and plug in a wireless access point so i can, when it 
gets brass monkey cold outside, sit inside the house with my laptop and 
connect wirelessly, if neccesary plugging the current DECT telephone units 
inside again.

The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
lines down the same wire? I am, again, only trying to achieve having 'run of 
the mill' telephone extensions in the summerhouse/SOHO into which I happen 
to want to plug a router.

The cable is described as external, which to me, suggests it will last a tad 
longer than a reel of B&Q telephone extension wire...

I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
of them, are over complicating matters. I have 2 lines; I want 2 extensions 
of said lines to run to an outside building, and for the sake of neatness 
(and to some degree cost) I'd like to run them down the same cable instead 
of conduit .... after which i want to plug my ADSL equipment in, as I would 
do were I running an extension to a different room in the house.

It seems straightforward to me (as in simply wiring new extensions in the 
house) the only difference is, I want to use one cable to accommodate 2 
lines/extensions.

Sorry if that comes across as arrogant sounding in respect of some of the 
answers so far given, but c'est la vie, and I do appreciate the advice 
nonetheless.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:7r7s91hn00nubbdd4s2n2jicv1khps53io@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
>  wrote:
>
>>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>
> I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
> my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
> It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
> I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
> in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
> to RJ45 faceplates).


OK, question answered, but i am, after all, only trying to actually get 2 
telephone line extensions outside and not specifically network PC's.

However, thereafter, I will/would like to plug the router into one of the 
extensions, as i do now inside the house, which will enable me to run a PC 
in the SOHO on ADSL, and plug in a wireless access point so i can, when it 
gets brass monkey cold outside, sit inside the house with my laptop and 
connect wirelessly, if neccesary plugging the current DECT telephone units 
inside again.

The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
lines down the same wire? I am, again, only trying to achieve having 'run of 
the mill' telephone extensions in the summerhouse/SOHO into which I happen 
to want to plug a router.

The cable is described as external, which to me, suggests it will last a tad 
longer than a reel of B&Q telephone extension wire...

I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
of them, are over complicating matters. I have 2 lines; I want 2 extensions 
of said lines to run to an outside building, and for the sake of neatness 
(and to some degree cost) I'd like to run them down the same cable instead 
of conduit .... after which i want to plug my ADSL equipment in, as I would 
do were I running an extension to a different room in the house.

It seems straightforward to me (as in simply wiring new extensions in the 
house) the only difference is, I want to use one cable to accommodate 2 
lines/extensions.

Sorry if that comes across as arrogant sounding in respect of some of the 
answers so far given, but c'est la vie, and I do appreciate the advice 
nonetheless.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:7r7s91hn00nubbdd4s2n2jicv1khps53io@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
>  wrote:
>
>>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>
> I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
> my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
> It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
> I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
> in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
> to RJ45 faceplates).


OK, question answered, but i am, after all, only trying to actually get 2 
telephone line extensions outside and not specifically network PC's.

However, thereafter, I will/would like to plug the router into one of the 
extensions, as i do now inside the house, which will enable me to run a PC 
in the SOHO on ADSL, and plug in a wireless access point so i can, when it 
gets brass monkey cold outside, sit inside the house with my laptop and 
connect wirelessly, if neccesary plugging the current DECT telephone units 
inside again.

The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
lines down the same wire? I am, again, only trying to achieve having 'run of 
the mill' telephone extensions in the summerhouse/SOHO into which I happen 
to want to plug a router.

The cable is described as external, which to me, suggests it will last a tad 
longer than a reel of B&Q telephone extension wire...

I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
of them, are over complicating matters. I have 2 lines; I want 2 extensions 
of said lines to run to an outside building, and for the sake of neatness 
(and to some degree cost) I'd like to run them down the same cable instead 
of conduit .... after which i want to plug my ADSL equipment in, as I would 
do were I running an extension to a different room in the house.

It seems straightforward to me (as in simply wiring new extensions in the 
house) the only difference is, I want to use one cable to accommodate 2 
lines/extensions.

Sorry if that comes across as arrogant sounding in respect of some of the 
answers so far given, but c'est la vie, and I do appreciate the advice 
nonetheless.

"PutridStench"  wrote in message
news:3g6pbbFb0qjnU1@individual.net...

>

<<<snipped>>>

Have a look on this site for all the answers you want:
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

"PutridStench"  wrote in message
news:3g6pbbFb0qjnU1@individual.net...

>

<<<snipped>>>

Have a look on this site for all the answers you want:
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

"PutridStench"  wrote in message
news:3g6pbbFb0qjnU1@individual.net...

>

<<<snipped>>>

Have a look on this site for all the answers you want:
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

> Depends on how long it's outside & which way the wall is facing.  Unless
> the cable is actually labelled external then the colour doesn't make any
> difference...


Run it in  black 20mm conduit then. BTW colour can help with stopping
cable insulation breaking down as certain pigments will absorb uv, colour
pigments such as black and grey sheath will contain a certain amount of
black pigment.

Dave

> Depends on how long it's outside & which way the wall is facing.  Unless
> the cable is actually labelled external then the colour doesn't make any
> difference...


Run it in  black 20mm conduit then. BTW colour can help with stopping
cable insulation breaking down as certain pigments will absorb uv, colour
pigments such as black and grey sheath will contain a certain amount of
black pigment.

Dave

> Depends on how long it's outside & which way the wall is facing.  Unless
> the cable is actually labelled external then the colour doesn't make any
> difference...


Run it in  black 20mm conduit then. BTW colour can help with stopping
cable insulation breaking down as certain pigments will absorb uv, colour
pigments such as black and grey sheath will contain a certain amount of
black pigment.

Dave

In article , PutridStench
 writes

>
>"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
>news:7r7s91hn00nubbdd4s2n2jicv1khps53io@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>>>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>>
>> I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
>> my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
>> It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
>> I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
>> in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
>> to RJ45 faceplates).
>
>OK, question answered, but i am, after all, only trying to actually get 2 
>telephone line extensions outside and not specifically network PC's.
>
>However, thereafter, I will/would like to plug the router into one of the 
>extensions, as i do now inside the house, which will enable me to run a PC 
>in the SOHO on ADSL, and plug in a wireless access point so i can, when it 
>gets brass monkey cold outside, sit inside the house with my laptop and 
>connect wirelessly, if neccesary plugging the current DECT telephone units 
>inside again.
>
>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
>lines down the same wire? I am, again, only trying to achieve having 'run of 
>the mill' telephone extensions in the summerhouse/SOHO into which I happen 
>to want to plug a router.
>
>The cable is described as external, which to me, suggests it will last a tad 
>longer than a reel of B&Q telephone extension wire...
>
>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
>of them, are over complicating matters. I have 2 lines; I want 2 extensions 
>of said lines to run to an outside building, and for the sake of neatness 
>(and to some degree cost) I'd like to run them down the same cable instead 
>of conduit .... after which i want to plug my ADSL equipment in, as I would 
>do were I running an extension to a different room in the house.
>
>It seems straightforward to me (as in simply wiring new extensions in the 
>house) the only difference is, I want to use one cable to accommodate 2 
>lines/extensions.
>
>Sorry if that comes across as arrogant sounding in respect of some of the 
>answers so far given, but c'est la vie, and I do appreciate the advice 
>nonetheless. 
>
>

NO, not arrogant.
Many of those posting here are 'professional' cablers/telecomms persons
(maybe the odd sparky too) and they are giving opinions and/or telling
you how it *should* be done. Some are offering alternatives ideas to
solve the problem.

All the ideas suggested would work.
An 'external' grade cable will last longer. If you nick the outer
insulation with a hammer, or clip, whilst running it, it will not last
as long.
If you use an 'internal' grade cable it will NOT last so long.
If you run in conduit (black plastics? will look less obtrusive IMHO)
the cable will be protected from UV, and to a lesser extent moisture. -
It should also be easier to replace/upgrade at a later date.

Personally, I would run two lengths of CAT5E in a conduit. Terminate
both on RJ45 jacks (sockets). Use one to carry the two 'phone lines
(keep each on a pair) and use master sockets (if necessary) at the
remote end. The second cable would be a spare, or could be used to get
the network back to the house when the weather is to bad to venture down
the garden.

HTH,
Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

In article , PutridStench
 writes

>
>"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
>news:7r7s91hn00nubbdd4s2n2jicv1khps53io@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>>>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>>
>> I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
>> my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
>> It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
>> I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
>> in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
>> to RJ45 faceplates).
>
>OK, question answered, but i am, after all, only trying to actually get 2 
>telephone line extensions outside and not specifically network PC's.
>
>However, thereafter, I will/would like to plug the router into one of the 
>extensions, as i do now inside the house, which will enable me to run a PC 
>in the SOHO on ADSL, and plug in a wireless access point so i can, when it 
>gets brass monkey cold outside, sit inside the house with my laptop and 
>connect wirelessly, if neccesary plugging the current DECT telephone units 
>inside again.
>
>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
>lines down the same wire? I am, again, only trying to achieve having 'run of 
>the mill' telephone extensions in the summerhouse/SOHO into which I happen 
>to want to plug a router.
>
>The cable is described as external, which to me, suggests it will last a tad 
>longer than a reel of B&Q telephone extension wire...
>
>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
>of them, are over complicating matters. I have 2 lines; I want 2 extensions 
>of said lines to run to an outside building, and for the sake of neatness 
>(and to some degree cost) I'd like to run them down the same cable instead 
>of conduit .... after which i want to plug my ADSL equipment in, as I would 
>do were I running an extension to a different room in the house.
>
>It seems straightforward to me (as in simply wiring new extensions in the 
>house) the only difference is, I want to use one cable to accommodate 2 
>lines/extensions.
>
>Sorry if that comes across as arrogant sounding in respect of some of the 
>answers so far given, but c'est la vie, and I do appreciate the advice 
>nonetheless. 
>
>

NO, not arrogant.
Many of those posting here are 'professional' cablers/telecomms persons
(maybe the odd sparky too) and they are giving opinions and/or telling
you how it *should* be done. Some are offering alternatives ideas to
solve the problem.

All the ideas suggested would work.
An 'external' grade cable will last longer. If you nick the outer
insulation with a hammer, or clip, whilst running it, it will not last
as long.
If you use an 'internal' grade cable it will NOT last so long.
If you run in conduit (black plastics? will look less obtrusive IMHO)
the cable will be protected from UV, and to a lesser extent moisture. -
It should also be easier to replace/upgrade at a later date.

Personally, I would run two lengths of CAT5E in a conduit. Terminate
both on RJ45 jacks (sockets). Use one to carry the two 'phone lines
(keep each on a pair) and use master sockets (if necessary) at the
remote end. The second cable would be a spare, or could be used to get
the network back to the house when the weather is to bad to venture down
the garden.

HTH,
Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

In article , PutridStench
 writes

>
>"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
>news:7r7s91hn00nubbdd4s2n2jicv1khps53io@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:33:59 +0100, RolYat
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather
>>>generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?
>>
>> I have several ells of it running along the outside of various bits of
>> my house, where I couldn't get under floorboards when cabling up.
>> It'll degrade over time, same as any cable but will last years unless
>> I nick it with pruning shears or something. The end points need to be
>> in waterproof containments however (mine all run back inside the house
>> to RJ45 faceplates).
>
>OK, question answered, but i am, after all, only trying to actually get 2 
>telephone line extensions outside and not specifically network PC's.
>
>However, thereafter, I will/would like to plug the router into one of the 
>extensions, as i do now inside the house, which will enable me to run a PC 
>in the SOHO on ADSL, and plug in a wireless access point so i can, when it 
>gets brass monkey cold outside, sit inside the house with my laptop and 
>connect wirelessly, if neccesary plugging the current DECT telephone units 
>inside again.
>
>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
>lines down the same wire? I am, again, only trying to achieve having 'run of 
>the mill' telephone extensions in the summerhouse/SOHO into which I happen 
>to want to plug a router.
>
>The cable is described as external, which to me, suggests it will last a tad 
>longer than a reel of B&Q telephone extension wire...
>
>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
>of them, are over complicating matters. I have 2 lines; I want 2 extensions 
>of said lines to run to an outside building, and for the sake of neatness 
>(and to some degree cost) I'd like to run them down the same cable instead 
>of conduit .... after which i want to plug my ADSL equipment in, as I would 
>do were I running an extension to a different room in the house.
>
>It seems straightforward to me (as in simply wiring new extensions in the 
>house) the only difference is, I want to use one cable to accommodate 2 
>lines/extensions.
>
>Sorry if that comes across as arrogant sounding in respect of some of the 
>answers so far given, but c'est la vie, and I do appreciate the advice 
>nonetheless. 
>
>

NO, not arrogant.
Many of those posting here are 'professional' cablers/telecomms persons
(maybe the odd sparky too) and they are giving opinions and/or telling
you how it *should* be done. Some are offering alternatives ideas to
solve the problem.

All the ideas suggested would work.
An 'external' grade cable will last longer. If you nick the outer
insulation with a hammer, or clip, whilst running it, it will not last
as long.
If you use an 'internal' grade cable it will NOT last so long.
If you run in conduit (black plastics? will look less obtrusive IMHO)
the cable will be protected from UV, and to a lesser extent moisture. -
It should also be easier to replace/upgrade at a later date.

Personally, I would run two lengths of CAT5E in a conduit. Terminate
both on RJ45 jacks (sockets). Use one to carry the two 'phone lines
(keep each on a pair) and use master sockets (if necessary) at the
remote end. The second cable would be a spare, or could be used to get
the network back to the house when the weather is to bad to venture down
the garden.

HTH,
Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:57:35 +0100, "PutridStench"
 wrote:


>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
>lines down the same wire? 


The original post has long gone, so I don't know what the cable is.
However if it has four or more cores arranged in twisted pairs, then
the answer is yes. If it has less than four cores then no, and if
they're not in twisted pairs, then the answer may still be no, as
untwisted pairs will interfere with each other electronically and you
may get impaired performance / loss of modem synch. 


>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
>of them, are over complicating matters. 


You may think so, but CAT5 really is the ideal cable for this. Its
cheap, designed for carrying telecoms signals, and sturdy. 

By the way, unless you can clip the cable to a solid brick wall for
the entire length, you'd be /strongly/ advised to put it in cable
duct. Nothing more annoying than sticking a garden spade through your
cable.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:57:35 +0100, "PutridStench"
 wrote:


>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
>lines down the same wire? 


The original post has long gone, so I don't know what the cable is.
However if it has four or more cores arranged in twisted pairs, then
the answer is yes. If it has less than four cores then no, and if
they're not in twisted pairs, then the answer may still be no, as
untwisted pairs will interfere with each other electronically and you
may get impaired performance / loss of modem synch. 


>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
>of them, are over complicating matters. 


You may think so, but CAT5 really is the ideal cable for this. Its
cheap, designed for carrying telecoms signals, and sturdy. 

By the way, unless you can clip the cable to a solid brick wall for
the entire length, you'd be /strongly/ advised to put it in cable
duct. Nothing more annoying than sticking a garden spade through your
cable.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:57:35 +0100, "PutridStench"
 wrote:


>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2 
>lines down the same wire? 


The original post has long gone, so I don't know what the cable is.
However if it has four or more cores arranged in twisted pairs, then
the answer is yes. If it has less than four cores then no, and if
they're not in twisted pairs, then the answer may still be no, as
untwisted pairs will interfere with each other electronically and you
may get impaired performance / loss of modem synch. 


>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very appreciative 
>of them, are over complicating matters. 


You may think so, but CAT5 really is the ideal cable for this. Its
cheap, designed for carrying telecoms signals, and sturdy. 

By the way, unless you can clip the cable to a solid brick wall for
the entire length, you'd be /strongly/ advised to put it in cable
duct. Nothing more annoying than sticking a garden spade through your
cable.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:kdmu915n9cpof8h8isvrfagth2th3vil14@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:57:35 +0100, "PutridStench"
>  wrote:
>
>>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2
>>lines down the same wire?
>
> The original post has long gone, so I don't know what the cable is.


http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/


>>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very 
>>appreciative
>>of them, are over complicating matters.
>
> You may think so, but CAT5 really is the ideal cable for this. Its
> cheap, designed for carrying telecoms signals, and sturdy.


Yes, but, so is the cable in question i want to use. CAT5 isn't in itself 
designed for external use, and I would have the additional cost of conduit, 
plus the faffing around of fixing it all up. Cable clipping the cable to the 
wall that I want to use seems the better option. I simply want to be able to 
get a telphone extension outside, as opposed to inside as it is now.


> By the way, unless you can clip the cable to a solid brick wall for
> the entire length, you'd be /strongly/ advised to put it in cable
> duct. Nothing more annoying than sticking a garden spade through your
> cable.


I have just such a brick wall, then the cable will disappear under decking, 
and pop up into the summerhouse.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:kdmu915n9cpof8h8isvrfagth2th3vil14@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:57:35 +0100, "PutridStench"
>  wrote:
>
>>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2
>>lines down the same wire?
>
> The original post has long gone, so I don't know what the cable is.


http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/


>>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very 
>>appreciative
>>of them, are over complicating matters.
>
> You may think so, but CAT5 really is the ideal cable for this. Its
> cheap, designed for carrying telecoms signals, and sturdy.


Yes, but, so is the cable in question i want to use. CAT5 isn't in itself 
designed for external use, and I would have the additional cost of conduit, 
plus the faffing around of fixing it all up. Cable clipping the cable to the 
wall that I want to use seems the better option. I simply want to be able to 
get a telphone extension outside, as opposed to inside as it is now.


> By the way, unless you can clip the cable to a solid brick wall for
> the entire length, you'd be /strongly/ advised to put it in cable
> duct. Nothing more annoying than sticking a garden spade through your
> cable.


I have just such a brick wall, then the cable will disappear under decking, 
and pop up into the summerhouse.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:kdmu915n9cpof8h8isvrfagth2th3vil14@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:57:35 +0100, "PutridStench"
>  wrote:
>
>>The question is, will the cable i originally specified allow me to 'run' 2
>>lines down the same wire?
>
> The original post has long gone, so I don't know what the cable is.


http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/


>>I can't help feeling some of the replies thus far, whislt very 
>>appreciative
>>of them, are over complicating matters.
>
> You may think so, but CAT5 really is the ideal cable for this. Its
> cheap, designed for carrying telecoms signals, and sturdy.


Yes, but, so is the cable in question i want to use. CAT5 isn't in itself 
designed for external use, and I would have the additional cost of conduit, 
plus the faffing around of fixing it all up. Cable clipping the cable to the 
wall that I want to use seems the better option. I simply want to be able to 
get a telphone extension outside, as opposed to inside as it is now.


> By the way, unless you can clip the cable to a solid brick wall for
> the entire length, you'd be /strongly/ advised to put it in cable
> duct. Nothing more annoying than sticking a garden spade through your
> cable.


I have just such a brick wall, then the cable will disappear under decking, 
and pop up into the summerhouse.

"PutridStench" <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:3gak2fFbft1hU1@individual.net...

>

<<<snipped>>>
"I have just such a brick wall, then the cable will disappear under decking,
and pop up into the summerhouse."

WELL  DO  IT  THAT  WAY  THEN !!!!!  No-one here is going to stop you.

But what cable are you going to use?  What is the best type of terminal box
to connect to the cable?  What's the best way to prevent interference on the
new extension?  Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
with the ADSL signal?

They've all been answered in the thread, some of the questions have been
answered many times.  All the info' you need to make this job good, and to
have it work as perfectly as this type of thing can, has all been answered
in this thread.  But you still sound as though you haven't read any of it.
Or, have you read it all, but don't understand parts of it?

If you do need anything information in the thread clarified, then I'm sure
the person giving the info' will oblige with a more simple explanation for
you.  They will, I'm sure, even talk you through the whole thing until the
job is complete.

Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.

"PutridStench" <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:3gak2fFbft1hU1@individual.net...

>

<<<snipped>>>
"I have just such a brick wall, then the cable will disappear under decking,
and pop up into the summerhouse."

WELL  DO  IT  THAT  WAY  THEN !!!!!  No-one here is going to stop you.

But what cable are you going to use?  What is the best type of terminal box
to connect to the cable?  What's the best way to prevent interference on the
new extension?  Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
with the ADSL signal?

They've all been answered in the thread, some of the questions have been
answered many times.  All the info' you need to make this job good, and to
have it work as perfectly as this type of thing can, has all been answered
in this thread.  But you still sound as though you haven't read any of it.
Or, have you read it all, but don't understand parts of it?

If you do need anything information in the thread clarified, then I'm sure
the person giving the info' will oblige with a more simple explanation for
you.  They will, I'm sure, even talk you through the whole thing until the
job is complete.

Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.

"PutridStench" <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:3gak2fFbft1hU1@individual.net...

>

<<<snipped>>>
"I have just such a brick wall, then the cable will disappear under decking,
and pop up into the summerhouse."

WELL  DO  IT  THAT  WAY  THEN !!!!!  No-one here is going to stop you.

But what cable are you going to use?  What is the best type of terminal box
to connect to the cable?  What's the best way to prevent interference on the
new extension?  Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
with the ADSL signal?

They've all been answered in the thread, some of the questions have been
answered many times.  All the info' you need to make this job good, and to
have it work as perfectly as this type of thing can, has all been answered
in this thread.  But you still sound as though you haven't read any of it.
Or, have you read it all, but don't understand parts of it?

If you do need anything information in the thread clarified, then I'm sure
the person giving the info' will oblige with a more simple explanation for
you.  They will, I'm sure, even talk you through the whole thing until the
job is complete.

Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.

"BigWallop"  wrote in message 
news:CaXne.44466$G8.21382@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


> WELL  DO  IT  THAT  WAY  THEN !!!!!  No-one here is going to stop you.
>
> But what cable are you going to use?


Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to 
think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer 
networking.

I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
external use; i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, that is 
specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
lines down the same wire, whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 
and that i wanted to avoid conduit due to additional cost and DIY time and 
trouble fixing it.



> What is the best type of terminal box
> to connect to the cable?  What's the best way to prevent interference on 
> the
> new extension?  Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
> with the ADSL signal?


Why should I get any more intereference using an external telephone 
extension that I do using an internal one for my ADSL?
I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house 
...... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.

I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


> They've all been answered in the thread, some of the questions have been
> answered many times.  All the info' you need to make this job good, and to
> have it work as perfectly as this type of thing can, has all been answered
> in this thread.  But you still sound as though you haven't read any of it.
> Or, have you read it all, but don't understand parts of it?


The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't 
understood, or realised, my actual aim.


> If you do need anything information in the thread clarified, then I'm sure
> the person giving the info' will oblige with a more simple explanation for
> you.  They will, I'm sure, even talk you through the whole thing until the
> job is complete.


But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone suggests 
using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to, you'll accuse me 
of not reading their reply - rock and hard place or what.

You sound like you are pissed off with the thread, the questions I'm asking, 
and the general subject matter?


> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.


In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe someone 
will bail you out, but it won't be you.

Have a good weekend yourself mate .....

"BigWallop"  wrote in message 
news:CaXne.44466$G8.21382@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


> WELL  DO  IT  THAT  WAY  THEN !!!!!  No-one here is going to stop you.
>
> But what cable are you going to use?


Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to 
think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer 
networking.

I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
external use; i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, that is 
specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
lines down the same wire, whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 
and that i wanted to avoid conduit due to additional cost and DIY time and 
trouble fixing it.



> What is the best type of terminal box
> to connect to the cable?  What's the best way to prevent interference on 
> the
> new extension?  Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
> with the ADSL signal?


Why should I get any more intereference using an external telephone 
extension that I do using an internal one for my ADSL?
I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house 
...... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.

I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


> They've all been answered in the thread, some of the questions have been
> answered many times.  All the info' you need to make this job good, and to
> have it work as perfectly as this type of thing can, has all been answered
> in this thread.  But you still sound as though you haven't read any of it.
> Or, have you read it all, but don't understand parts of it?


The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't 
understood, or realised, my actual aim.


> If you do need anything information in the thread clarified, then I'm sure
> the person giving the info' will oblige with a more simple explanation for
> you.  They will, I'm sure, even talk you through the whole thing until the
> job is complete.


But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone suggests 
using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to, you'll accuse me 
of not reading their reply - rock and hard place or what.

You sound like you are pissed off with the thread, the questions I'm asking, 
and the general subject matter?


> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.


In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe someone 
will bail you out, but it won't be you.

Have a good weekend yourself mate .....

"BigWallop"  wrote in message 
news:CaXne.44466$G8.21382@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


> WELL  DO  IT  THAT  WAY  THEN !!!!!  No-one here is going to stop you.
>
> But what cable are you going to use?


Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to 
think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer 
networking.

I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
external use; i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, that is 
specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
lines down the same wire, whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 
and that i wanted to avoid conduit due to additional cost and DIY time and 
trouble fixing it.



> What is the best type of terminal box
> to connect to the cable?  What's the best way to prevent interference on 
> the
> new extension?  Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
> with the ADSL signal?


Why should I get any more intereference using an external telephone 
extension that I do using an internal one for my ADSL?
I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house 
...... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.

I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


> They've all been answered in the thread, some of the questions have been
> answered many times.  All the info' you need to make this job good, and to
> have it work as perfectly as this type of thing can, has all been answered
> in this thread.  But you still sound as though you haven't read any of it.
> Or, have you read it all, but don't understand parts of it?


The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't 
understood, or realised, my actual aim.


> If you do need anything information in the thread clarified, then I'm sure
> the person giving the info' will oblige with a more simple explanation for
> you.  They will, I'm sure, even talk you through the whole thing until the
> job is complete.


But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone suggests 
using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to, you'll accuse me 
of not reading their reply - rock and hard place or what.

You sound like you are pissed off with the thread, the questions I'm asking, 
and the general subject matter?


> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.


In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe someone 
will bail you out, but it won't be you.

Have a good weekend yourself mate .....

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>
>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to 
>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer 
>networking.


No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care. 


>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
>external use; 


Cat5e is good for this.


>i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, 


You need to mention it again, your original post is long gone. 


>that is 
>specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
>lines down the same wire, 


if it has two sets of twisted-pair cores then yes.
 

>whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 


If its not twisted pair, then you can expect a long line length to
introduce interference. See below for the effect. 


>> What is the best type of terminal box to connect to the cable?  


Wall-mounted RJ11/RJ45 faceplates, inside a dry building. Avoid
termination and joints outdoors. 


>>What's the best way to prevent interference on   the new extension?  


Don't run it close to mains electrical cables, especially ones with
transient loads on (fluorescent lights, dimmer switches etc). Use
twisted pair cable (like f'rinstance cat5e...). Ideally use shielded
twisted pair tho this is more expensive. 


>Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
>> with the ADSL signal?


Yes, but how much it will matter will depend on how much. Its a
digital signal. Some interference is ok, more will lose the entire
signal.


>Why should I get any more intereference using an external telephone 
>extension that I do using an internal one for my ADSL?


No special reason, it depends on the environment .Remember tho that
its exposed to the elements, more likely to get wet / uv damaged etc,
hence more chance of leakage between lines. 


>I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house 
>..... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.


Hmm, doesn't this mean you've been DACSed? Did you have trouble
getting DSL in the first place? Anyway BT can do this because they've
got special kit. You can't.


>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


Tell us what it is. 


>The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't 
>understood, or realised, my actual aim.


Most of us have. You've just not understood, or chosen to
misunderstand, the answers. Synopsis:

1) you need four conductors to carry two telephone signals (strictly
you need six, but if all your phones have their own ringer capacitors,
you'll get away with four in most cases).

2) Cat5e is good for long-extensions with multiple circuits on, as its
better shielded, and has lots of wire pairs. 

3) To avoid interference, use twisted-pair cable, keep away from other
electcical conductors & devices, and keep the cable dry. 


>But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone suggests 
>using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to, 


just because you impose boundary conditions which some consider
unrealistic, doesn't mean people can't keep telling you a better way
to do it... and bear in mind not everyone contributing to the thread
saw your original post (I don't think I did).


>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>
>In other words, STFU, get on with it, 


Oh, for goodness sake. How about it means exactly what it says?

And FWIW, I personally really am fed up with you. You've been told how
to do this, you won't listen or understand, or don't like the answer.
So like a petulant child, you ask the question again, more angrily, in
the hope that you'll get an answer you do like, even if it is the
wrong one. And then you get upset when people start getting cross with
you. 


>and if you do screw up, maybe someone  will bail you out, but it won't be you.


it certainly won't now, will it? Not when you behave like that.

PutridStench <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in uk.telecom on Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100:

> 
>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
> 
> In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe someone 
> will bail you out, but it won't be you.


Well, if that's your attitude, please do STFU.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>
>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to 
>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer 
>networking.


No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care. 


>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
>external use; 


Cat5e is good for this.


>i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, 


You need to mention it again, your original post is long gone. 


>that is 
>specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
>lines down the same wire, 


if it has two sets of twisted-pair cores then yes.
 

>whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 


If its not twisted pair, then you can expect a long line length to
introduce interference. See below for the effect. 


>> What is the best type of terminal box to connect to the cable?  


Wall-mounted RJ11/RJ45 faceplates, inside a dry building. Avoid
termination and joints outdoors. 


>>What's the best way to prevent interference on   the new extension?  


Don't run it close to mains electrical cables, especially ones with
transient loads on (fluorescent lights, dimmer switches etc). Use
twisted pair cable (like f'rinstance cat5e...). Ideally use shielded
twisted pair tho this is more expensive. 


>Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
>> with the ADSL signal?


Yes, but how much it will matter will depend on how much. Its a
digital signal. Some interference is ok, more will lose the entire
signal.


>Why should I get any more intereference using an external telephone 
>extension that I do using an internal one for my ADSL?


No special reason, it depends on the environment .Remember tho that
its exposed to the elements, more likely to get wet / uv damaged etc,
hence more chance of leakage between lines. 


>I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house 
>..... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.


Hmm, doesn't this mean you've been DACSed? Did you have trouble
getting DSL in the first place? Anyway BT can do this because they've
got special kit. You can't.


>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


Tell us what it is. 


>The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't 
>understood, or realised, my actual aim.


Most of us have. You've just not understood, or chosen to
misunderstand, the answers. Synopsis:

1) you need four conductors to carry two telephone signals (strictly
you need six, but if all your phones have their own ringer capacitors,
you'll get away with four in most cases).

2) Cat5e is good for long-extensions with multiple circuits on, as its
better shielded, and has lots of wire pairs. 

3) To avoid interference, use twisted-pair cable, keep away from other
electcical conductors & devices, and keep the cable dry. 


>But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone suggests 
>using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to, 


just because you impose boundary conditions which some consider
unrealistic, doesn't mean people can't keep telling you a better way
to do it... and bear in mind not everyone contributing to the thread
saw your original post (I don't think I did).


>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>
>In other words, STFU, get on with it, 


Oh, for goodness sake. How about it means exactly what it says?

And FWIW, I personally really am fed up with you. You've been told how
to do this, you won't listen or understand, or don't like the answer.
So like a petulant child, you ask the question again, more angrily, in
the hope that you'll get an answer you do like, even if it is the
wrong one. And then you get upset when people start getting cross with
you. 


>and if you do screw up, maybe someone  will bail you out, but it won't be you.


it certainly won't now, will it? Not when you behave like that.

PutridStench <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in uk.telecom on Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100:

> 
>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
> 
> In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe someone 
> will bail you out, but it won't be you.


Well, if that's your attitude, please do STFU.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>
>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to 
>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer 
>networking.


No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care. 


>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
>external use; 


Cat5e is good for this.


>i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, 


You need to mention it again, your original post is long gone. 


>that is 
>specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
>lines down the same wire, 


if it has two sets of twisted-pair cores then yes.
 

>whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 


If its not twisted pair, then you can expect a long line length to
introduce interference. See below for the effect. 


>> What is the best type of terminal box to connect to the cable?  


Wall-mounted RJ11/RJ45 faceplates, inside a dry building. Avoid
termination and joints outdoors. 


>>What's the best way to prevent interference on   the new extension?  


Don't run it close to mains electrical cables, especially ones with
transient loads on (fluorescent lights, dimmer switches etc). Use
twisted pair cable (like f'rinstance cat5e...). Ideally use shielded
twisted pair tho this is more expensive. 


>Will the interference, even the slightest bit, interfere
>> with the ADSL signal?


Yes, but how much it will matter will depend on how much. Its a
digital signal. Some interference is ok, more will lose the entire
signal.


>Why should I get any more intereference using an external telephone 
>extension that I do using an internal one for my ADSL?


No special reason, it depends on the environment .Remember tho that
its exposed to the elements, more likely to get wet / uv damaged etc,
hence more chance of leakage between lines. 


>I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house 
>..... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.


Hmm, doesn't this mean you've been DACSed? Did you have trouble
getting DSL in the first place? Anyway BT can do this because they've
got special kit. You can't.


>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


Tell us what it is. 


>The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't 
>understood, or realised, my actual aim.


Most of us have. You've just not understood, or chosen to
misunderstand, the answers. Synopsis:

1) you need four conductors to carry two telephone signals (strictly
you need six, but if all your phones have their own ringer capacitors,
you'll get away with four in most cases).

2) Cat5e is good for long-extensions with multiple circuits on, as its
better shielded, and has lots of wire pairs. 

3) To avoid interference, use twisted-pair cable, keep away from other
electcical conductors & devices, and keep the cable dry. 


>But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone suggests 
>using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to, 


just because you impose boundary conditions which some consider
unrealistic, doesn't mean people can't keep telling you a better way
to do it... and bear in mind not everyone contributing to the thread
saw your original post (I don't think I did).


>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>
>In other words, STFU, get on with it, 


Oh, for goodness sake. How about it means exactly what it says?

And FWIW, I personally really am fed up with you. You've been told how
to do this, you won't listen or understand, or don't like the answer.
So like a petulant child, you ask the question again, more angrily, in
the hope that you'll get an answer you do like, even if it is the
wrong one. And then you get upset when people start getting cross with
you. 


>and if you do screw up, maybe someone  will bail you out, but it won't be you.


it certainly won't now, will it? Not when you behave like that.

PutridStench <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in uk.telecom on Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100:

> 
>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
> 
> In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe someone 
> will bail you out, but it won't be you.


Well, if that's your attitude, please do STFU.

"David Taylor"  wrote in message 
news:d7qoka$2tet$2@outcold.yadt.co.uk...

> PutridStench <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in uk.telecom on 
> Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100:
>>
>>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>>
>> In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe 
>> someone
>> will bail you out, but it won't be you.
>
> Well, if that's your attitude, please do STFU.


It's not my attitude, it's the way that last post made me feel. I came here 
looking for advice on one thing, quite clearly explaining what i wanted to 
do, and seems some went off in other directions involving all sorts.

"David Taylor"  wrote in message 
news:d7qoka$2tet$2@outcold.yadt.co.uk...

> PutridStench <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in uk.telecom on 
> Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100:
>>
>>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>>
>> In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe 
>> someone
>> will bail you out, but it won't be you.
>
> Well, if that's your attitude, please do STFU.


It's not my attitude, it's the way that last post made me feel. I came here 
looking for advice on one thing, quite clearly explaining what i wanted to 
do, and seems some went off in other directions involving all sorts.

"David Taylor"  wrote in message 
news:d7qoka$2tet$2@outcold.yadt.co.uk...

> PutridStench <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote in uk.telecom on 
> Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100:
>>
>>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>>
>> In other words, STFU, get on with it, and if you do screw up, maybe 
>> someone
>> will bail you out, but it won't be you.
>
> Well, if that's your attitude, please do STFU.


It's not my attitude, it's the way that last post made me feel. I came here 
looking for advice on one thing, quite clearly explaining what i wanted to 
do, and seems some went off in other directions involving all sorts.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:pbo1a19jv5ei6ccdb3uh23p2upnon1s64o@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
> <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to
>>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer
>>networking.
>
> No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
> job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
> that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
> can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care.


No ... in the main, i have been told to use CAT5 for networking, which isn't 
at all primarily what I want to do.

So, CAT5 is the best cable for such, which I don't doubt, then why isn't it 
found in telecom installations in the home or business more?

I want a telephone extension, like the ones found in every room of my house, 
but this one will be in a large summer house down the garden.
Subsequently, I want to ensure I use the right cable externally, and one 
that will allow me to carry 2 lines down it.

What CAT5 is, isn't is external cable grade, and and I want an external run, 
I wanted to know if the cable I had seen would do the job as it *is* 
external grade.
I want to have an *external* telephone extension  (no different to having 
one indoors) into which I will plug my ADSL router, thereafter any 
networking will be done back to the house via wireless.

I have my reasons for doing it this way which are beyond the scope of these 
groups in explaining.

I simply wanted to know "is this the right cable, will it do the job?", at 
which point I was offered all sorts of valuable advice, but not entirely 
appropriate to what I asked.
I do not want conduit, I do not want to 'risk' using CAT5 when there are so 
many arguments about its suitability for external use.


> No special reason, it depends on the environment .Remember tho that
> its exposed to the elements, more likely to get wet / uv damaged etc,
> hence more chance of leakage between lines.


Hence why I would prefer to use an external graded cable than CAT5 which 
isn't.
I'm not arguing CAT isn't a good cable, but I don't beleive it is suited to 
what i want to achieve under the circumstances.


>>I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house
>>..... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.
>
> Hmm, doesn't this mean you've been DACSed? Did you have trouble
> getting DSL in the first place? Anyway BT can do this because they've
> got special kit. You can't.


No DACS .... just a "convenient spare pair" is what the engineer told me. It 
is a new cable from pole to house.
And no trouble gettting ADSL, on either line.


>>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.
>
> Tell us what it is.


I have, twice already, but for your benefit
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/


>>The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't
>>understood, or realised, my actual aim.
>
> Most of us have. You've just not understood, or chosen to
> misunderstand, the answers. Synopsis:


No! I specified what i wanted to do, how i wanted to do it, and asked was 
this the right cable.
I then go 'advised' all sorts of ways I *clearly* had said in which I didn't 
want to do it.

The cable in question /appears/ to be correct from the [correct] advice 
given, and I will as likely be using it.


> 1) you need four conductors to carry two telephone signals (strictly
> you need six, but if all your phones have their own ringer capacitors,
> you'll get away with four in most cases).


5 pairs (10 wires) is adequate then.


> 2) Cat5e is good for long-extensions with multiple circuits on, as its
> better shielded, and has lots of wire pairs.


See the spec on the cable I have asked advice about.


> 3) To avoid interference, use twisted-pair cable, keep away from other
> electcical conductors & devices, and keep the cable dry.


See the spec on the cable I have asked advice about.
There will be no electrical cabling or devices near the cable.


>>But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone 
>>suggests
>>using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to,
>
> just because you impose boundary conditions which some consider
> unrealistic, doesn't mean people can't keep telling you a better way
> to do it...


If i say i *want* red for a *particular* and very specific reason, then I 
can (and will) oppose being told I should have black when red will quite 
clearly do the exact same job.
The person who tells me to use black merely does so because it is his 
preference, not that it is better or mine is unrealistic choice.


> and bear in mind not everyone contributing to the thread
> saw your original post (I don't think I did).


Are they not archived in Google?


>>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>>
>>In other words, STFU, get on with it,
>
> Oh, for goodness sake. How about it means exactly what it says?

Or not.

> And FWIW, I personally really am fed up with you. You've been told how
> to do this, you won't listen or understand, or don't like the answer.
> So like a petulant child, you ask the question again, more angrily, in
> the hope that you'll get an answer you do like, even if it is the
> wrong one. And then you get upset when people start getting cross with
> you.


No, i get upset when the question i actually ask gets answered wholly 
inappropriately off at completely different tangents.

Why the fuck are folk 'debating' which colour CAT5 is best for external use 
when I have clearly said I do not want to use CAT5, nor conduit, but simply 
is the cable I have seen appropriate. I do *not* want to use conduit, i want 
to use external grade cable, will that which I have seen do the job, is the 
question i asked.

FWIW, you make me sick with your peronsal insults, taking the moral high 
ground like some fucking high and mighty know it all and criticising me for 
getting annoyed at those who clearly haven't read the intitial question I 
asked.

I can't help noticing most (if not all) damn threads you ever get involved 
in end in flame. Congratulations, another success.


> it certainly won't now, will it? Not when you behave like that.


I won't be asking again. The supplier is local to me, and can offer all the 
advice I need. This thread is turning into a waste of time, I whilst I admit 
some responsibility for that, I do not do so wholly. Thanks to those who 
replied appropriately, thanks to those who advised alternatives which for 
various reasons, I do not intend to consider.

</eot> AFAIC. Flame away.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:pbo1a19jv5ei6ccdb3uh23p2upnon1s64o@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
> <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to
>>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer
>>networking.
>
> No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
> job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
> that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
> can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care.


No ... in the main, i have been told to use CAT5 for networking, which isn't 
at all primarily what I want to do.

So, CAT5 is the best cable for such, which I don't doubt, then why isn't it 
found in telecom installations in the home or business more?

I want a telephone extension, like the ones found in every room of my house, 
but this one will be in a large summer house down the garden.
Subsequently, I want to ensure I use the right cable externally, and one 
that will allow me to carry 2 lines down it.

What CAT5 is, isn't is external cable grade, and and I want an external run, 
I wanted to know if the cable I had seen would do the job as it *is* 
external grade.
I want to have an *external* telephone extension  (no different to having 
one indoors) into which I will plug my ADSL router, thereafter any 
networking will be done back to the house via wireless.

I have my reasons for doing it this way which are beyond the scope of these 
groups in explaining.

I simply wanted to know "is this the right cable, will it do the job?", at 
which point I was offered all sorts of valuable advice, but not entirely 
appropriate to what I asked.
I do not want conduit, I do not want to 'risk' using CAT5 when there are so 
many arguments about its suitability for external use.


> No special reason, it depends on the environment .Remember tho that
> its exposed to the elements, more likely to get wet / uv damaged etc,
> hence more chance of leakage between lines.


Hence why I would prefer to use an external graded cable than CAT5 which 
isn't.
I'm not arguing CAT isn't a good cable, but I don't beleive it is suited to 
what i want to achieve under the circumstances.


>>I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house
>>..... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.
>
> Hmm, doesn't this mean you've been DACSed? Did you have trouble
> getting DSL in the first place? Anyway BT can do this because they've
> got special kit. You can't.


No DACS .... just a "convenient spare pair" is what the engineer told me. It 
is a new cable from pole to house.
And no trouble gettting ADSL, on either line.


>>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.
>
> Tell us what it is.


I have, twice already, but for your benefit
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/


>>The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't
>>understood, or realised, my actual aim.
>
> Most of us have. You've just not understood, or chosen to
> misunderstand, the answers. Synopsis:


No! I specified what i wanted to do, how i wanted to do it, and asked was 
this the right cable.
I then go 'advised' all sorts of ways I *clearly* had said in which I didn't 
want to do it.

The cable in question /appears/ to be correct from the [correct] advice 
given, and I will as likely be using it.


> 1) you need four conductors to carry two telephone signals (strictly
> you need six, but if all your phones have their own ringer capacitors,
> you'll get away with four in most cases).


5 pairs (10 wires) is adequate then.


> 2) Cat5e is good for long-extensions with multiple circuits on, as its
> better shielded, and has lots of wire pairs.


See the spec on the cable I have asked advice about.


> 3) To avoid interference, use twisted-pair cable, keep away from other
> electcical conductors & devices, and keep the cable dry.


See the spec on the cable I have asked advice about.
There will be no electrical cabling or devices near the cable.


>>But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone 
>>suggests
>>using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to,
>
> just because you impose boundary conditions which some consider
> unrealistic, doesn't mean people can't keep telling you a better way
> to do it...


If i say i *want* red for a *particular* and very specific reason, then I 
can (and will) oppose being told I should have black when red will quite 
clearly do the exact same job.
The person who tells me to use black merely does so because it is his 
preference, not that it is better or mine is unrealistic choice.


> and bear in mind not everyone contributing to the thread
> saw your original post (I don't think I did).


Are they not archived in Google?


>>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>>
>>In other words, STFU, get on with it,
>
> Oh, for goodness sake. How about it means exactly what it says?

Or not.

> And FWIW, I personally really am fed up with you. You've been told how
> to do this, you won't listen or understand, or don't like the answer.
> So like a petulant child, you ask the question again, more angrily, in
> the hope that you'll get an answer you do like, even if it is the
> wrong one. And then you get upset when people start getting cross with
> you.


No, i get upset when the question i actually ask gets answered wholly 
inappropriately off at completely different tangents.

Why the fuck are folk 'debating' which colour CAT5 is best for external use 
when I have clearly said I do not want to use CAT5, nor conduit, but simply 
is the cable I have seen appropriate. I do *not* want to use conduit, i want 
to use external grade cable, will that which I have seen do the job, is the 
question i asked.

FWIW, you make me sick with your peronsal insults, taking the moral high 
ground like some fucking high and mighty know it all and criticising me for 
getting annoyed at those who clearly haven't read the intitial question I 
asked.

I can't help noticing most (if not all) damn threads you ever get involved 
in end in flame. Congratulations, another success.


> it certainly won't now, will it? Not when you behave like that.


I won't be asking again. The supplier is local to me, and can offer all the 
advice I need. This thread is turning into a waste of time, I whilst I admit 
some responsibility for that, I do not do so wholly. Thanks to those who 
replied appropriately, thanks to those who advised alternatives which for 
various reasons, I do not intend to consider.

</eot> AFAIC. Flame away.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:pbo1a19jv5ei6ccdb3uh23p2upnon1s64o@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
> <newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to
>>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer
>>networking.
>
> No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
> job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
> that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
> can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care.


No ... in the main, i have been told to use CAT5 for networking, which isn't 
at all primarily what I want to do.

So, CAT5 is the best cable for such, which I don't doubt, then why isn't it 
found in telecom installations in the home or business more?

I want a telephone extension, like the ones found in every room of my house, 
but this one will be in a large summer house down the garden.
Subsequently, I want to ensure I use the right cable externally, and one 
that will allow me to carry 2 lines down it.

What CAT5 is, isn't is external cable grade, and and I want an external run, 
I wanted to know if the cable I had seen would do the job as it *is* 
external grade.
I want to have an *external* telephone extension  (no different to having 
one indoors) into which I will plug my ADSL router, thereafter any 
networking will be done back to the house via wireless.

I have my reasons for doing it this way which are beyond the scope of these 
groups in explaining.

I simply wanted to know "is this the right cable, will it do the job?", at 
which point I was offered all sorts of valuable advice, but not entirely 
appropriate to what I asked.
I do not want conduit, I do not want to 'risk' using CAT5 when there are so 
many arguments about its suitability for external use.


> No special reason, it depends on the environment .Remember tho that
> its exposed to the elements, more likely to get wet / uv damaged etc,
> hence more chance of leakage between lines.


Hence why I would prefer to use an external graded cable than CAT5 which 
isn't.
I'm not arguing CAT isn't a good cable, but I don't beleive it is suited to 
what i want to achieve under the circumstances.


>>I have 2 lines coming down one bit of wire from the BT pole to my house
>>..... the wiring of extensions in my house is all DIY, and works fine.
>
> Hmm, doesn't this mean you've been DACSed? Did you have trouble
> getting DSL in the first place? Anyway BT can do this because they've
> got special kit. You can't.


No DACS .... just a "convenient spare pair" is what the engineer told me. It 
is a new cable from pole to house.
And no trouble gettting ADSL, on either line.


>>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.
>
> Tell us what it is.


I have, twice already, but for your benefit
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/


>>The latter, in part, and likewise, some of those who have replied haven't
>>understood, or realised, my actual aim.
>
> Most of us have. You've just not understood, or chosen to
> misunderstand, the answers. Synopsis:


No! I specified what i wanted to do, how i wanted to do it, and asked was 
this the right cable.
I then go 'advised' all sorts of ways I *clearly* had said in which I didn't 
want to do it.

The cable in question /appears/ to be correct from the [correct] advice 
given, and I will as likely be using it.


> 1) you need four conductors to carry two telephone signals (strictly
> you need six, but if all your phones have their own ringer capacitors,
> you'll get away with four in most cases).


5 pairs (10 wires) is adequate then.


> 2) Cat5e is good for long-extensions with multiple circuits on, as its
> better shielded, and has lots of wire pairs.


See the spec on the cable I have asked advice about.


> 3) To avoid interference, use twisted-pair cable, keep away from other
> electcical conductors & devices, and keep the cable dry.


See the spec on the cable I have asked advice about.
There will be no electrical cabling or devices near the cable.


>>But if i ask for clarification, or oppose an answer because someone 
>>suggests
>>using CAT5 and conduit when I specified I didn't want to,
>
> just because you impose boundary conditions which some consider
> unrealistic, doesn't mean people can't keep telling you a better way
> to do it...


If i say i *want* red for a *particular* and very specific reason, then I 
can (and will) oppose being told I should have black when red will quite 
clearly do the exact same job.
The person who tells me to use black merely does so because it is his 
preference, not that it is better or mine is unrealistic choice.


> and bear in mind not everyone contributing to the thread
> saw your original post (I don't think I did).


Are they not archived in Google?


>>> Good luck with it.  Please let us know how it goes.
>>
>>In other words, STFU, get on with it,
>
> Oh, for goodness sake. How about it means exactly what it says?

Or not.

> And FWIW, I personally really am fed up with you. You've been told how
> to do this, you won't listen or understand, or don't like the answer.
> So like a petulant child, you ask the question again, more angrily, in
> the hope that you'll get an answer you do like, even if it is the
> wrong one. And then you get upset when people start getting cross with
> you.


No, i get upset when the question i actually ask gets answered wholly 
inappropriately off at completely different tangents.

Why the fuck are folk 'debating' which colour CAT5 is best for external use 
when I have clearly said I do not want to use CAT5, nor conduit, but simply 
is the cable I have seen appropriate. I do *not* want to use conduit, i want 
to use external grade cable, will that which I have seen do the job, is the 
question i asked.

FWIW, you make me sick with your peronsal insults, taking the moral high 
ground like some fucking high and mighty know it all and criticising me for 
getting annoyed at those who clearly haven't read the intitial question I 
asked.

I can't help noticing most (if not all) damn threads you ever get involved 
in end in flame. Congratulations, another success.


> it certainly won't now, will it? Not when you behave like that.


I won't be asking again. The supplier is local to me, and can offer all the 
advice I need. This thread is turning into a waste of time, I whilst I admit 
some responsibility for that, I do not do so wholly. Thanks to those who 
replied appropriately, thanks to those who advised alternatives which for 
various reasons, I do not intend to consider.

</eot> AFAIC. Flame away.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:00:12 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>FWIW, you make me sick with your peronsal insults, 


I beg your pardon, but you started it. I originally posted advice
which was correct based on what I'd read in the thread, and you raged
against it. Doesn't bother me. In this particular reply, I originally
posted a considerable amount of comment on your chosen cable,
explaining how to use it, its suitability, things to watch out for
etc. But I got to this point and thought, what a tosser, screw him, he
can whistle for his help.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:00:12 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>FWIW, you make me sick with your peronsal insults, 


I beg your pardon, but you started it. I originally posted advice
which was correct based on what I'd read in the thread, and you raged
against it. Doesn't bother me. In this particular reply, I originally
posted a considerable amount of comment on your chosen cable,
explaining how to use it, its suitability, things to watch out for
etc. But I got to this point and thought, what a tosser, screw him, he
can whistle for his help.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:00:12 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>FWIW, you make me sick with your peronsal insults, 


I beg your pardon, but you started it. I originally posted advice
which was correct based on what I'd read in the thread, and you raged
against it. Doesn't bother me. In this particular reply, I originally
posted a considerable amount of comment on your chosen cable,
explaining how to use it, its suitability, things to watch out for
etc. But I got to this point and thought, what a tosser, screw him, he
can whistle for his help.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:




>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
>external use; i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, that is 
>specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
>lines down the same wire, whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 
>and that i wanted to avoid conduit due to additional cost and DIY time and 
>trouble fixing it.


The external cable you proposed to use is superior to Cat 5 for this
application.  The signal has come several kilometers on cable of
exactly the same specification.  Replacing the last few yards with
Cat5 will give no performance improvement and a less robust cable.


>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


It will, perfectly.  As I said before though you would be better
running only the two pairs (no ringing line) and using master sockets
at the far end.

Incidentally for fixing the cable to the wall I suggest you look at
www.screwfix.co.uk and search for item 89484.  For what they are they
are expensive (12p a clip) but they are so much faster, neater and
easier to use than any other form of cable holder in brickwork that
they are well worth it.  


-- 
Peter Parry       WPP Ltd      http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:




>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
>external use; i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, that is 
>specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
>lines down the same wire, whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 
>and that i wanted to avoid conduit due to additional cost and DIY time and 
>trouble fixing it.


The external cable you proposed to use is superior to Cat 5 for this
application.  The signal has come several kilometers on cable of
exactly the same specification.  Replacing the last few yards with
Cat5 will give no performance improvement and a less robust cable.


>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


It will, perfectly.  As I said before though you would be better
running only the two pairs (no ringing line) and using master sockets
at the far end.

Incidentally for fixing the cable to the wall I suggest you look at
www.screwfix.co.uk and search for item 89484.  For what they are they
are expensive (12p a clip) but they are so much faster, neater and
easier to use than any other form of cable holder in brickwork that
they are well worth it.  


-- 
Peter Parry       WPP Ltd      http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
<newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:




>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for 
>external use; i highlighted one that i felt would do the job, that is 
>specifically designed for telephone, but i wanted to know if I could run 2 
>lines down the same wire, whether or not it would affect my ADSL if I did, 
>and that i wanted to avoid conduit due to additional cost and DIY time and 
>trouble fixing it.


The external cable you proposed to use is superior to Cat 5 for this
application.  The signal has come several kilometers on cable of
exactly the same specification.  Replacing the last few yards with
Cat5 will give no performance improvement and a less robust cable.


>I just want to know if the cable I have seen will do the job.


It will, perfectly.  As I said before though you would be better
running only the two pairs (no ringing line) and using master sockets
at the far end.

Incidentally for fixing the cable to the wall I suggest you look at
www.screwfix.co.uk and search for item 89484.  For what they are they
are expensive (12p a clip) but they are so much faster, neater and
easier to use than any other form of cable holder in brickwork that
they are well worth it.  


-- 
Peter Parry       WPP Ltd      http://www.wpp.ltd.uk
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Fixed Telephone wiring guide at :-
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.html

In article , Mark McIntyre 
 wrote

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
><newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to
>>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer
>>networking.
>
>No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
>job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
>that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
>can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care.
>
>>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for
>>external use;
>
>Cat5e is good for this.


And [tempting as it may be to not aid the anonymous ingrate] external 
grade Cat5e is readily available, 
<http://www.netshop.co.uk/productcategorydetail.aspx?categoryid=51540> 
for example.

-- 
Bob Evans

In article , Mark McIntyre 
 wrote

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
><newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to
>>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer
>>networking.
>
>No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
>job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
>that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
>can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care.
>
>>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for
>>external use;
>
>Cat5e is good for this.


And [tempting as it may be to not aid the anonymous ingrate] external 
grade Cat5e is readily available, 
<http://www.netshop.co.uk/productcategorydetail.aspx?categoryid=51540> 
for example.

-- 
Bob Evans

In article , Mark McIntyre 
 wrote

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:04:33 +0100, "PutridStench"
><newsgroup_mail@hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus far I've ben told to use CAT5 more than anything because folk seem to
>>think my primary reason for wanting *telephone* extensions is computer
>>networking.
>
>No, you've been told CAT5e because its probably the best cable for the
>job of carrying a telecommunications signal. If you choose to ignore
>that advice, or misinterpret it, or dislike it, thats up to you. You
>can use 2.5mm mains cable or piano wire for all we care.
>
>>I have explained I would *prefer* one wire, one which was suitable for
>>external use;
>
>Cat5e is good for this.


And [tempting as it may be to not aid the anonymous ingrate] external 
grade Cat5e is readily available, 
<http://www.netshop.co.uk/productcategorydetail.aspx?categoryid=51540> 
for example.

-- 
Bob Evans

Everybody calm down! - Please?



>
>I have my reasons for doing it this way which are beyond the scope of these 
>groups in explaining.
>
>I simply wanted to know "is this the right cable, will it do the job?", at 
>which point I was offered all sorts of valuable advice, but not entirely 
>appropriate to what I asked.
>I do not want conduit, I do not want to 'risk' using CAT5 when there are so 
>many arguments about its suitability for external use.
>


>> Tell us what it is.
>
>I have, twice already, but for your benefit
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>


This cable will be fine for the job you want to do.

As it states.. It is external grade telecomms cable.

However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.

Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??

HTH,
Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

Everybody calm down! - Please?



>
>I have my reasons for doing it this way which are beyond the scope of these 
>groups in explaining.
>
>I simply wanted to know "is this the right cable, will it do the job?", at 
>which point I was offered all sorts of valuable advice, but not entirely 
>appropriate to what I asked.
>I do not want conduit, I do not want to 'risk' using CAT5 when there are so 
>many arguments about its suitability for external use.
>


>> Tell us what it is.
>
>I have, twice already, but for your benefit
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>


This cable will be fine for the job you want to do.

As it states.. It is external grade telecomms cable.

However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.

Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??

HTH,
Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

"Phil Partridge"  wrote in message 
news:umNCjBAYPioCFw1O@pebble.demon.co.uk...

> Everybody calm down! - Please?


My sentiments - but this is Usenet, the guy asked a perfect sensible 
question, and par for the course when there is a disagrement because (to 
paraphrase) "someone went off at a tangent", it ends in flame. Ho-hum.


> However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
> with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
> internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.


Petroleum Jelly, like Vaseline? [1]

I suppose it could be run to some sort of junction box in the house using 
'normal' cable, and then from there taken to the outside world through a 
wall?


> Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
> I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??


There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
or something?
All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
misinformed?

[1] Not that I recall the last time I used such, and not for anything other 
than to lubricate a tight screw into a rawlplug!

Everybody calm down! - Please?



>
>I have my reasons for doing it this way which are beyond the scope of these 
>groups in explaining.
>
>I simply wanted to know "is this the right cable, will it do the job?", at 
>which point I was offered all sorts of valuable advice, but not entirely 
>appropriate to what I asked.
>I do not want conduit, I do not want to 'risk' using CAT5 when there are so 
>many arguments about its suitability for external use.
>


>> Tell us what it is.
>
>I have, twice already, but for your benefit
>http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Cable_Index/Telephone_Cable_External/
>


This cable will be fine for the job you want to do.

As it states.. It is external grade telecomms cable.

However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.

Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??

HTH,
Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

"Phil Partridge"  wrote in message 
news:umNCjBAYPioCFw1O@pebble.demon.co.uk...

> Everybody calm down! - Please?


My sentiments - but this is Usenet, the guy asked a perfect sensible 
question, and par for the course when there is a disagrement because (to 
paraphrase) "someone went off at a tangent", it ends in flame. Ho-hum.


> However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
> with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
> internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.


Petroleum Jelly, like Vaseline? [1]

I suppose it could be run to some sort of junction box in the house using 
'normal' cable, and then from there taken to the outside world through a 
wall?


> Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
> I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??


There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
or something?
All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
misinformed?

[1] Not that I recall the last time I used such, and not for anything other 
than to lubricate a tight screw into a rawlplug!

"Phil Partridge"  wrote in message 
news:umNCjBAYPioCFw1O@pebble.demon.co.uk...

> Everybody calm down! - Please?


My sentiments - but this is Usenet, the guy asked a perfect sensible 
question, and par for the course when there is a disagrement because (to 
paraphrase) "someone went off at a tangent", it ends in flame. Ho-hum.


> However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
> with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
> internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.


Petroleum Jelly, like Vaseline? [1]

I suppose it could be run to some sort of junction box in the house using 
'normal' cable, and then from there taken to the outside world through a 
wall?


> Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
> I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??


There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
or something?
All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
misinformed?

[1] Not that I recall the last time I used such, and not for anything other 
than to lubricate a tight screw into a rawlplug!

Tx2 wrote:


> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
> can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
> or something?


Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:WZudnSU_4MCesT_fRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk...

> Tx2 wrote:
>
>> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently 
>> that I can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent 
>> certified or something?
>
> Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.


oh, before Jan 1st you mean ..... erm, yes, I did, I remember now   ;-)
What I meant was my neighbour found out he couldn't do it .... [ahem]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:24:03 +0100, "Tx2"
<tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
>misinformed?


You've been slightly misinformed. You can do it yourself, but it may
need to be inspected by the Building Control Dept. I'm afraid however
that extra-low-voltage lighting is included in the scope of the
regulation.

You can read part P online at 
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_br1007.pdf
but here's a summary, much snipped, of Table 2 as it applies to both
you and the OP:
---------------
Work that need not be notified to building control bodies:

Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve
a special installation

Work not in a special location on Telephone or extra-low voltage
wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
technology, signalling, control and similar purposes

Special locations:
Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
Swimming pools or paddling pools
Hot air saunas

Special installations:
Garden lighting or power installations
Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled,
CE-marked lighting sets

Extra-low voltage is defined in BS 7671 as normally not exceeding 50
V ac or 120 V ripplefree dc, whether between conductors or to earth.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:32:35 +0100, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


>Tx2 wrote:
>
>> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
>> can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
>> or something?
>
>Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.


And have the receipts to prove it. We  nearly lost a sale a couple of
years ago because some work had been done that didn't meet the Part L
requirements that prohibit you from replacing windows or doors without
building regs approval. Without proof it was done before 2002, we had
to either get it inspected or indemnify the buyer. Expect the same to
start happening with Part P in a year or so, once solicitors get wise
to it.

Tx2 wrote:


> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
> can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
> or something?


Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:WZudnSU_4MCesT_fRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk...

> Tx2 wrote:
>
>> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently 
>> that I can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent 
>> certified or something?
>
> Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.


oh, before Jan 1st you mean ..... erm, yes, I did, I remember now   ;-)
What I meant was my neighbour found out he couldn't do it .... [ahem]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:24:03 +0100, "Tx2"
<tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
>misinformed?


You've been slightly misinformed. You can do it yourself, but it may
need to be inspected by the Building Control Dept. I'm afraid however
that extra-low-voltage lighting is included in the scope of the
regulation.

You can read part P online at 
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_br1007.pdf
but here's a summary, much snipped, of Table 2 as it applies to both
you and the OP:
---------------
Work that need not be notified to building control bodies:

Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve
a special installation

Work not in a special location on Telephone or extra-low voltage
wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
technology, signalling, control and similar purposes

Special locations:
Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
Swimming pools or paddling pools
Hot air saunas

Special installations:
Garden lighting or power installations
Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled,
CE-marked lighting sets

Extra-low voltage is defined in BS 7671 as normally not exceeding 50
V ac or 120 V ripplefree dc, whether between conductors or to earth.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:32:35 +0100, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


>Tx2 wrote:
>
>> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
>> can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
>> or something?
>
>Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.


And have the receipts to prove it. We  nearly lost a sale a couple of
years ago because some work had been done that didn't meet the Part L
requirements that prohibit you from replacing windows or doors without
building regs approval. Without proof it was done before 2002, we had
to either get it inspected or indemnify the buyer. Expect the same to
start happening with Part P in a year or so, once solicitors get wise
to it.

Tx2 wrote:


> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
> can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
> or something?


Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:WZudnSU_4MCesT_fRVnyhA@eclipse.net.uk...

> Tx2 wrote:
>
>> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently 
>> that I can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent 
>> certified or something?
>
> Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.


oh, before Jan 1st you mean ..... erm, yes, I did, I remember now   ;-)
What I meant was my neighbour found out he couldn't do it .... [ahem]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:24:03 +0100, "Tx2"
<tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
>misinformed?


You've been slightly misinformed. You can do it yourself, but it may
need to be inspected by the Building Control Dept. I'm afraid however
that extra-low-voltage lighting is included in the scope of the
regulation.

You can read part P online at 
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_br1007.pdf
but here's a summary, much snipped, of Table 2 as it applies to both
you and the OP:
---------------
Work that need not be notified to building control bodies:

Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve
a special installation

Work not in a special location on Telephone or extra-low voltage
wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
technology, signalling, control and similar purposes

Special locations:
Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
Swimming pools or paddling pools
Hot air saunas

Special installations:
Garden lighting or power installations
Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled,
CE-marked lighting sets

Extra-low voltage is defined in BS 7671 as normally not exceeding 50
V ac or 120 V ripplefree dc, whether between conductors or to earth.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:32:35 +0100, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


>Tx2 wrote:
>
>> There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
>> can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
>> or something?
>
>Didn't you install it last year? Of course you did.


And have the receipts to prove it. We  nearly lost a sale a couple of
years ago because some work had been done that didn't meet the Part L
requirements that prohibit you from replacing windows or doors without
building regs approval. Without proof it was done before 2002, we had
to either get it inspected or indemnify the buyer. Expect the same to
start happening with Part P in a year or so, once solicitors get wise
to it.

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:o6b4a1d2o69alr6ifius6iqir5hkb27cgf@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:24:03 +0100, "Tx2"
> <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor
>>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a
>>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been
>>misinformed?
>
> You've been slightly misinformed. You can do it yourself, but it may
> need to be inspected by the Building Control Dept. I'm afraid however
> that extra-low-voltage lighting is included in the scope of the
> regulation.


Yes, that was it ... a Part P competent 'spark' can self-certify it, a 
'normal' electrician can do it, but then a fee is payable to have it 
inspected, or you do it yourself, and report it to the appropriate 
department, whereby a fee may be payable, or something. I was advised not to 
do it myself as *should* there be a fire etc caused by the electrics, the 
insurance company wouldn't even consider the claim based on the fact the 
installation wasn't/ may not be certified. I can understand it if I'm 
sticking bare wires in a fusebox, but this is feeding a low voltage cable 
through the wall, plugging it into a transformer, and then plugging that 
into a wall socket!

Apparently, as I think you mention in a latter post, certificates of 
installations are something solicitors will no doubt be asking for in house 
sales etc.

However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden lighting, which I 
suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs in, feed the cable through 
into the house, and then plug it into a transformer, the latter then into 
the wall. Is the "pre-assembled" enough?

My main fuse unit isn't RCD'd I don't think though?

I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
by low voltage lighting? All the time you have B&Q, Homebase etc selling the 
stuff, you are going to get the DIY'er doing it, so I doubt these regs will 
really put a complete stop to it.



> You can read part P online at
> http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_br1007.pdf
> but here's a summary, much snipped, of Table 2 as it applies to both
> you and the OP:
> ---------------
> Work that need not be notified to building control bodies:
>
> Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve
> a special installation
>
> Work not in a special location on Telephone or extra-low voltage
> wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
> technology, signalling, control and similar purposes
>
> Special locations:
> Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
> Swimming pools or paddling pools
> Hot air saunas
>
> Special installations:
> Garden lighting or power installations
> Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled,
> CE-marked lighting sets
>
> Extra-low voltage is defined in BS 7671 as 'normally not exceeding 50
> V ac or 120 V ripplefree dc, whether between conductors or to earth.'
>
>
> 

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:o6b4a1d2o69alr6ifius6iqir5hkb27cgf@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:24:03 +0100, "Tx2"
> <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor
>>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a
>>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been
>>misinformed?
>
> You've been slightly misinformed. You can do it yourself, but it may
> need to be inspected by the Building Control Dept. I'm afraid however
> that extra-low-voltage lighting is included in the scope of the
> regulation.


Yes, that was it ... a Part P competent 'spark' can self-certify it, a 
'normal' electrician can do it, but then a fee is payable to have it 
inspected, or you do it yourself, and report it to the appropriate 
department, whereby a fee may be payable, or something. I was advised not to 
do it myself as *should* there be a fire etc caused by the electrics, the 
insurance company wouldn't even consider the claim based on the fact the 
installation wasn't/ may not be certified. I can understand it if I'm 
sticking bare wires in a fusebox, but this is feeding a low voltage cable 
through the wall, plugging it into a transformer, and then plugging that 
into a wall socket!

Apparently, as I think you mention in a latter post, certificates of 
installations are something solicitors will no doubt be asking for in house 
sales etc.

However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden lighting, which I 
suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs in, feed the cable through 
into the house, and then plug it into a transformer, the latter then into 
the wall. Is the "pre-assembled" enough?

My main fuse unit isn't RCD'd I don't think though?

I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
by low voltage lighting? All the time you have B&Q, Homebase etc selling the 
stuff, you are going to get the DIY'er doing it, so I doubt these regs will 
really put a complete stop to it.



> You can read part P online at
> http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_br1007.pdf
> but here's a summary, much snipped, of Table 2 as it applies to both
> you and the OP:
> ---------------
> Work that need not be notified to building control bodies:
>
> Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve
> a special installation
>
> Work not in a special location on Telephone or extra-low voltage
> wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
> technology, signalling, control and similar purposes
>
> Special locations:
> Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
> Swimming pools or paddling pools
> Hot air saunas
>
> Special installations:
> Garden lighting or power installations
> Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled,
> CE-marked lighting sets
>
> Extra-low voltage is defined in BS 7671 as 'normally not exceeding 50
> V ac or 120 V ripplefree dc, whether between conductors or to earth.'
>
>
> 

"Mark McIntyre"  wrote in message 
news:o6b4a1d2o69alr6ifius6iqir5hkb27cgf@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:24:03 +0100, "Tx2"
> <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor
>>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a
>>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been
>>misinformed?
>
> You've been slightly misinformed. You can do it yourself, but it may
> need to be inspected by the Building Control Dept. I'm afraid however
> that extra-low-voltage lighting is included in the scope of the
> regulation.


Yes, that was it ... a Part P competent 'spark' can self-certify it, a 
'normal' electrician can do it, but then a fee is payable to have it 
inspected, or you do it yourself, and report it to the appropriate 
department, whereby a fee may be payable, or something. I was advised not to 
do it myself as *should* there be a fire etc caused by the electrics, the 
insurance company wouldn't even consider the claim based on the fact the 
installation wasn't/ may not be certified. I can understand it if I'm 
sticking bare wires in a fusebox, but this is feeding a low voltage cable 
through the wall, plugging it into a transformer, and then plugging that 
into a wall socket!

Apparently, as I think you mention in a latter post, certificates of 
installations are something solicitors will no doubt be asking for in house 
sales etc.

However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden lighting, which I 
suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs in, feed the cable through 
into the house, and then plug it into a transformer, the latter then into 
the wall. Is the "pre-assembled" enough?

My main fuse unit isn't RCD'd I don't think though?

I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
by low voltage lighting? All the time you have B&Q, Homebase etc selling the 
stuff, you are going to get the DIY'er doing it, so I doubt these regs will 
really put a complete stop to it.



> You can read part P online at
> http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_br1007.pdf
> but here's a summary, much snipped, of Table 2 as it applies to both
> you and the OP:
> ---------------
> Work that need not be notified to building control bodies:
>
> Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve
> a special installation
>
> Work not in a special location on Telephone or extra-low voltage
> wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
> technology, signalling, control and similar purposes
>
> Special locations:
> Locations containing a bath tub or shower basin
> Swimming pools or paddling pools
> Hot air saunas
>
> Special installations:
> Garden lighting or power installations
> Extra-low voltage lighting installations, other than pre-assembled,
> CE-marked lighting sets
>
> Extra-low voltage is defined in BS 7671 as 'normally not exceeding 50
> V ac or 120 V ripplefree dc, whether between conductors or to earth.'
>
>
> 

In article , Tx2 <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.i
nvalid> writes

>
>"Phil Partridge"  wrote in message 
>news:umNCjBAYPioCFw1O@pebble.demon.co.uk...
>> Everybody calm down! - Please?
>
>My sentiments - but this is Usenet, the guy asked a perfect sensible 
>question, and par for the course when there is a disagrement because (to 
>paraphrase) "someone went off at a tangent", it ends in flame. Ho-hum.
>
>> However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
>> with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
>> internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.
>
>Petroleum Jelly, like Vaseline? [1]


Similar.. Messy, a devil to clean from clothes and furnishings.
Also, it can act as an insulator.


>
>I suppose it could be run to some sort of junction box in the house using 
>'normal' cable, and then from there taken to the outside world through a 
>wall?


That's the general idea.


>
>> Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
>> I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??
>
>There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
>can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
>or something?
>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
>misinformed?
>
>[1] Not that I recall the last time I used such, and not for anything other 
>than to lubricate a tight screw into a rawlplug! 
>
>

Part P is a pain!!!
But whilst I can still buy the bits, and feel competent to do the job, I
will. - Certainly in my own home.

Tend to thing again these days when a Client asks for a wall cabinet to
have a fused spur to it. - Used to wire these into the ring myself,
sometimes even live, if push came to shove, but it seems a little risky
these days. Also, if I get a Sparky to do it, it becomes 'someone else's
peoblem'.

Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:22:37 +0100, "Tx2"
<tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden lighting, which I 
>suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs in, feed the cable through 
>into the house, and then plug it into a transformer, the latter then into 
>the wall. Is the "pre-assembled" enough?


I suspect 'pre-assembled' means something with a plug on the end of a
cable. 


>My main fuse unit isn't RCD'd I don't think though?


Don't let an electrician near it, before he can even change a bulb,
he'll legally have to put in RCDs. Mind you, this has been true for
several years. 


>I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
>by low voltage lighting? 


By <50V lights, probably absolutely none. By faulty 240V wiring, far
too many. 


>All the time you have B&Q, Homebase etc selling the 
>stuff, you are going to get the DIY'er doing it, so I doubt these regs will 
>really put a complete stop to it.


Most people don't even know, and won't till they try to sell their
house nad get asked the question....

In article , Tx2 <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.i
nvalid> writes

>
>"Phil Partridge"  wrote in message 
>news:umNCjBAYPioCFw1O@pebble.demon.co.uk...
>> Everybody calm down! - Please?
>
>My sentiments - but this is Usenet, the guy asked a perfect sensible 
>question, and par for the course when there is a disagrement because (to 
>paraphrase) "someone went off at a tangent", it ends in flame. Ho-hum.
>
>> However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
>> with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
>> internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.
>
>Petroleum Jelly, like Vaseline? [1]


Similar.. Messy, a devil to clean from clothes and furnishings.
Also, it can act as an insulator.


>
>I suppose it could be run to some sort of junction box in the house using 
>'normal' cable, and then from there taken to the outside world through a 
>wall?


That's the general idea.


>
>> Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
>> I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??
>
>There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
>can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
>or something?
>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
>misinformed?
>
>[1] Not that I recall the last time I used such, and not for anything other 
>than to lubricate a tight screw into a rawlplug! 
>
>

Part P is a pain!!!
But whilst I can still buy the bits, and feel competent to do the job, I
will. - Certainly in my own home.

Tend to thing again these days when a Client asks for a wall cabinet to
have a fused spur to it. - Used to wire these into the ring myself,
sometimes even live, if push came to shove, but it seems a little risky
these days. Also, if I get a Sparky to do it, it becomes 'someone else's
peoblem'.

Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:22:37 +0100, "Tx2"
<tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden lighting, which I 
>suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs in, feed the cable through 
>into the house, and then plug it into a transformer, the latter then into 
>the wall. Is the "pre-assembled" enough?


I suspect 'pre-assembled' means something with a plug on the end of a
cable. 


>My main fuse unit isn't RCD'd I don't think though?


Don't let an electrician near it, before he can even change a bulb,
he'll legally have to put in RCDs. Mind you, this has been true for
several years. 


>I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
>by low voltage lighting? 


By <50V lights, probably absolutely none. By faulty 240V wiring, far
too many. 


>All the time you have B&Q, Homebase etc selling the 
>stuff, you are going to get the DIY'er doing it, so I doubt these regs will 
>really put a complete stop to it.


Most people don't even know, and won't till they try to sell their
house nad get asked the question....

In article , Tx2 <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.i
nvalid> writes

>
>"Phil Partridge"  wrote in message 
>news:umNCjBAYPioCFw1O@pebble.demon.co.uk...
>> Everybody calm down! - Please?
>
>My sentiments - but this is Usenet, the guy asked a perfect sensible 
>question, and par for the course when there is a disagrement because (to 
>paraphrase) "someone went off at a tangent", it ends in flame. Ho-hum.
>
>> However, be aware it is Petroleum Jelly filled. This is messy to work
>> with, and flammable. PLEASE limit the length of this cable you run
>> internally. - Preferably to less than two metres within either building.
>
>Petroleum Jelly, like Vaseline? [1]


Similar.. Messy, a devil to clean from clothes and furnishings.
Also, it can act as an insulator.


>
>I suppose it could be run to some sort of junction box in the house using 
>'normal' cable, and then from there taken to the outside world through a 
>wall?


That's the general idea.


>
>> Can someone comment on any regs. regarding this?
>> I believe the BT recommendation is 1.5 metres??
>
>There seem to be regs for everything these days. I found out recently that I 
>can't put garden lighting in because it has to be Part P competent certified 
>or something?
>All I need to do is run the cable through the wall into an existing indoor 
>socket, but because it's not RCD protected (or something) I have to have a 
>'spark' do it? It's low voltage lighting for decking too, have I been 
>misinformed?
>
>[1] Not that I recall the last time I used such, and not for anything other 
>than to lubricate a tight screw into a rawlplug! 
>
>

Part P is a pain!!!
But whilst I can still buy the bits, and feel competent to do the job, I
will. - Certainly in my own home.

Tend to thing again these days when a Client asks for a wall cabinet to
have a fused spur to it. - Used to wire these into the ring myself,
sometimes even live, if push came to shove, but it seems a little risky
these days. Also, if I get a Sparky to do it, it becomes 'someone else's
peoblem'.

Phil Partridge
philp@pebbleGRIT.demon.co.uk
Remove the grit to reply

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:22:37 +0100, "Tx2"
<tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden lighting, which I 
>suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs in, feed the cable through 
>into the house, and then plug it into a transformer, the latter then into 
>the wall. Is the "pre-assembled" enough?


I suspect 'pre-assembled' means something with a plug on the end of a
cable. 


>My main fuse unit isn't RCD'd I don't think though?


Don't let an electrician near it, before he can even change a bulb,
he'll legally have to put in RCDs. Mind you, this has been true for
several years. 


>I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
>by low voltage lighting? 


By <50V lights, probably absolutely none. By faulty 240V wiring, far
too many. 


>All the time you have B&Q, Homebase etc selling the 
>stuff, you are going to get the DIY'er doing it, so I doubt these regs will 
>really put a complete stop to it.


Most people don't even know, and won't till they try to sell their
house nad get asked the question....

Mark McIntyre wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:22:37 +0100, "Tx2"
> <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden
>> lighting, which I suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs
>> in, feed the cable through into the house, and then plug it into a
>> transformer, the latter then into the wall. Is the "pre-assembled"
>> enough?
>
> I suspect 'pre-assembled' means something with a plug on the end of
> a cable.


Going OT for a bit, why this over-use of the prefix "pre-" with everything 
these days..? Surely something is either assembled or it isn't..?! Pre- 
means before, doesn't it..? So something that's pre-assembled is before 
assembly, in other words not assembled at all..?!!

It's like this "pre-ordering" that bookshops seem to like, particularly 
when it comes to Harry Potter books for some reason. If I go into a shop 
and want to buy something, if they have it, I buy it. If they don't, I may 
well order it. Where does the "pre-" bit come in..?!


Ivor

Mark McIntyre wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:22:37 +0100, "Tx2"
> <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden
>> lighting, which I suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs
>> in, feed the cable through into the house, and then plug it into a
>> transformer, the latter then into the wall. Is the "pre-assembled"
>> enough?
>
> I suspect 'pre-assembled' means something with a plug on the end of
> a cable.


Going OT for a bit, why this over-use of the prefix "pre-" with everything 
these days..? Surely something is either assembled or it isn't..?! Pre- 
means before, doesn't it..? So something that's pre-assembled is before 
assembly, in other words not assembled at all..?!!

It's like this "pre-ordering" that bookshops seem to like, particularly 
when it comes to Harry Potter books for some reason. If I go into a shop 
and want to buy something, if they have it, I buy it. If they don't, I may 
well order it. Where does the "pre-" bit come in..?!


Ivor

Mark McIntyre wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 00:22:37 +0100, "Tx2"
> <tx2usenet@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> However, i see that "pre-assembled" is mentioned in garden
>> lighting, which I suppose mine is, except I have to put the bulbs
>> in, feed the cable through into the house, and then plug it into a
>> transformer, the latter then into the wall. Is the "pre-assembled"
>> enough?
>
> I suspect 'pre-assembled' means something with a plug on the end of
> a cable.


Going OT for a bit, why this over-use of the prefix "pre-" with everything 
these days..? Surely something is either assembled or it isn't..?! Pre- 
means before, doesn't it..? So something that's pre-assembled is before 
assembly, in other words not assembled at all..?!!

It's like this "pre-ordering" that bookshops seem to like, particularly 
when it comes to Harry Potter books for some reason. If I go into a shop 
and want to buy something, if they have it, I buy it. If they don't, I may 
well order it. Where does the "pre-" bit come in..?!


Ivor

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
>>by low voltage lighting? 
> By <50V lights, probably absolutely none. By faulty 240V wiring, far
> too many. 


By faulty *wiring*, an average of 0.8 deaths per year, according to the 
Government's own Regulatory Impact Assessment produced as part of the 
pseudo-consultation process before Part P.

Deaths by faulty appliances and extension leads are far higher. The use 
of extension leads will rise as a result of Part P. This possible 
increase in fatalities was not taken into account in the RIA.

Owain

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
>>by low voltage lighting? 
> By <50V lights, probably absolutely none. By faulty 240V wiring, far
> too many. 


By faulty *wiring*, an average of 0.8 deaths per year, according to the 
Government's own Regulatory Impact Assessment produced as part of the 
pseudo-consultation process before Part P.

Deaths by faulty appliances and extension leads are far higher. The use 
of extension leads will rise as a result of Part P. This possible 
increase in fatalities was not taken into account in the RIA.

Owain

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:11:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:


>Going OT for a bit, why this over-use of the prefix "pre-" with everything 
>these days..? Surely something is either assembled or it isn't..?! 


Pre-assembled = Assembled before you bought it.  This usage of pre
predates present predilections, predictably. 


>It's like this "pre-ordering" that bookshops seem to like, particularly 
>when it comes to Harry Potter books for some reason. If I go into a shop 
>and want to buy something, if they have it, I buy it. If they don't, I may 
>well order it. Where does the "pre-" bit come in..?!


Yeah, its garbage in that context.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:11:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:


>Going OT for a bit, why this over-use of the prefix "pre-" with everything 
>these days..? Surely something is either assembled or it isn't..?! 


Pre-assembled = Assembled before you bought it.  This usage of pre
predates present predilections, predictably. 


>It's like this "pre-ordering" that bookshops seem to like, particularly 
>when it comes to Harry Potter books for some reason. If I go into a shop 
>and want to buy something, if they have it, I buy it. If they don't, I may 
>well order it. Where does the "pre-" bit come in..?!


Yeah, its garbage in that context.

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>I wonder how many people are actually killed or seriously injured each year 
>>by low voltage lighting? 
> By <50V lights, probably absolutely none. By faulty 240V wiring, far
> too many. 


By faulty *wiring*, an average of 0.8 deaths per year, according to the 
Government's own Regulatory Impact Assessment produced as part of the 
pseudo-consultation process before Part P.

Deaths by faulty appliances and extension leads are far higher. The use 
of extension leads will rise as a result of Part P. This possible 
increase in fatalities was not taken into account in the RIA.

Owain

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:11:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:


>Going OT for a bit, why this over-use of the prefix "pre-" with everything 
>these days..? Surely something is either assembled or it isn't..?! 


Pre-assembled = Assembled before you bought it.  This usage of pre
predates present predilections, predictably. 


>It's like this "pre-ordering" that bookshops seem to like, particularly 
>when it comes to Harry Potter books for some reason. If I go into a shop 
>and want to buy something, if they have it, I buy it. If they don't, I may 
>well order it. Where does the "pre-" bit come in..?!


Yeah, its garbage in that context.

RolYat  wrote:


> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?


There is special outdoor CAT5 cable.
In practice the regular stuff will work fine.
If you are really concerned then you can use
hosepipe as conduit.

-- 
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE Aided School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763

RolYat  wrote:


> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?


There is special outdoor CAT5 cable.
In practice the regular stuff will work fine.
If you are really concerned then you can use
hosepipe as conduit.

-- 
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE Aided School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763

RolYat  wrote:


> Can I run CAT5 outside, along a wall which faces the way the weather 
> generally comes from? Is normal CAT5 weather proof?


There is special outdoor CAT5 cable.
In practice the regular stuff will work fine.
If you are really concerned then you can use
hosepipe as conduit.

-- 
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE Aided School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763