cat5 cannot replace regular phone line???

[X-Nemesis]

I'm confused...I was talking to a salesperson about replacing my 150ft phone cord down to my computer highspeed modem with cat5. He said it can't be done because cat5 and phone cord are completely different.

Does this mean that I would not be able to hook up cat5 to the phone jack in the wall with an rj-11 plug and a rj-45 on the other end for the modem?

[dsl-jds]

Like many salepersons, this one doesn't know what's what. See this thread to see how it can be done. This thread is for using cat5 to run a better shielded line to a DSL modem. So no reason why cat5 can't be used for regular phone as well. I recently had several cat5 lines run in my church for both ethernet and phone usage. Once, the weather clears here, I intend to make the cat5 run to my DSL modem, especially since they just upped my speeds.

[X-Nemesis]

I've seen that before...but it doesn't relate to my situation unfortunately because my network is set up inside an apartment and the telephone box that I'm looking at is completely different than what is shown on dslnuts...as far as I can tell...the wire that's coming into the apartment is just regular phone wire...so would it be worthwhile to take a 150ft cat5 wire and put an rj11 connector on one end and an rj45 on the other end...plug the rj11 into the phone jack in the apartment...run the cat5 down the hall to the main computer and plug the other end into the modem...would this give me better performance than the regular phone line I'm using???

[dsl-jds]

I depends on how long the run is from the phone jack to the computer. Oh you said 150'. And, how long the line is from where it comes in to the apartment complex to your apartment. I'd give it a try, but I'd combine the lines in the cat5 like the dslnuts article showed. This would give you more copper and shielding. Also, make sure you have filters on all phones.

What kind of speeds are you getting now? The effort might not show a huge change.

[Kip Patterson]

Combining the wires as shown at DSLNuts is, well, nuts. The DSL circuit and modem are designed for cable of a certain characteristic impedance. Combining the circuits creates reflection and will degrade the connection.

In any case, unless the original cable is badly degraded, replacing it with cat 5 won't get you any performance improvement.

Kip

[dsl-jds]

Kip brings up a point that I totally overlooked. Anyone have the characteristics for various cable types? Since there are so many types of regular phone wire, it seems that the circuit design would have to be acceptable to a wide range of characteristics. The combining of types could be a problem. In any case I'm going to try the cat5 replacement from the NID to the modem. I'll report the results this spring, the NID isn't in a very convenient location with the snow and all.

[chpalmer]

Got to disagree with part of your post Kip... while using all four pairs is not likely to do much, the idea of replacing regular un-twisted phone-line with wire made for eliminating "cross-talk is totally valid. Cross-talk on any modem line will slow it down, and this is very likely to occur at long distances such as 150 feet.

The important impedance is at the termination, normally 600 ohms for analog voice and 150 ohms for data circuits for example. Give or take of course. A recent change we had to make was due to crosstalk, that we fixed by using cat-5 e in our 911 voice recording system, over the non twisted pairs origionally installed.

Ive never heard of anyone having problems with this "mod" myself but just the contrary. It could be just the change to cat 5 that gives them the improvement. But it would be interesting to experiment with..

[X-Nemesis]

Well...if the 150ft of cat5 doesn't cost a forture I think I'll pick some up and replace the existing phone wire...

Currently I'm getting 816 to 900kbs on speed tests and so I'm not expecting to get increases in that manner...but maybe the cat5 would increase any lag or whatever...

What do you guys think?

[chpalmer]

Unless your lag is caused from packet loss, you probably wont see much improvement there. Fact is, you may see very little change or quite the opposite, just depends on all the factors in play in your situation.

Changing over would be an interesting experiment for you, and if you do make shure you share your experiences.

Cat-5 can be purchased in bulk at some hardware stores such as Home Depot. I bought a 100 ft roll at Radio Shack for a pricey 28.00 once. It most likely can be had much cheaper from other sources.

[dannjr]

Originally posted by chpalmer
Got to disagree with part of your post Kip... while using all four pairs is not likely to do much, the idea of replacing regular un-twisted phone-line with wire made for eliminating "cross-talk is totally valid. Cross-talk on any modem line will slow it down, and this is very likely to occur at long distances such as 150 feet.

The important impedance is at the termination, normally 600 ohms for analog voice and 150 ohms for data circuits for example. Give or take of course. A recent change we had to make was due to crosstalk, that we fixed by using cat-5 e in our 911 voice recording system, over the non twisted pairs origionally installed.

Ive never heard of anyone having problems with this "mod" myself but just the contrary. It could be just the change to cat 5 that gives them the improvement. But it would be interesting to experiment with..

I agree with chpalmer. But then why wouldnt I.

OK not gonna stay with this one long. Unfortuantely I cant. To much work not enough time.

I just want to point out a couple of factors that are being missed.

Capacitance comes into play. Along with RF noise In an apartment your gonna have all sorts of Radio noise and depending on what walls the wire runs in it could be getting interference from a neighbors 900Mhz or Ghz equiptment.
Factors that come into play with an Apartment building.

1. Will the owners allow for the fix
2. You mess up and cut someone else’s line. You pay.

Being the fact that its going to Cat5 using all 4 pair your not hurting it. In fact we ran a scope on it. The first home done with this “MoD” was on a DSL managers home that just happens to Work for SBC. So we did allot of added tests.
The Capacitance test on the scope and I don’t remember the exact numbers showed that it held the line better. The up side to that means it decreased the resistance. The big concern then became added Capacitance can equal possible RF increase but in this case it decreased.
Will you get more speed. That’s dependant on everything from the line quality how clean you make it. How well you lubricate the connections to keep the acid off. And of course tweaks. Averages have been anything from 50kbps to 150kbps on the emails and reports I have now.

Words of warning. Don’t stand in a bucket of water or do this in a rain storm.
Phone lines in the US generally can carry up to 48volts. Some lines in Canada can carry up to 250volts. The water part can help knock you on you butt.

If you run the cable from the NID to the Modem/bridge you only need one filter and in some cases where the CO is or has replaced the Racks with the New G-lite (shared voip) racks that hold 4 times the capacity. The filter may not be needed at all.
I have two DSL connection no dry pair I gave that up for a new connection on UUnet
The UUnet connection requires the filter in the NID. My SBC connection no longer requires it. Both my connections are out of two different CO’s SBC at 6036ft UUnet @ 4056ft eventually that rack will be updated.

Kip you have a valid point when it comes to cable difference. Not gonna argue that but if you went out to the local Radio Snach and bought that flat phone wire to use for DSL you’d see a speed drop as much as 300kbps on a average.
What comes in from the Telco pole is one thing. The closer the wires get to the structure the higher the RF gets. Its bad enough that the RF is Wack between the Telco poles.
A good example of that I have wireless here as well if I walk up and down in front of my home I can go 1500feet before I get lost in radio noise. If I try to walk out the back of my home to the neighbors under the Telco poles unless I have a 4db antenna pointed at me I aint staying connected. I wont go into what tree’s do.. After all this thread is on DSL wiring..

Got to go. Have hacker to bust

Peace

[X-Nemesis]

First of all...thanks alot for all the great replies and information guys...it's very helpful and good reading...secondly...regarding the cat5 wiring...I take it the reason to use cat5 is because of the shielding it offers over regular phone line...but since phone only requires 2 wires to connect...is there any other kind of wiring besides cat 5 that would just have the same shielding but with only 2 wires instead...I'm probably exposing myself for the total newb I am regarding this stuff...just wondering...would that wiring if it exists be cheaper since there is less actual wiring inside the casing?

[Stef]

Both CAT 3 and 5 offer little or no protection to RF interferance. The protection is in the circuitry of the NIC or DSL modem, it's called an op-amp


You can buy shielded cable, more expensive, but well worth it. It comes with the conductors wrapped in an aluminum foil and has a seperate grounding conductor. It's overkill unless your running that cable through an electrical control panel or in an industrial workplace.

[DaveM]

Originally posted by chpalmer
Unless your lag is caused from packet loss, you probably wont see much improvement there. Fact is, you may see very little change or quite the opposite, just depends on all the factors in play in your situation.

Changing over would be an interesting experiment for you, and if you do make shure you share your experiences.

Cat-5 can be purchased in bulk at some hardware stores such as Home Depot. I bought a 100 ft roll at Radio Shack for a pricey 28.00 once. It most likely can be had much cheaper from other sources.

A 1000 foot roll of Belden Cat 5e should run you around 45 to 55 dollars, depending on where you buy it. Obviously Fire Rated (such as teflon coated) Plenum varieties will cost much more and are generally only needed when run through a Air Return Space above ceiling tiles in a business, hardley ever needed in a home.

My house is run with cat5e for both network with 2 jacks to every room to the head end in my utility room, and all phones in the house ran on a series runs of cat5 with a couple of parallel offshoots for 2 rooms the electrician failed to think I needed to have phone service.

On a side note, I have 6 home runs of RG6 out to my garage where the Coax feed from the street comes in on an RG11 which is buried from the Telephone pole on a run a few hundred feet long.

[Kip Patterson]

Certainly cat 5 is a good choice for wiring a dSL line. My only comment was about paralleling the 4 pairs. It creates a big impedance mismatch.

Cat 5 is 100 ohms. ADSL modems specify a line impedance of 100 ohms. I imagine that comes from a phone company spec somewhere.

[dsl-jds]

Well, the weather broke enough for me to rewire with Cat5. Unfortunately, I can't report whether it helped my 384/128 connection or not. Because my ISP decided to open the pipe a bit. So if the Cat5 gave me a 10kbps increase it is now down in the wash of my new 2+ Mbps connection. They only upped my cost by $5/month, too. Not sure if paralleling four pairs is causing any impedance problems.

[Bsr1]

That's totatl BS,,,, most new homes are wired with cat5 now. Not only does it allow several phone lines down one singal lines, but the jacks are backwords compatible with regular phonelines and RJ.

[dsl-jds]

Bsr1, I assume you're referring to posts prior to mine. As you can see from my post, I couldn't determine if the replacement helped. It didn't hurt, even with the four pairs wired together.

[poptom]

The green and orange pairs in a cat 5 cable have a much faster twist than blue and brown. Dunno about 5e.

Just an observation.