My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
and connecting it with an ethernet cable? Also, can multiple phones be
connected to the router?

Scott wrote:

> My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
> there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
> and connecting it with an ethernet cable?

Yes you can do that.

> Also, can multiple phones be
> connected to the router?

Should do, wonder what REN it provides? Most likely modern phones use
less ringing current anyway.

On 09/02/2024 17:43, Scott wrote:
> My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
> there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
> and connecting it with an ethernet cable?

Correct

> Also, can multiple phones be
> connected to the router?
Depends on the router

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

On 09/02/2024 17:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
>> there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
>> and connecting it with an ethernet cable?
>
> Yes you can do that.
>
>> Also, can multiple phones be
>> connected to the router?
>
> Should do, wonder what REN it provides?  Most likely modern phones use
> less ringing current anyway.
Ah. I thought you meant on independent lines and sockets
The router should be able to drive quite a lot of phones, especially
modern ones that don't need a separate ring circuit

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

On 09/02/2024 17:43, Scott wrote:
> My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
> there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
> and connecting it with an ethernet cable? Also, can multiple phones be
> connected to the router?

It's not clear whether it is just the phone line or both the line and
the phone have been upgraded, and, if only the line, whether router
means just router or combined router and ATA.

Most answers seem to assume just the phone line and that the router
includes a single channel ATA.

If the phones have been upgraded, the ability to register more than one
on the same number, or to have multiple ones on different numbers, will
depend on the VoIP service, not the local hardware.

The ability to move the router depends on whether or not it is combined
with the optical termination equipment. You'll be able to separate it
from the optical termination up to the full limits of the Ethernet in use.

On 11/02/2024 00:41, David Woolley wrote:
> The ability to move the router depends on whether or not it is combined
> with the optical termination equipment.

I have not seen any that are.

There is a commercial and operational reason for this.
The Fibre company owns and is responsible for every inch of the fibre up
to and including the modem.

But the ISP is responsible for the router, or the customer is.

Combining the functions leads to a responsibility overlap.

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/02/2024 00:41, David Woolley wrote:
>> The ability to move the router depends on whether or not it is combined
>> with the optical termination equipment.
>
> I have not seen any that are.
>
> There is a commercial and operational reason for this.
> The Fibre company owns and is responsible for every inch of the fibre up
> to and including the modem.
>
> But the ISP is responsible for the router, or the customer is.
>
> Combining the functions leads to a responsibility overlap.
>
>

Non fibre company owned equipment could cause havoc on the uplink if it is
even slightly out of spec.

On 11/02/2024 09:28, Tweed wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2024 00:41, David Woolley wrote:
>>> The ability to move the router depends on whether or not it is combined
>>> with the optical termination equipment.
>>
>> I have not seen any that are.
>>
>> There is a commercial and operational reason for this.
>> The Fibre company owns and is responsible for every inch of the fibre up
>> to and including the modem.
>>
>> But the ISP is responsible for the router, or the customer is.
>>
>> Combining the functions leads to a responsibility overlap.
>>
>>
>
> Non fibre company owned equipment could cause havoc on the uplink if it is
> even slightly out of spec.
>
It's another facet of the same argument.

The fibre company needs to digitally match the modem to the link to get
the right multiplexed conversation.

But it is not responsible for connecting to the ISP or any VOIP service.

In the case of Openreach, they are responsible for delivering Ethernet
framed packets to the ISPs frame relay termination kit, where PPP
sessions can be layered over it. And IP over that.

That's where their responsibility as a transport provider begins and ends.

Unless you have one monolithic provider of VOIP, Fibre and Internet, you
can't supply a router-modem combo easily.

Even with ADSL/VDSL, it is the presence of the exchange or street
cabinet DSLAMS that are actually the terminators. The 'last mile' of
copper is simply a way to get an *already individualised* conversation
to the consumer.

Fibre to the premises moves the equivalent of a DSLAM into the customer
premises.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In the case of Openreach, they are responsible for delivering Ethernet
> framed packets to the ISPs frame relay termination kit, where PPP
> sessions can be layered over it. And IP over that.
>
> That's where their responsibility as a transport provider begins and ends.
>
> Unless you have one monolithic provider of VOIP, Fibre and Internet, you
> can't supply a router-modem combo easily.

Combined modem/routers are common where an altnet is vertically integrated,
ie they provide both the connectivity and the internet service (and maybe
VOIP phone). Virgin cable is a good example.

There is no reason in principle why a wholesaled network couldn't also use
such a combo box: the ONT is one chip in the box, the routing function is
another chip. There would need to be some agreement between the fibre
network and the ISP as to who supplies firmware updates to each part, but
that's doable - it's similar to how basebands in some Android mobiles work.
(baseband firmware from the network, Android firmware from Samsung)

What you don't get in this setup is much ability to change things as a
customer, but most people don't care about that. If you want to run your
own router on this setup you have to look for an option labelled 'modem
mode' or similar that bypasses the routing functions so you can put a second
router behind your ISP box. It's up to the ISP as to whether they give that
to you.

The OP didn't tell us who their ISP is so we can only guess what kind of
setup they have.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> In the case of Openreach, they are responsible for delivering Ethernet
>> framed packets to the ISPs frame relay termination kit, where PPP
>> sessions can be layered over it. And IP over that.
>>
>> That's where their responsibility as a transport provider begins and ends.
>>
>> Unless you have one monolithic provider of VOIP, Fibre and Internet, you
>> can't supply a router-modem combo easily.
>
> Combined modem/routers are common where an altnet is vertically integrated,
> ie they provide both the connectivity and the internet service (and maybe
> VOIP phone). Virgin cable is a good example.
>
> There is no reason in principle why a wholesaled network couldn't also use
> such a combo box: the ONT is one chip in the box, the routing function is
> another chip. There would need to be some agreement between the fibre
> network and the ISP as to who supplies firmware updates to each part, but
> that's doable - it's similar to how basebands in some Android mobiles work.
> (baseband firmware from the network, Android firmware from Samsung)
>
> What you don't get in this setup is much ability to change things as a
> customer, but most people don't care about that. If you want to run your
> own router on this setup you have to look for an option labelled 'modem
> mode' or similar that bypasses the routing functions so you can put a second
> router behind your ISP box. It's up to the ISP as to whether they give that
> to you.
>
> The OP didn't tell us who their ISP is so we can only guess what kind of
> setup they have.
>
> Theo
>

One thing not to be overlooked is that a separate ONT tends to stay fixed
in one place. The fibre coming through the wall is a very thin affair. If
you allowed Joe Public to install their own end point equipment you’d have
to make the fibre and its connector much more robust. An Ethernet RJ45 on
the consumer side of the ONT is a much more consumer proof interface.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing not to be overlooked is that a separate ONT tends to stay fixed
> in one place. The fibre coming through the wall is a very thin affair. If
> you allowed Joe Public to install their own end point equipment you’d have
> to make the fibre and its connector much more robust. An Ethernet RJ45 on
> the consumer side of the ONT is a much more consumer proof interface.

The point is that you never need to have a user-installable ONT, in a
combined setup your only user-facing connectors are the LAN ports of the
router. If you need to change the box for some reason that's a service
call (as it is for Virgin cable). There is no actual reason for routers to
given away like confetti when people change ISP every year.

Such fibre connectors exist in the context of datacentre networking, but
perhaps they could be made more idiot proof. In the case of the Openreach
setup, worst case you're only replacing the lead that comes from the outside
wall box, not the whole fibre run. Which would of course be a chargeable
event to discourage idiots messing with it.

Theo

According to Virgin, you can extend your current wired extensions to your
routers position and most normal multi phone systems should still work.
However the use of the word most is interesting. I suspect it means it
should work, but we don't guarantee it!

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4rocsip7p1m11r17ailfov1p4b6fbd7rdd@4ax.com...
> My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
> there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
> and connecting it with an ethernet cable? Also, can multiple phones be
> connected to the router?

I love the way telecom companies present voip as an improvement, when it
Cleary is not for most people.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:uq5pd2$2o286$2@dont-email.me...
> On 09/02/2024 17:43, Scott wrote:
>> My phone has just been upgraded to FTTP/VOIP. Am I correct in thinking
>> there is nothing to prevent me moving the router to a better position
>> and connecting it with an ethernet cable?
>
> Correct
>
>> Also, can multiple phones be
>> connected to the router?
> Depends on the router
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.
> -- Yogi Berra
>

So how is it that you see fibre connections on some routers then? Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqa3vv$tpam$1@dont-email.me...
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2024 00:41, David Woolley wrote:
>>> The ability to move the router depends on whether or not it is combined
>>> with the optical termination equipment.
>>
>> I have not seen any that are.
>>
>> There is a commercial and operational reason for this.
>> The Fibre company owns and is responsible for every inch of the fibre up
>> to and including the modem.
>>
>> But the ISP is responsible for the router, or the customer is.
>>
>> Combining the functions leads to a responsibility overlap.
>>
>>
>
> Non fibre company owned equipment could cause havoc on the uplink if it is
> even slightly out of spec.
>

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> So how is it that you see fibre connections on some routers then? Brian
>

They are usually for leased fibre connections or similar. Domestic GPON or
XGSGPON is a technology where the connection is shared with other
subscribers. That means your uplink transmitter can only inject light into
the system at very well defined time points, otherwise you stomp all over
the other subscribers. As XGSPON supports speeds all the way up to 10 Gbit
you do need to make sure that all the hardware on the system is well
behaved. You’d be quite upset if your own service degraded or failed
because a neighbour had fitted some dodgy kit to their fibre. Mandating a
network supplied ONT with consumer Ethernet presentation solves all of
this.

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to Virgin, you can extend your current wired extensions to your
> routers position and most normal multi phone systems should still work.
> However the use of the word most is interesting. I suspect it means it
> should work, but we don't guarantee it!

In other words: "We could to replace your working service with one that
doesn't work and there is nothing you can make us do about it".

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 11/02/2024 13:52, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I love the way telecom companies present voip as an improvement, when it
> Cleary is not for most people.
> Brian
>
Oh, in most cases it really is.

I was using mine on a daily basis as a business line for a year or two
and the quality was far better than the landline...

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 11/02/2024 13:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
> So how is it that you see fibre connections on some routers then? Brian
>
How m,any have you personally seen?
I haven't seen any, ever. Not to connect to the outside workld, anyway.
Obviously LAN fibre - typically multimode with premade patch fibres -
has been around forever.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/02/2024 13:52, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > I love the way telecom companies present voip as an improvement, when it
> > Cleary is not for most people.
> > Brian
> >
> Oh, in most cases it really is.
>
> I was using mine on a daily basis as a business line for a year or two
> and the quality was far better than the landline...

In my experience the quality of the landline is usually masked by the
lack of quality of the apparatus at the far end. Handsets with huge
honks in the 600 c/s region, nothing above 2Kc/s and compression that
brings up the background noise between syllables.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 12/02/2024 10:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2024 13:52, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> I love the way telecom companies present voip as an improvement, when it
>>> Cleary is not for most people.
>>> Brian
>>>
>> Oh, in most cases it really is.
>>
>> I was using mine on a daily basis as a business line for a year or two
>> and the quality was far better than the landline...
>
> In my experience the quality of the landline is usually masked by the
> lack of quality of the apparatus at the far end. Handsets with huge
> honks in the 600 c/s region, nothing above 2Kc/s and compression that
> brings up the background noise between syllables.
>

Conventional POTS phones don't do frequency shaping or compression.

That was done to a good standard on land lines by the digitisation kit
that turned the stream into a 64kbps digital signal.

VOIP has no need to restrict itself to 64kbps. And my experience shows
that if it doesn't, its better than the land line,.

The really shit quality comes from *digital phones* especially those on
*mobile* connections where bandwidth is extremely limited and
compression and noise gates are used to maximise intelligibility with
the fewest number of bits.

But that isn't intrinsic to VOIP

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 10:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2024 13:52, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>> I love the way telecom companies present voip as an improvement, when it
>>>> Cleary is not for most people.
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>> Oh, in most cases it really is.
>>>
>>> I was using mine on a daily basis as a business line for a year or two
>>> and the quality was far better than the landline...
>>
>> In my experience the quality of the landline is usually masked by the
>> lack of quality of the apparatus at the far end. Handsets with huge
>> honks in the 600 c/s region, nothing above 2Kc/s and compression that
>> brings up the background noise between syllables.
>>
>
> Conventional POTS phones don't do frequency shaping or compression.
>
> That was done to a good standard on land lines by the digitisation kit
> that turned the stream into a 64kbps digital signal.
>
> VOIP has no need to restrict itself to 64kbps. And my experience shows
> that if it doesn't, its better than the land line,.
>
> The really shit quality comes from *digital phones* especially those on
> *mobile* connections where bandwidth is extremely limited and
> compression and noise gates are used to maximise intelligibility with
> the fewest number of bits.
>
> But that isn't intrinsic to VOIP
>

Exactly. I’ve spent the morning on a Teams call with colleagues in Paris,
with both audio and video. Perfect audio and very much higher quality than
POTS.

Well, yes I guess so, I notice that the same phones that bt sold have
recently reappeared on the market as digital voice compatible at a higher
price. This sounds a bit like a con, as it either is emulating the old line
or its not, surely there are specs?

Its a bit like the old HD ready TVS then, where the screen was HD but
nothing else was.

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1qos2jb.6yaj4840qj8kN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> According to Virgin, you can extend your current wired extensions to your
>> routers position and most normal multi phone systems should still work.
>> However the use of the word most is interesting. I suspect it means it
>> should work, but we don't guarantee it!
>
> In other words: "We could to replace your working service with one that
> doesn't work and there is nothing you can make us do about it".
>
>
> --
> ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
> (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
> www.poppyrecords.co.uk

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 10:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/02/2024 13:52, Brian Gaff wrote:
> >>> I love the way telecom companies present voip as an improvement, when it
> >>> Cleary is not for most people.
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >> Oh, in most cases it really is.
> >>
> >> I was using mine on a daily basis as a business line for a year or two
> >> and the quality was far better than the landline...
> >
> > In my experience the quality of the landline is usually masked by the
> > lack of quality of the apparatus at the far end. Handsets with huge
> > honks in the 600 c/s region, nothing above 2Kc/s and compression that
> > brings up the background noise between syllables.
> >
>
> Conventional POTS phones don't do frequency shaping or compression.
>
> That was done to a good standard on land lines by the digitisation kit
> that turned the stream into a 64kbps digital signal.
>
> VOIP has no need to restrict itself to 64kbps. And my experience shows
> that if it doesn't, its better than the land line,.
>
> The really shit quality comes from *digital phones* especially those on
> *mobile* connections where bandwidth is extremely limited and
> compression and noise gates are used to maximise intelligibility with
> the fewest number of bits.
>
> But that isn't intrinsic to VOIP

Has anyone here actually measured the end-to-end frequency response,
noise level and intermodulation distortion of a VOIP link? That should
be the starting point for any discussion of audio quality but I doubt if
that information is published anywhere or guaranteed by the supplier.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Mon 12/02/2024 12:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Well, yes I guess so, I notice that the same phones that bt sold have
> recently reappeared on the market as digital voice compatible at a higher
> price. This sounds a bit like a con, as it either is emulating the old line
> or its not, surely there are specs?
>
> Its a bit like the old HD ready TVS then, where the screen was HD but
> nothing else was.
>

They're still doing it Brian, except its the other way around. The TV
has an HD tuner - nay even a smart capability sometimes - but it is
marked 'HD Ready' and a little further checking shows it is 1366x768
pixels - which is most definitely NOT full HD!!

Guess where such advertising is being used..........

On 11/02/2024 20:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/02/2024 13:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> So how is it that you see fibre connections on some routers then? Brian
>>
> How m,any have you personally seen?

None in the UK, but seem to be pretty standard in domestic settings in
Spain, and I gather France ?