Whirlpool

For those who are interested, here is a summary of the main differences between the Telstra standard for standard ADSL filters, RCIT.0004, and the ADSL2+ standard, AS/ACIFS041 (2005).

I've seen quite a few postings in this forum saying that you can just use an ADSL filter for an ADSL2+ modem. S041 specifies testing to 2.2MHz, compared with 1.1MHz for Telstra RCIT.0004, which is just the first of several significant differences, which include the following:

-----------------
Item 1
Characteristic: Overall Bandwidth:
RCIT.0004: Only Tested and Certified to 1.1MHz. Half the bandwidth of ADSL2+.
S041:2005: Full ADSL2+ Band 2.2MHz Certified.

Item 2
Characteristic: Unbalance about Earth:
RCIT.0004: Relaxed requirement of 30dB cuts in at 1.1MHz.
S041:2005: Clause 5.2.4.8. Relaxed requirement of 30dB cuts in at 2.2MHz.

Item 3
Characteristic: Telephone Idle ADSL Band Isolation:
RCIT.0004: Not Required for Certification.
S041:2005: Clause 5.2.4.15. Full Compliance to ETSI Off-Line Isolation but extended to 2.2MHz.

Item 4
Characteristic: Telephone Noise with filter connected to live ADSL Signals:
RCIT.0004: Not Tested. Many RCIT.0004 approved filters generate objectionable telephone ‘static’ when live ADSL and ADSL2+ signals are present.
S041:2005: Clause 5.2.4.17.d. Psophometric Noise Test with live ADSL Signals (better than -62dBmp).

-----------------

The consequence of Item 1 (overall bandwidth) is that your cheap ADSL1 filter may not pass the full bandwidth ADSL2+ signal. Obviously, the result will be that you probably won't get full speed capability out of your ADSL2+ modem. The further you are from the exchange, the more important this may be to your speed (because of attenuation). A very poor filter may even affect ADSL1 speeds.

Filters being passed off as 'extensively tested for ADSL2+', or 'designed for ADSL2+', but which haven't passed the test (because they can't) aren't going to perform correctly in most/all conditions when used with ADSL2+.

It's interesting (to say the least) that several filters 'approved' by Telstra appear to generate noise on the line. The noise test may not be a part of RCIT.0004, but I thought not generating noise on the line was a golden rule for any equipment connected to it. Some of the C10 Communications filters do this. How did those get approval at all?

Why is Telstra currently not recognising ADSL2+ for the purposes of approving filters? A genuine ADSL2+ filter is far preferable to one of the noise-generators currently/recently on the market, even if you're only using it for ADSL1. Perhaps this has to do with the competition being ahead in this area? Is this an anti-competitive move by Telstra?

This is an interesting area. I'd like to see what happens when the first genuine ADSL2+ filter hits the market here.

joules writes...

when the first genuine ADSL2+ filter hits the market here.

There are already a few around, like from C10 and the Telequip DSL-008E splitter.

Any of the Telequip E1 models are designed for the requirements of 2+

They cost a little more. I have had a look at the major computer/electrical retailers and they arn't stocking them yet. They only have the same models without the E1 markings and still want upwards of $26 for the splitter and $28 for the wall plates.

But if you hunt around you can find the E1's about.

Info found here:

www.telequip.com.au/Defa...?tabid=53&cid=49

Tomcat.

I think you guys miss the whole point... if any of the Telequip or C10 filters meets the ADSL2+ standard (S041:2005), I am not aware of it. Please list them. A filter that hasn't passed the test *does not meet the spec* and is *not* compatible with ADSL2+.

The sales-speak you guys have seen or heard does *not* mean the filters passed the ADSL2+ test. Unfortunately, this misleading marketing seems to be working.

As I said before, non-compliant filters may work to some degree with ADSL2+, but this depends on the specific conditions. If you're really lucky and are close to the exchange, you *may* even get full speed out of your modem, but I would never place a bet on it! I know that when you connnect a modem through a genuine ADSL2+ filter you usually see a significant *increase* in the speed at which the modem can sync.

Thanks for the thread !

What's the filer recommendation for ADSL 2 (not 2+) ?

Just wondering as I have a ADSL2 but not ADSL2+ capable router I might use again.
I could put a ADSL2 router on z ADSL2+ connection and get ADSL2 speeds, right ?

Kind Regards, nso

joules writes...

The consequence of Item 1 (overall bandwidth) is that your cheap ADSL1 filter may not pass the full bandwidth ADSL2+ signal.
Joules,
Actually, the ADSL(2+) filter is designed to stop the ADSL(2+) signal from reaching any telephone/ fax/ dialup modem equipement that you have installed. However the consequences of using a first generation RCIT.0004 filter can be that the higher band (1.1MHz to 2.2MHz) portion of the ADSL2+ signal from the exchange DSLAM is allowed to pass to the telephone side thereby unnecessarily loading this portion of the signal and reducing your connection speed.

oneplusone writes...

However the consequences of using a first generation RCIT.0004 filter can be that the higher band (1.1MHz to 2.2MHz) portion of the ADSL2+ signal from the exchange DSLAM is allowed to pass to the telephone side

..or are evilly reflected and the two signals (real and reflected) interfere at your modem.

Short test: disconnect your filter(s) and telephone(s) and make your modem resync. If it does better this time, you can get more speed from fixing up filters or installing a central filter. If not, there's nothing to gain.

sysKin writes...

Short test: disconnect your filter(s) and telephone(s) and make your modem resync. If it does better this time, you can get more speed from fixing up filters or installing a central filter. If not, there's nothing to gain.

I tried this exact test last night on a brand new ADSL2+ connection with a C10245M. The sync speed was the same (12500kbps) with or without the filter... so I guess it's OK?

I'd rather not guess, but one line, one filter and one modem does not constitute the comprehensive compliance requirements for ADSL2+ filters designed to the new Australian Standard AS/ACIF S041:2005 that Joules raised earlier.

Not sure if this is the place to ask, hope so.

I am about to plug in my new adsl2+ modem to access my new adsl2+ iiNet braodband, will I need a filter on each of the phone lines (we have 3, 1 for the adsl modem and 2 with phones on them) or just the one for the modem?

Thanks in advance and apologies if I posted in the wrong thread/forum.

Dave Robinson writes...

will I need a filter on each of the phone lines
You need a filter on each phone outlet being used, but NOT the line going to the ADSL modem.

Pieter, you are correct. The inline ADSL filter is not to be put between the wall socket and your ADSL device, whatever you have, and everyone else who has replied to the original post, please note this.

In Electronics talk, the filter is what is called a Low Pass Filter, and what it does is block all frequencies above the set maximum, which is typically set to around 200-250KHz. In case you are wondering why, it is because this is the upper limit that has been determined for the various services that use the low frequency transmission of PSTN wiring.

It has no relationship to the frequencies and/or bandwidth used at ADSL transmissions. The purpose of the filter is to BLOCK the ADSL signals from reaching such devices as your Telephone, Fax, Alarm, Dial up Modem, and any other similar devices, not the other way around, which is what most posters have been talking about.

Oops - thanks for the correction, oneplusone. The brain was out of gear just then. I was probably thinking about dodgy filters interfering with the signal that should just go straight through to the exchange... but not even the dodgy ones should be that bad.

sysKin writes...

Short test: disconnect your filter(s) and telephone(s) and make your modem resync. If it does better this time, you can get more speed from fixing up filters or installing a central filter. If not, there's nothing to gain.

I did the test tonight after getting adsl2 yesterday from optus. I unplugged 3 out of 4 filters and phone lines, left one in, in mums bedroom. Speed test went up from 8000kbps to 11000kbps. This is using my old filters from my netspace adsl...

Now going by whereis.com.au I live 1.09km away from my exchange (malvern, vic) and I am only getting speeds of upto 12000kbps in the speed tests. I thought living that close to the exchange I would be in the 18,000-20,000kbps region.

Any thoughts?

RealAusTech writes...

It has no relationship to the frequencies and/or bandwidth used at ADSL transmissions.

I disagree. Here is the stop band filter characteristic of a typical splitter. See k23722, which adheres to ETSI ATA TS 101 952 -1-1
www.vacuumschmelze.com/d...101%20952%201%22

It will be seen that the stop band of this LPF has a 10dB down frequency at approx 25kHz.

See forum-replies.cfm?t=5841...9016038#r9016038

My post mentions that there are three functions of ADSL filters/splitters, to reduce/avoid cross interference of ADSL and POTS signals, and to reduce attenuation (and increase return loss) of the ADSL signal on the local loop.

djruski writes...

I did the test tonight after getting adsl2 yesterday from optus. I unplugged 3 out of 4 filters and phone lines, left one in, in mums bedroom. Speed test went up from 8000kbps to 11000kbps. This is using my old filters from my netspace adsl...

Now going by whereis.com.au I live 1.09km away from my exchange (malvern, vic) and I am only getting speeds of upto 12000kbps in the speed tests. I thought living that close to the exchange I would be in the 18,000-20,000kbps region.

Any thoughts?

For interest, I'd first try unplugging everything and checking the speed. Then (regardless of the result of that) it's clear that you need genuine ADSL2+ filters. I don't know of any on the market yet in Aus., so you'll have to hang on for a while. I suspect it won't be long.

The best solution (technically) is to install a central ADSL2+ filter and split the ADSL and phone lines at the point-of-entry of the line. Otherwise, get ADSL2+ filters for every extension when they are available.

See forum-replies.cfm?t=5841...9016038­ #r9016038

My post mentions that there are three functions of ADSL filters/splitters, to reduce/avoid cross interference of ADSL and POTS signals, and to reduce attenuation (and increase return loss) of the ADSL signal on the local loop.

I had a look martin and this is well explained. Back to the ADSL2+ bit - if the inductors used in a filter for example have a self resonance frequency that is too low then the attenuation that may have been adequate at ADSL1 frequencies will not be adequate at the higher ADSL2+ frequencies and the 3 functions of the filter evaporate. Result - ADSL2+ modem can't make use of the extra bandwidth that could otherwise be available and ratchets down to a safe speed. Also depending on the design of the filter, noise gets onto your telephone line. The more 'low grade' filters there are on the installation the worse it will be.

This is why the new ADSL2+ filter Australian Standard AS/ACIFS041:2005 was drafted and became law in April. It will be mandatory for all new filters post October 1st. The ludicrous aspect here is that any filters approved to the old standards (S002:2001 Appendix F and Telstra Technical Reference RCIT.0004) pre this date are still able to be sold and degrade ADSL and ADSL2+ systems alike. This is called the Grandfather rule because it is something that only your grandfather could think of.

oneplusone writes...

Also depending on the design of the filter, noise gets onto your telephone line. The more 'low grade' filters there are on the installation the worse it will be.

Fair enough- MM

Thanks for the info.

are there a list of good Filters that you have test (or anyone that has test) that work ok with adsl 2+

i was going to buy d-links adsl2+ filters but i don't know now.

Regards Ob

joules writes...

I thought not generating noise on the line was a golden rule for any equipment connected to it. Some of the C10 Communications filters do this. How did those get approval at all?

Heck I went out and bought a C10645E thinking it would be beneficial to my ADSL2+ connection. The damn thing creates so much noise it's unbelieveable. Speed advantage - NIL.

does anyone know where to get such a filter?

fantasmic0 writes...

REPLYING TO
fantasmic0... Heck I went out and bought a C10645E thinking it would be beneficial to my ADSL2+ connection.

The "E" models are ADSL1 filters.
The "M" models are ADSL2+ filters.
You bought the wrong model.

joules writes...

This is an interesting area. I'd like to see what happens when the first genuine ADSL2+ filter hits the market here.

OK, so we have ADSL2+ now - what is the *best* filter available at the moment?
Also assume Central Splitters cannot be used due to both pairs being used (2 lines) and modem is not positioned at the line boundary.
Also assume price is not an issue (in the $10-$30 range) as it is costing a lot more than this in wasted time and travel. I would rather pay $30 once, than buy and return and test 2 x $10 models.

The general feeling I get is that the C10 ("M") models are the best currently available.
If that's the general concesus - where's the best place to tget them? I don't want to drive out to Regent's Park. They say the Jackson brand is just a C10 rebadge and sold through Office Works, but I cannot find Jackson or C10 on the Office Works website.

And lastly, what about Panasonic cordless phones? Historically they've always caused so many problems with ADSL1 filters - will a C10 filter work well with ADSL2+ and a Panasonic Cordless?

jono writes...

They say the Jackson brand is just a C10 rebadge and sold through Office Works, but I cannot find Jackson or C10 on the Office Works website.

Correct. Jackson brand is from C10.
Jackson brand is fully stocked at OFFICEWORKS Newcastle, so I would assume that it is a stock line in all or most Officeworks stores.

Suggest you have a look at the specs on the C10 WEBSITE.
www.c10.com.au/web/Products/ADSL%20Filters

There are product brochures you can download and get good info.

You could always email them to check re the cordless phones problem.

from the c10 website it says bunnings kmart big w and testra shops

PaulF writes...

Correct. Jackson brand is from C10.

has anyone seen if the circuit is laid out the exact same with the same components?
Just because c10 make it doesnt mean it is off the same quality...

I'm gettng confused as to what I should be looking for in a *central* filter/splitter. Will the current ones that are on the market suffice, or should I be waiting and searching around for an ADSL 2+ / S041 rated one?

I suffer from the noisy telephone line problem using in-line filters, and I've tried *every* imaginable combination of setups trying to get it to disappear. The only time it does disappear completely is when the two phones in my house *not* associated with the point the router/modem is on (3 points in house) are disconnected and I use an inline splitter/filter on the point the router is on, and attach my pstn phone to this splitter. Only then does my phoneline have no static.

Then probably more to do with the wiring in your house

OzzieBloke7 writes...

The only time it does disappear completely is when the two phones in my house *not* associated with the point the router/modem is on (3 points in house) are disconnected

When you disconnect these two phones, if you are also disconnecting the in-line filters that they are connected through then the noise is almost certainly coming from the filters.

I have heard from industry sources that S041 ADSL2+ filters will be available in the near future.

OK looked at the C10 website and noticed the central splitter is coded C10100E where as the others have 'E' and 'M'.

Does this mean their central splitter is not optimised for ADSL2+??

So are we up for new central splitters with ADSL2+?

jono writes...

The "E" models are ADSL1 filters.
The "M" models are ADSL2+ filters.

This is the difference in the model numbers from the C10 web site.

"The new "M" series filters, C10245M, C10345M and C10645M are designed to meet the Telstra's RCIT 0004 standard and also work well (Noisefree) with ADSL, ADSL 2 and ADSL 2+ services."

This is similar to that of the Telequip filters. The 'E' model filters are Telstra certified.

Tomcat.

Matem writes...

OK looked at the C10 website and noticed the central splitter is coded C10100E where as the others have 'E' and 'M'.

There is no C10100E, and there will not be.
To be honest, the C10245E etc work sufficiently well on an ADSL2/2+ connection to be fine. The problems start to occur when you have multiple C10245E's (or 345 or 645E's) on the one line, you introduce more and more noise into the signal.

With a Central Splitter/Filter, you only need one anyway... so there is no issue with noise being introduced by multiple filters.

To sum up, you do not need a new central splitter for ADSL2/2+

bits writes...

has anyone seen if the circuit is laid out the exact same with the same components?
Just because c10 make it doesnt mean it is off the same quality...

They are exactly the same. Jackson buys them from C10 in big cardboard boxes (packed like eggs) and then blister packs them.

Thanks for the clarification guys :) Looks like I'll be investing in a regular central splitter then, and getting my house properly networked.

Cheers,

Ozzie

Ozzie,

Get your cabler to run Cat5e cable from the "modem" side of your C10100E to a new outlet, specifically for your modem. This increased the stability of my internet connection (I can maintain ADSL2+ connections for months on end now if there's no power failures!).

DeKa writes...

To sum up, you do not need a new central splitter for ADSL2/2+

According to the C10 web site, none of the filters, in-line or central, have been certified to the new legal requirement for ADSL2+ filters AS/ACIF S041:2005. Why is this?

Probably because they haven't been officially tested.

It is for this reason that I'm just going with some c10m inline filters for now, and waiting until an appropriately tested central filter is available on the market before I fork out hundreds for a full centralised installation.

This is some info from a customer in relation to using the DSL-008E1 filter from Telequip. Also doesn't state what what filter he was using but there is a big difference in Belkin using the old filter and no filter.

Also a bit of a comparison between the Belkin and Billion modem. I don have ADSL2+ where I am so can't compare.

"I'm connected to Optus ADSL2+ and about 2.5km from exchange.

First ADSL2 connection through old filter and belkin modem. Sync speed 5300kbits down, 580kbits up.

Next, disconnected old filter and hooked modem straight into wall. Sync 8000kbits down, 800 up.

Next, bought Billion 7300 modem. Sync 10500kbits down, 820 up.

Next, placed your filter in line. 10000kbits down, 820up. This far outperformed the older filter I had.

Also, optus hard upload sync limit is 820kbits, so I'm getting about as fast a connection as I'd hoped.

Real world speeds are 800kbytes/sec down and 60kbytes/sec up."

Tomcat.

Just updating to say I have now got the C10 M-series inline filter/splitters on my phones, and my phoneline noise problem is gone.

Still getting crappy download attenuation (63dB), so I need to get those lines tested. But at least now I don't get booted off the line when a call comes in, and folks can use the phone without getting static in their ears.

OzzieBloke7 writes...

OzzieBloke7... Probably because they haven't been officially tested.

Yes they have - to RCIT.0004 Telstra ADSL1 technical note, just before AS/ACIFS041:2005 the only ADSL2+ Filter Standard became mandatory - 1st October 2006.

An interesting coincidence. Perhaps C10 could shed some light on this?

joules writes...

For those who are interested, here is a summary of the main differences between the Telstra standard for standard ADSL filters, RCIT.0004, and the ADSL2+ standard, AS/ACIFS041 (2005).

I googled AS/ACIFS041 and found that www.advancedcircuits.com.au/index.html have filters that are ADSL2+ compliant to the new standard

Regards
Hamtar

Hamtar writes...

I googled AS/ACIFS041 and found that www.advancedcircuits.com.au/index.html have filters that are ADSL2+ compliant to the new standard

Excellent find mate :)

I've just emailed them to enquire about cost and availability. Will post back when I have received a reply...

Viper6 writes...

I've just emailed them to enquire about cost and availability. Will post back when I have received a reply...

Yeah ditto, I'm in WA so availability is always a problem (WA stands for "wait awhile")

If any-one has any joy locating these reatil in WA I wouldn't mind a whim.

Thnaks

MS

oneplusone writes...

When you disconnect these two phones, if you are also disconnecting the in-line filters that they are connected through then the noise is almost certainly coming from the filters.

Funny thing, I did this test last night as I'm getting 44-45db downstream Attenutaion, I disconnected 2 phones and removed the filters and plugged modem directly into RJ11 wall plug.

Connections speeds then dropped by @ 10%. Appears my filters were actually improving my connection. Both Up and down noise didn't change noticeably, hwoever the SNR both up and down reduced from 9/10 to 7/9. I don't understand all this "garb" so can't make sense it it all.

I then returned the filters/phones into the circuit and back to higher speeds.

Filters are both D-Link, a DSL-10MF Inline and a DSL-10CF splitter (phone/modem)

Can anyone anyone give me a run down on what the att/snr shit means (layman's terms please!).. and if there's any suggestion for maximizing my spped on current modem etc. (...even though I don't need more speed...YEAH RIGHT!)

Tar

MS

Viper6 writes...

Excellent find mate :)

I'll second that!

G'day Whirlpoolians, I've joined (a bit earlier than anticipated) to hopefully be a conduit for information about our new range of ADSL2+ filters.

Not sure what to expect but I will attempt to be objective, humble and understanding!

Many of you already know that there are a multitude of variables that influence a broadband connection. Our specialty are those things connected to the telephone line to isolate the Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) from the ADSL2+ stuff which are sharing the same line - the filters.

Long story short:

Availability: Samples - already gone I'm afraid
901E2+ In-Line Ramping up in December
905E2+ Wall Plate - Q1 2007

Pricing: RRPs will be posted on web site before new stock is in

We look forward to the incumbents TE and C10 putting in the effort to design genuine
AS/ACIF S041:2005 ADSL2+ compliant filters.

PS If you have Contacted Us via the web site - please be patient - our Perth based email server has been down most of the weekend.

Hi Peter

Thanks for joining :)

1) Would I be correct in saying that the main difference between the C10245M and the 901E2+ is that the 901E2+ is AS/ACIF S041:2005 ADSL2+ certified while the C10 is not? (The C10 claims to be ADSL2+ compatible, but not certified).

2) Have you compared the C10245M to the 901E2+ on an ADSL2+ connection? Was there any difference in speed?

3) Have you tested your filters with any Annex M services?

4) Is this a brand new start up, and these your first set of products?

Also will ACS be making central splitters to this standard too?

We are pleased to see the interest guys.

Viper6 writes...

1) Would I be correct in saying that the main difference

I think that the PO did a good job at listing the main differences

2) Have you compared

The market will compare - would be nice to see some other AS/ACIF S041's for comparison

3) Have you tested your filters with any Annex M services?

Not yet

4) Is this a brand new start up

Yes, in terms of the company, maybe not in terms of the employees!

Pieter writes...

Also will ACS be making central splitters to this standard too?

Yes we will.

hi all ..
does anyone know why a adsl central filter should dc couple to my router. I have a monitored alarm system and keep thinking that a burglar could simply put a short on the RJ45 plug to my router and dc loop the line. Effectively neuters my alarm calling out.
... it's far fetched but it could happen. Do any central filters not do this?
Meanwhile coupled my feed to the router with some 1uf capacitors.

porko writes...

hi all ..
does anyone know why a adsl central filter should dc couple to my router. I have a monitored alarm system and keep thinking that a burglar could simply put a short on the RJ45 plug to my router and dc loop the line. Effectively neuters my alarm calling out.
... it's far fetched but it could happen. Do any central filters not do this?
Meanwhile coupled my feed to the router with some 1uf capacitors.

If your common Burglar knew how to do this, then he would be working for ASIO!

So unless you've got National Security Documents or "Blue Poles" stored at your house, I wouldn't go worrying your little head about it.

Cheers

;-)

Peter from ACS writes...

We look forward to the incumbents TE and C10 putting in the effort to design genuine
AS/ACIF S041:2005 ADSL2+ compliant filters.

Well this is intersting...

I've just received an email from C10 claiming their C10245M filters are indeed certified to both S041 and RCIT.0004 standards.

Gday Viper interesting though I couldn't see anywhere on the C10245M PDF brochure the AS/ACIFS041 which I gather from Joules original post is the ADSL2+ standard. Maybe the email is very cleverly worded, it would be interesting to try and find out more about AS/ACIFS041 from C10, like an email actually stating that their filters pass the new AS/ACIFS041 standard. I read the pdf brochures from Advanced Circuits and Systems and they state their filter(s) "(Testing and Loads as per AS/ACIF S041:2005)" and also make the claim in several places on the website. I am a very happy C10 user, helped stabilise my connection.

Regards
Hamtar

Hamtar writes...

Gday Viper interesting though I couldn't see anywhere on the C10245M PDF brochure the AS/ACIFS041

Which is exactly what I responded back to C10 in my email a short while ago! They should put it in their spec sheet to avoid confusion. I've asked the rep to clarify their position on Whirlpool so we will just have to wait and see if they make a posting here...

I am a very happy C10 user

Likewise, but I think it is misleading to say "ADSL2+ compatible" if it does not adhere to AS/ACIF S041:2005. Hopefully it is just a misunderstanding and C10 will update their spec sheet to make it clearer for everyone concerned.

Hamtar writes...

I read the pdf brochures from Advanced Circuits and Systems and they state their filter(s) "(Testing and Loads as per AS/ACIF S041:2005)" and also make the claim in several places on the website.

You guys run a pretty thorough forum here.

So to dispel any doubt - ACS has had all of its filters to date certified by Australia's premier test house - ComTest - to the ADSL2+ Australian Standard AS/ACIFS041:2005. We have now added our Certification Body Statement to our Web Site News page:

www.advancedcircuits.com.au/news.html

Any company that has achieved similar certification will also be able to show a Certification Body Statement from a Recognised Testing Authority as per the legal requirements of the Australian Communications and Media Authority:

www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTE...0And%20Importers

Hey Peter

Have you approached any ISPs to stock your product, or had any requests from ISPs to trial your filters?

Or are you waiting for widespread availability before approaching them?

Viper6 writes...

Have you approached any ISPs to stock your product, or had any requests from ISPs to trial your filters?

Vipes,

Your not a Barrister in your day job are you?

We're happy with interest shown to date.

Monkey Spanker writes...

Can anyone anyone give me a run down on what the att/snr shit means

SNR = signal to noise ratio: higher number is better; 6-7 is about threshold of dropouts; over 10 is good.
The up/down attenuation is what the modems at the DSLAM & your place measure down the line during train-up. My understanding is they only do this testing at one frequency and this can cause issues (like hiss) if the frequency is affected by cabling issues in the house.

Your filters are probably helping reduce reflections & control the impedance "seen" by the DSL signal which is why it gets better for you.

A central splitter should get the best result over several individual in-line units eg at each phone, etc.

Redpacketboy writes...

SNR = signal to ..................................­ ..ual in-line units eg at each phone, etc.

Thanks mate, much appreciated. I've had some Q & A's on other threads as well so I think I've got a handle on it.

Cheers!!

Viper6 writes...

Hamtar writes...

Gday Viper interesting though I couldn't see anywhere on the C10245M PDF brochure the AS/ACIFS041

Which is exactly what I responded back to C10 in my email a short while ago! They should put it in their spec sheet to avoid confusion. I've asked the rep to clarify their position on Whirlpool so we will just have to wait and see if they make a posting here...

I am a very happy C10 user

Likewise, but I think it is misleading to say "ADSL2+ compatible" if it does not adhere to AS/ACIF S041:2005. Hopefully it is just a misunderstanding and C10 will update their spec sheet to make it clearer for everyone concerned.

I think it's pretty clear that there's been too much sales talk lately. If the filters (from C10, TE, or any others) can perform and do meet the spec, then let's see the proof. If they (C10) are saying in email that they passed the ADSL2+ test, then where's the evidence?

This forum (and some others) have a heap of postings about problems that can be traced back to substandard filters. OK, the old designs may be cheap, but what's the point of using these things if you don't get the speeds you're paying for, or there's noise on the line because the protection circuit in the filter's going non-linear and generating crud?

Let's get this clear. The Telstra test standard (RCIT.0004) may have been OK for a while (if you can call noisy filters "OK"), but the future is ADSL2+ and *real* performance. That's why there's a now a reasonable performance spec for filters (S041). If you spend the money on the modem and the high-speed service, why trash it all to save a few $ on a filter that just doesn't cut it?

I think it's pretty clear that there's been too much sales talk lately

Joules,

Strong views.

ACS are happy to compete on a level playing field. Certainly some of what you are saying we would not disagree with.

joules writes...

I think it's pretty clear that there's been too much sales talk lately. If the filters (from C10, TE, or any others) can perform and do meet the spec, then let's see the proof. If they (C10) are saying in email that they passed the ADSL2+ test, then where's the evidence?

I've just received another email from them stating that they are reviewing their brochures to include S041 and will soon update their web site.

Apparently S041:2005 is mandatory only for new filters released after Oct 2006, but they said they have chosen to get their ‘M’ series filters certified to both S041 and RCIT.0004 standards.

Make of it what you will :)

Viper6 writes...

I've just received another email from them stating that they are reviewing their brochures to include S041 and will soon update their web site.

Vipes,

I detect a retraction here:

1st posting: C10 email: IS certified - Therefore a Certification Body Statement should exists and can be published. Lets see it.

Editted posting minus C10 email: Have chosen to... well so have many filter manufacturers but as you know choosing to certify and achieving certification are two different things.

As I said, ACS is happy to compete on a level playing field.

If the standard's only just been agreed, it's fair to allow vendors time to test & display certification. Attempting to do so earlier is risky for vendors in case the standard changes before it's finalised.

It's already clear that there are better & worse filters for ADSL2+.
TE, C10, & those meeting the newer standards are likely to be in the known good performance camp. Others may or may not be.

joules writes...

noisy filters

When you say noisy filters, you're talking about hiss break thru? Assuming yes, this is caused by the modems in the DSLAM & your house training poorly.

The modems tend to measure line performance at only one frequency. If the particular combination of cables in the street, distances, layout of your house, etc results in a notch/divot in the frequency response at the same frequency as the measurements are done then the modems can train up to higher power levels to compensate for the "poor" line they just "measured" (personal experience).

Some filters probably handle these power levels better. They might still comply with the standards but power handling levels could be different...

Redpacketboy writes...

If the standard's only just been agreed, it's fair to allow vendors time to test & display certification. Attempting to do so earlier is risky for vendors in case the standard changes before it's finalised.


AS/ACIF S041:2005 was published in 2005 after a period of public comment. I believe it came into use as a legal standard in April 2006. It became the mandatory legal standard on 1 October 2006.

The drafting committee comprised technical experts that included manufacturers of RCIT.0004 (Telstra's standard) filters and Telstra officers. It has hardly been a secret to those in the industry, and it wasn't released yesterday.

Redpacketboy writes...

When you say noisy filters, you're talking about hiss break thru? Assuming yes, this is caused by the modems in the DSLAM & your house training poorly.

Some filters probably handle these power levels better. They might still comply with the standards but power handling levels could be different...

As I said, "or there's noise on the line because the protection circuit in the filter's going non-linear and generating crud".

A properly designed filter should cope with the full specified range of signal levels generated by modems on the market without generating noise, plus some headroom for luck. The reason the modem decides to increase its output power is irrelevant. It may be doing so for the right reasons, such as attenuation/distance from the exchange, etc. In fact, in those conditions, it's more important than ever that the filter does not turn into a non-linear device, so as not to compromise the SNR . Remember that noise is typically also generated by the filter at the high frequencies used by the modem that you can't even hear.

That's got it straight on the head! Agree the filters should be able to handle the power levels - too much cheap stuff built to a price not performance level ;-(

I've had some that didn't handle the power & line training results that caused me grief as above. I could adjust the power levels of the modem & watch the speeds vs noise breakthru change. Speed curve was like a hill, dropping when the noise/distortion effects started cutting in. Peak was ~10 dB less than where the modem had trained itself to. Was using a DSL 300 & could see graph of freq response too in modem s/w. Old model some but neat features.

A central splitter fixed it all up nicely by passing the DSL signal down just one pair to one outlet.

joules writes...

It became the mandatory legal standard on 1 October 2006.

Sounds like this was developed quite amicably - I've heard of others where there's more competing interests.

What's the mandatory bit apply to? Do all filters have to comply now?

joules writes...

AS/ACIF S041:2005 was published in 2005 after a period of public comment. I believe it came into use as a legal standard in April 2006. It became the mandatory legal standard on 1 October 2006.

The drafting committee comprised technical experts that included manufacturers of RCIT.0004 (Telstra's standard) filters and Telstra officers. It has hardly been a secret to those in the industry, and it wasn't released yesterday.

Bawahahaha look at the compliance on the filter that came with my Netgear DG834G Modem. www.bmstech.com.au/Broch...GEAR/ntga008.pdf
The filter has no brand/label but is marked "350-10001-01" on top and "N53 DSL-008" on the side.

What the heck; I'm gonna plug it in and see what it does!

At the moment I'm synching at;
...........................Downstr­ eam||Upstream
Connection Speed.....10057 kbps||1023 kbps
Line Attenuation...............45 db||13.5 db
Noise Margin......................7 db||8 db

Will post update soon ;-)

Monkey Spanker writes...

Bawahahaha look at the compliance on the filter that came with my Netgear DG834G Modem. www.bmstech.com.au/Broch...GEAR/ntga008.pdf
The filter has no brand/label but is marked "350-10001-01" on top and "N53 DSL-008" on the side.

I think its a rebadged Telequip www.oztion.com.au/OA/oa_...0&picnum=1#mypic and I dont know if mine was a dud but my connection was more stable after I got a C1024SE. I will purchase an ACS 901E2+ when they are available.

Hamtar writes...

think its a rebadged Telequip www.oztion.com.au/OA/oa_...0&picnum=1#mypic
Yeah I picked that up too when searching the model numbers, similar model and looks pretty similar except for the markings.

I dont know if mine was a dud but my connection was more stable after I got a C1024SE.
Actually I found a whirlpool thread where some guys test them against C10 and Belkin filters. Although the results showed the C10 superior, it was very marginal to say the least.

I will purchase an ACS 901E2+ when they are available.
Yeah ditto, even thinking of hanging out for their Central Spiller that the Rep. says they will be releasing. I couldn't imagine a better setup, ACS ADSL2+ Spec filter on dedicated line bypassing entire POTS system.

I'm wondering how long before these are produced/released? ACS Rep. any comment? (Sorry - forgotten your name!)

Monkey Spanker writes...

At the moment I'm synching at;
...........................Downstr­ eam||Upstream
Connection Speed.....10057 kbps||1023 kbps
Line Attenuation...............45 db||13.5 db
Noise Margin......................7 db||8 db

Will post update soon ;-)

Put the cheapie in and not much difference!

..........................Downstre­ am||Upstream
Connection Speed.....10011 kbps||1023 kbps
Line Attenuation...............45 db||13.5 db
Noise Margin......................7 db||7 db

Well I haven't achieved anything other than confirming that my old D-Link DSL-10CF is prolly shyte too!!

Roll-on ACS!

Peter from ACS writes...

Vipes,

I detect a retraction here:

1st posting: C10 email: IS certified - Therefore a Certification Body Statement should exists and can be published. Lets see it.

Editted posting minus C10 email: Have chosen to... well so have many filter manufacturers but as you know choosing to certify and achieving certification are two different things.

As I said, ACS is happy to compete on a level playing field.

Just some observations I would like to make its seems a coincidence that ACS competitors are only now interested in the new standard after it was brought to their attention by Viper6. I work in an advertising related business and know for a fact if a business has a product that is the latest and greatest they generally advertise it and milk it for all its worth. The window of opportunity is small for a new product as the opposition tends to bridge the gap or even surpass you very quickly especially in the technology field and any half decent marketing department would have been all over the new standard.

flap I've just realised, a few years ago I ran a 16metre phone extension up to my shed. I stopped using it a long time ago because the shed phone got noisy(static) as I'd installed it in the same PVC conduit that carried the power cable to the shed.

When I dropped the phones and filters out of the equation a few nights ago, my speeds slowed down, and I think the Downstream SNR took a plunge too. I might take this manky Netgear filter and plug in in the shed phone socket and see what happens. Back soon!

Monkey Spanker writes...

I might take this manky Netgear filter and plug in in the shed phone socket and see what happens. Back soon!

Not much difference, picked up about 200kbps on downstream (3 reboots all consistent). I suppose that's @ 3.5 x 56K Modems worth! Hooot!

..............................Down­ stream||Upstream
Connection Speed.......10228 kbps||1023 kbps
Line Attenuation..................45 db||13.5 db
Noise Margin.........................7 db||8 db

Hamtar writes...

as the opposition tends to bridge the gap or even surpass you very quickly

You're right, the opposition won't be far behind but you guys don't hang around either. We had only been on-line for a week or two then I think you Hamtar gave Viper6 the alert and we received a wake-up email. As I said at the time a little earlier than we anticipated!

Monkey Spanker writes...

I'm wondering how long before these are produced/released? ACS Rep. any comment? (Sorry - forgotten your name!)

We're still confident of our original post:

Availability:
901E2+ In-Line - Ramping up in December
905E2+ Wall Plate - Q1 2007
921E2+ Central Filter - Soon thereafter

Pricing: RRPs will be posted on web site before new stock is in

Redpacketboy writes...

joules writes...

It became the mandatory legal standard on 1 October 2006.

What's the mandatory bit apply to? Do all filters have to comply now?

As I understand it, all new filters introduced after 1 October 2006 have to comply with the ADSL2+ standard, S041. There is a grandfather provision here that those already approved/on the market before that date escape the requirement to meet the new spec. As a result, filters that would never get approval now under S041 can still be sold in competition with those that meet the spec.

Peter from ACS writes...

We're still confident of our original post:
Availability:
901E2+ In-Line - Ramping up in December
905E2+ Wall Plate - Q1 2007
921E2+ Central Filter - Soon thereafter
Pricing: RRPs will be posted on web site before new stock is in

Thanks Pete,
You may not be able to answer this, but, does "soon thereafter" mean like at the end of Q1 or into Q2?
Cheers

Monkey Spanker writes...

You may not be able to answer this, but, does "soon thereafter" mean like at the end of Q1 or into Q2?

Do I call you Monkey or Mr Spanker?

Seriously, I'll have to be evasive on this one - updates closer in.

Peter from ACS writes...

Do I call you Monkey or Mr Spanker?

Bawahaha I love a sales rep with a sense of humour...either will do or just MS... or even Peter, cos that's my name too...can't believe I couldn't remember your name!

Seriously, I'll have to be evasive on this one - updates closer in.

Cheers!

Hey here's a thought, any chance of you starting up an "interested" mailing list so we can WhiM you our e-mail, so we can get e-mails regarding product updates/releases? or is there something already like this on the ACS website?

Monkey Spanker writes...

starting up an "interested" mailing list

MS,

Good idea.

We have a thing called 'Mailing List' already on our Web Site but I don't know how to use it.

Will get back to you on that one...

Peter from ACS writes...

We have a thing called 'Mailing List' already on our Web Site but I don't know how to use it.

Thanks, just found it, easy to use, took 10 seconds, as long as the e-mails are feeding the info that'll do just nicely. Cheers!

ANy notion of a WA distributor?

If you're looking for Victoria disties.

Get in touch, certainly interested in exploring avenues..

Monkey Spanker writes...

ANy notion of a WA distributor?

All genuine resellers considered....

Please whim or web

Paul Warren writes...

If you're looking for Victoria disties.

As above Paul.

Can we talk about these things on this forum?

Peter from ACS writes...

All genuine resellers considered....

Please whim or web

Actually Peter, I meant is there/will there be a WA distributor for me to purchase through?

Your reply answers that Q.

Thanks.

Monkey Spanker writes...

will there be a WA distributor

Sorry MS - mis-understanding.

Since it is still open could I suggest resellers based on Rottnest Island or perhaps Margaret River - I'd love to visit!

Any ADSL2+ there?

joules writes...

I think it's pretty clear that there's been too much sales talk lately. If the filters (from C10, TE, or any others) can perform and do meet the spec, then let's see the proof. If they (C10) are saying in email that they passed the ADSL2+ test, then where's the evidence?

Gday Joules had a look at C10 website and downloaded the C10245M, C10345M and C10645M brochures and they have reworded the brochures to:
• Conforms to AS/ACIF S041:2005; S002–App. F;
TS001 and TS002 and AS3260 safety.
I also checked the Telequip site nothing mentioned so far. ACS will be getting my $, I would like to see more technical info on C10 brochures and be able to compare the results. In previous posts I have touched upon C10 Marketing or lack there of surely since they have updated the pdf brochures it may not be a bad idea to highlight the updated brochure
Regards
Hamtar

Hamtar writes...

• Conforms to AS/ACIF S041:2005

Hamtar, you deserve the gold medal for discovery.

Well done C10.

We look forward to seeing your Certification Body Statement and Declaration of Conformity.

I need to replace the phone jack in my house now as I have had some problems and removing the cover on the current one makes me think that it would help.

So before we can get a central splitter or wall jack from ACS what wall jack splitter should I go for? I am happy to replace it if the ACS units turn out to be better when they come out, but I need something today.

Currently running ADSL2+ with crap SNR and connection speeds (1500/650 is good for me, sometimes 800/300 or worse)... want to do everything I can to improve the situation. My ISP have raised a line fault with Telstra so hopefully they will find something but may as well do what I can.

Also there is an extension running off this jack point, should I just remove it or do the jack filters have filtered connections for extensions? - I think I just answered my own question, looks like the C10 wall splitter actually plugs in rather than wires in. I need to replace the wall jack first I think.

Money Penny writes...

I need to replace the wall jack first I think.

MP

Wall plate filters (including ours) are generally designed to be fitted piggy back style over an existing wall plate outlet that is in turn intended as the mounting point for a standard Telstra Wall phone. So then you unplug the phone, plug the wall plate filter into the existing wall plate and clip it on then plug in the phone to the new filter and clip it on.

If it's just a standard telephone wall outlet that you suspect is in poor health then I agree that you should start by having this replaced. Ask for an RJ12 jack/socket to be installed to allow direct RJ to RJ connections between wall filter and phone.

joules writes...

I think you guys miss the whole point... if any of the Telequip or C10 filters meets the ADSL2+ standard (S041:2005), I am not aware of it. Please list them.

www.c10.com.au/web/Produ...ters/C10245M.pdf

Here is an ADSL filter compatible with ADSL2 and meets your requirements(S041:2005)