Reply
Posted Aug 15, 2014
12:26:43 PM
Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

After a full u-verse install (tv, internet, voice) by an at&t installer, we discovered that many of the phone jacks  in the home did not have dial tone.

The installer came back, and seemed to think the missing dial tone had to do with broken wiring in the daisy-chained  indoor loop he used for voice. He said, with u-verse, voice and data have to be on different indoor loops. Is this  true ? Why can't both data and voice use the same indoor loop with appropriate filters removing the data frequencies  in jacks where voice service is desired (as is done when DSL service runs on the same indoor loop as regular, non  u-verse, voice service) ?

The pre-installation information I got from at&t never mentioned that successful installation of u-verse voice and  data required two separate loops.

This problem of broken voice extensions still remains, 2 weeks after the initial install. The installer has not  responded to repeated phone calls. I am surprised he never said the integrity of the two loops required for a  successful installation is the responsility of the home owner, which would have been an easy out for him.

This issue is a show stopper for me. I will have to cancel the u-verse contract if I cannot get it resolved within  one month of the initial install.

Can somemone please confirm/clarify the need for separate voice and data loops ? Could one get around this by  accepting a lower nominal max data rate ? I don't really need the 18 Mbps download speed quoted  for the 'Max Plus'  data service currently assigned to my installation

Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

235 views
7 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Post reply
Replies
(7)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 15, 2014 12:39:14 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

unoexten - The u-verse broadband & the voice telephone wiring should be on different circuits.  The broadband feed should be a direct wire from the NID (house entry) to the RG (modem),

 

The RG is the source of dial tone & at&t demarc for voice. You can distribute that voice to house wiring by connecting the tel 1/2 jack to a wall jack. That will feed whatever it is connected to & you do not want it connected to the NID (like it was before).

 

Do you know your house wiring? You should, because it is your responsibility. Is it daisy chained or star? Trace out the wires to the offending jacks to find where it is not connected & connect it. Or, go for wireless phones & plug the base into the RG.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

229 views
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 15, 2014 7:56:23 PM
0
(0)
Employee

On internet only or internet / VoIP accounts that are single pair installs with internet speeds of 12M (Max) or less (Elite, Pro, Express or Basic) can be placed on a 13M profile and use non modified house wiring with filters. 

 

With Uverse IPTV service or any internet speed above Max requires a single home run from NID to RG, bypassing all house jacks. Standard procedure would be a new cat5 home run provided access is available by means of basement, crawl space, attic or house wrap (cable attached to outside structure). In places where above cannot be met such as apartments, condos, owner does not want exposed wiring, or no access as all inside (basement) is finished then need to use existing wiring, such as phone line (hopefully cat3 and not quad). 

 

If desire to back feed VoIP then need a second line to home phone distribution from RG location.

Many simply use a base station plugged into back of RG phone port and satellite (extension) phones to cover other rooms.

 

At this point need to call and schedule a new tech visit to resolve wiring.... Non billable.

1-800-288-2020.

*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

199 views
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 16, 2014 3:55:37 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

Thank you, 'aviewer'' and 'my thoughts', for your helpful comments.

 

 

So, I now understand that when there is U-Verse IPTV standard setup requires a dedicated home run for internet data from the NID to the RG.

 

I'm having a bit of trouble with the terminology though .

Reviewing what the installer left behind, I see a 2WIRE i3812V at the network interface box outside our garage. Is it fair to think that the i3812V is both the NID (Network Interface Device) and RG (Residential gateway) ? In which case the dedicated home run requirement for data is being met inside the i38`2V ?

 

There are 2 HPNA connections coming out of the i3812V. I assume one is for voice, and the other for internet data. There is also a coax, which I assume carries TV traffic and signals to/from the VDR.

 

The internet data does show up on a 2WIRE i38HG, which provides Ethernet connections and WIFI AP functions, I believe.

 

The i38HG is in a room at the center of the house, so there's got to be a working indoor cable connected to it from the i3812V, probably through the attic. If this cable were a round trip (which I'm guessing is likely because  it's part of the data path), would it be possible to use another pair in the same cable to connect to the voice source on the i3812V. While this wouldn't solve the overall voice extension issue, it would solve the key need to have both voice and data in our home office.

 

Thank you for your insights.

 

'my thoughts' thank you for identifying configurations in which non dedicated wiring and filters are valid. I knew I had read abouth them, but hadn't been able to rediscover the relevant thread. And thank you for clarifying how to proceed to get at&t to help. I had been thinking of the initial installation as not yet complete.

 

'awiever' : yes, you are right, the rules of the game are that I'm responsible for the my home's indoor wiring. I should have mentioned that I just moved into this 20-year old house. I know very little about the internal telecom network configuration, although I would guess that, given the many wall jacks, it is not a pure star. At the moment I don't have any tools to map it out. Nor would my old bones take very kindly to crawling through the attic to lay additional cable.

 

On the other hand, what percentage of homeowners would you say could answer your question ?  The issue is actually more general than telecommunications. When one moves into a previously owned home, very little information is transferred (at least in my part of the country) about hidden home infrastructure details, be it electrical wiring, plumbing, irrigation systems, etc.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

185 views
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 16, 2014 4:39:14 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

unoexten - You have a bonded pair install because you are so far from the VRAD that you need two pair to make it work. My answer was more applicable to single pair RG. But iis basically the same.

 

I have a standard install & my son has the bonded pair. When initially deployed the bonded pair had internet on the network (RJ-45 ) jacks & TV on the COAX. But, I believe TV is now allowed on the RJ-45 as well.

 

As you say, the combination NID/RG used for nonded pair satisifies the direct feed of the RG. I will leave it to MT to say if data & voice can coexist on the same pair or different pairs in the same cable on the house wiring side of the NID/RG, although either adds to the complexity.

 

You are also correct, that the vast majority of the folks do not know their wiring & that is fine, as long as it works. If it does not, we either have to "know" it or bypass it. That is why I suggested wireless telephone. Also, I love the voice announced caller ID on the wireless phone.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

179 views
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 17, 2014 7:06:35 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

'aviewer' : in trying to understand how you concluded that I have a bonded pair, I realized I made a mistake in my previous posting. On the  i3812V there is pair connected to a connector labeled  HPNA, and another pair connected to a connector labeled TOS. So there appears to be a single HPNA connection; not two as posted earlier. I apologize for the mistake.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

154 views
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 23, 2014 10:38:25 AM
0
(0)
Tutor

A different AT&T technician, who came to switch the voice service from u-verse phone to conventional phone line, determined that the problem with the extensions was due to the incorrect initial installation of u-verse. He was able to make all extensions in the home work by wiring  appropriately some phone jacks that had been done incorrectly by the initial installer. No additional cable was installed, although  he indicated that the initial u-verse installation should have used CAT5 cable, but had not.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

108 views
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Aug 23, 2014 11:18:33 AM
0
(0)
Employee

The 3812 inid with i38hg indoor unit for wireless internet was released fall of 2010 to provide service to those beyond the reach of a single pair installation generally set at 3000 feet from VRAD or Video Ready Access Device.

 

The 3812 as a bonded (two pairs of inputs instead of one, each line carries half and combined at inid) provided for TVs on coax. The phone and internet could either ride on same line (2 port filter) or separate lines (HPNA, 4 port). Generally preferred to have HPNA with a dedicated line (could use 2nd pair of phone line if cat3 or cat5) while the VoIP or POTS line would be connected to home distribution.

 

In fall of 2013, most markets received the 589 RG to be used for bonded installs. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but in 2014 the 589 is the company preferred method.

 

So how do you have an inid....

Either the previous owner had Uverse with inid installed (fall of 2010 to fall 2013) and the tech used existing equipment and wiring to reduce time on job. If all tests passing this is perfectly acceptable. 

Or the tech had no 589 on truck and installed the inid (which is still carried by all techs, generally as replacement), I have had to do this 3 times this year as carry limited equipment due to space or garage depleted inventory of 589s.

 

A big advantage of the Inid is multiple indoor units can be installed to improve weak wireless signal in certain parts of home, while the 589 is centralized, if need additional coverage usually purchasing your own wireless access points and setting behind the 589.

*I am an AT&T employee and the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent AT&T’s position, strategies or opinions.

Re: Home voice extensions not working with U-verse.

100 views
Share this post
Share this post