Re: Type 66 Block

[Jim H <jh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:LCRke.9259$h86.4179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> From:Jim H
> jh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Several reasons:
>  1)  Not everybody uses a Leviton enclosure.

You don't have to. My Enclosure is actually not a true Leviton, but a
cheap facsimile of a Leviton Enclosure. It is compatible with the
Leviton components and mounting hardware. There are also many
alternatives to the Leviton enclosure. In fact, you could use any type
of
enclosure you can dream of, or even just a wiring closet with plywood,
and STILL use a bridged 110 punch-down module for phone distribution. I
was just trying to give an easy example.

>  2) 8 phones requires a $30 module vs. $6 for a 66 block that handles
>  12
> two line phones or 6 four line phones.

Again, I did not spend $30 on that module - more like $15. I just
offered that link as an example. Even $15 may seem like a lot, but I
personally would never have chosen my wiring system based on a $9
savings.

>  3) You can't use bridging clips on that module so individual phones
> cannot be disconnected without pulling the wires.

Okay. Never really had the need, but the wires are easy enough to pull -
or I could just unplug the phone, but I get your point.

>  4) Looping the wires can be done as easily and neatly as any other
>  use
> of the block.
>  5) Troubleshooting is made easier.

That much I figured. Luckily, my system is not prone to trouble and I'm
confident I could get to the root of a problem fairly easily should
something arise. I could imagine how large installations that route to
many points of use can benefit much more from that advantage.

> Basically, there is nothing wrong with the way you did it. It works,
> it's well organized and you have a relatively small installation.
> Your solution is well suited to a residential application.  For larger
> homes, a more commercial approach makes better sense from
> administrative and cost perspectives.  Personally, I don't like
> "structured" enclosures as they charge an arm & a leg for attaching
> proprietary brackets to otherwise generic parts. Even if I had to use
> an enclosure for asthetic reasons, I would use an empty wall cabinet
> with a plywood backboard and mount generic video, 110 and 66
> components.

I understand that. Personally, I like the clean look of the enclosure,
and I actually did not spend an arm and a leg for my enclosure and
components. I still would not call them cheap. I'm sure I could have
easily saved $100 or so, but to me $100 is fairly inconsequential in the
whole scheme of things that includes IR distribution, A/V distribution,
Telephone, networking, and Surveillance.

Thank you very much for offering your knowledge, thoughts and opinions
on the subject. I feel I have a better understanding now of how and why
these 66 blocks are used. Much appreciated.

> <snip>>
>> Okay, as someone who was ALSO wondering about this, I have followed
>> this thread carefully and I understand what you are saying. My
>> question is this - why would someone use that method (looping your
>> way down the block to distribute to multiple locations) instead of a
>> bridged 110 punchdown module such as this one -
>>
>> http://www.hometech.com/techwire/lvtp.html#LE-47603110
>>
>> I used one of these in my Leviton enclosure to distribute 4 incoming
>> lines to 8 phones. This eliminates all that "looping" and seems like
>> a much simpler and cleaner solution. I did this after searching for
>> the same info about type 66 blocks as the O.P. and not coming up with
>> much. I ran a CAT5e line from the TelCo's demark box directly into my
>> Leviton enclosure and punched the four pairs down for four incoming
>> lines. However, after seeing those 66 blocks used on almost every
>> phone system I've seen, I felt like I -SHOULD- have been using one
>> too. Can you shed any light on why my method may be wrong or what the
>> advantage is of the 66 block besides being able to pull the jumpers
>> to isolate a line?
>>
>> I have been wonding about this for a long time, and now that someone
>> else has brought up the subject again, maybe I can finally put this
>> to rest.
>>
>> Thanks for any help you can offer!
>>
>> --
>> Jim H
>
>



--
Jim H