dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us (David Tamkin) (07/20/89)
An acquaintance of mine had a question that I thought the readers of the Digest and comp.dcom.telecom could help with. He granted permission to quote from his letter here. He is located in Burnaby, British Columbia, and is trying to access a service that is available only through Tymnet USA indials. There is a Tymnet Canada indial in Burnaby (a suburb of Vancouver), but he cannot reach this particular service on it. The cost of long-distance calls to the indial in Bellingham, Washington, would become prohibitive for the amaount of time he intends to use on this service. |David, I've come up with a way to get myself to the Seattle Tymnet node, |essentially for free. Technically, this solution will work, but I don't |know if I'd be breaking any FCC rules. Here's the situation: |The company I work for has a local customer with a leased line going to |Seattle. This line has an eight-channel multiplexer on both the Vancouver |and the Seattle ends. At any one time, this company is using only two |channels. This gives me an interesting possibility. If I get a phone line |installed at their Vancouver office, so that I can dial into their MUX, |switch my signal via their leased line to their Seattle office, then get a |phone line installed in their Seattle office from which I can dial out to |the Seattle Tymnet node, this gets me into the Tymnet network IN THE USA. |I see two possible legal complications here. First, the FCC may not approve |of me dialing out from the multiplexor in Seattle into the Tymnet line. |[second complication omitted; not relevant to Telecom Digest and already |settled -- DWT] Technically, there are no complications; this setup will |work. All it will cost me is two modems and the installation of two phone |lines (one in Vancouver and one in Seattle), then the monthly phone charges |for the two lines. It costs my customer nothing, since I'd just be taking |advantage of excess capacity in a leased line that he already has to pay for. Would he have any difficulties with the FCC if he did what he proposed? These views are no one's but mine because I won't let anyone else have them. David W. Tamkin dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us ...attctc!jolnet!dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN BIX: dattier CIS: 73720,1570 until September 30, 1989: P. O. Box 567542 Harwood Heights IL 60656-7542