On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:37:17 +0100, "Pet - www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
<0845-86-86-888@Cheapest-Prices.ever> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Brian A wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I agree that this was introduced to stop fraud but it is a case of
>> what is the 'fall out' for the ordinary honest user. They actually say
>> "per unique IP address" on JustVoip. An IP address is 'unique' so I
>> think they have chosen the wrong word here.
>> I think they mean per
>> single, static IP address -[/color]
>
>Why?
>I have 3 internet connections through 2 separate accounts 2 of which
>have dynamic IP Addresses. Both home connection and work connection use
>the same voipcheap account to dial out, thereby using the same minutes
>in other words doubling up on the free minutes.[/color]
When you say 'doubling up' what do you mean exactly. Presumably you
are still only getting your 300mins/7 days maximum.
Still, it is surprising that you have managed to use 2 dynamic IPs on
the same account.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> and therein lies the problem. Just last
>> week I set up an SPA-3102 for some relations. I did consider setting
>> up the ATA to make calls directly but I couldn't take the risk with
>> someone else's set up -[/color]
>
>I would have thought using voxalot was _more_ of a risk.
>How can setting up an ATA to do what it's made to do be risky?[/color]
Only because there were people who were using their free call
allowance in a fraudulent way. It is because of this that the IP
condition was introduced.[color=blue]
>
>All you are doing by using voxalot surely is introducing an additional
>point of failure into the chain.[/color]
That is very true.[color=blue]
>
>Am I missing something?[/color]
Yes, just one thing. There was a problem using Voxalot but there was
collaboration to sort it out. The use of Voxalot with Betamax services
seems to be assured.[color=blue]
>
>Pete[/color]

---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---