UKVoIPTalk.com

I am using vc com mainly through my ATA, but for routing of some calls via
Voxalot (so I can change the dialstring). Although Voxalot doesn't register
with VC I have always been able to place outbound calls this way. However
this doesn't seem to work now.

Is anyone else having these issues? Is it linked to VC com's recent
inclusion of the words "per unique IP address" in the Freecalls T&Cs? Any
ideas?


--

Herman wrote on 27/03/2007 :[color=blue]
> I am using vc com mainly through my ATA, but for routing of some calls via
> Voxalot (so I can change the dialstring). Although Voxalot doesn't register
> with VC I have always been able to place outbound calls this way. However
> this doesn't seem to work now.
>
> Is anyone else having these issues? Is it linked to VC com's recent
> inclusion of the words "per unique IP address" in the Freecalls T&Cs? Any
> ideas?[/color]

Oh bugger!

Not tested your theory, however, I suspect my Mum will be ringing me
shortly.....

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:38:53 +0100, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Herman wrote on 27/03/2007 :[color=green]
>> I am using vc com mainly through my ATA, but for routing of some calls via
>> Voxalot (so I can change the dialstring). Although Voxalot doesn't register
>> with VC I have always been able to place outbound calls this way. However
>> this doesn't seem to work now.
>>
>> Is anyone else having these issues? Is it linked to VC com's recent
>> inclusion of the words "per unique IP address" in the Freecalls T&Cs? Any
>> ideas?[/color]
>
>Oh bugger!
>
>Not tested your theory, however, I suspect my Mum will be ringing me
>shortly.....
>[/color]
I've just read this "per unique IP address" and it seems bonkers to
me. Lots of people have dynamic IP addresses. I am amazed that VC are
so ignorant of this.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.

"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rgsi03965cepvr0kvav2ogspl904href5g@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:38:53 +0100, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Herman wrote on 27/03/2007 :[color=darkred]
>>> I am using vc com mainly through my ATA, but for routing of some calls
>>> via
>>> Voxalot (so I can change the dialstring). Although Voxalot doesn't
>>> register
>>> with VC I have always been able to place outbound calls this way.
>>> However
>>> this doesn't seem to work now.
>>>
>>> Is anyone else having these issues? Is it linked to VC com's recent
>>> inclusion of the words "per unique IP address" in the Freecalls T&Cs?
>>> Any
>>> ideas?[/color]
>>
>>Oh bugger!
>>
>>Not tested your theory, however, I suspect my Mum will be ringing me
>>shortly.....
>>[/color]
> I've just read this "per unique IP address" and it seems bonkers to
> me. Lots of people have dynamic IP addresses. I am amazed that VC are
> so ignorant of this.[/color]

I guess the workaround, if this is indeed the problem, is to register only
through Voxalot. Assuming they support forking, you could have multiple
end-users.

Of course it could just be something to do with my set-up, or that vc has
blocked calls from Voxalot.

On Mar 27, 9:14 pm, "Herman" <whhitehousemadhouse-2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:[color=blue]
> "Brian A" <no_spam_bca1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:rgsi03965cepvr0kvav2ogspl904href5g@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:38:53 +0100, Jono <notha...@blueyonder.invalid>
> > wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Herman wrote on 27/03/2007 :
> >>> I am using vc com mainly through my ATA, but for routing of some calls
> >>> via
> >>> Voxalot (so I can change the dialstring). Although Voxalot doesn't
> >>> register
> >>> with VC I have always been able to place outbound calls this way.
> >>> However
> >>> this doesn't seem to work now.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> Is anyone else having these issues? Is it linked to VC com's recent
> >>> inclusion of the words "per unique IP address" in the Freecalls T&Cs?
> >>> Any
> >>> ideas?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Oh bugger![/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Not tested your theory, however, I suspect my Mum will be ringing me
> >>shortly.....[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > I've just read this "per unique IP address" and it seems bonkers to
> > me. Lots of people have dynamic IP addresses. I am amazed that VC are
> > so ignorant of this.[/color]
>
> I guess the workaround, if this is indeed the problem, is to register only
> through Voxalot. Assuming they support forking, you could have multiple
> end-users.
>
> Of course it could just be something to do with my set-up, or that vc has
> blocked calls from Voxalot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

It is apparent blocking from Betamax on Voxalot accounts, since about
two weeks ago.

There are threads on Voxalot and Voipbuster forums about it

For the moment, it may be possible to work around by using one of the
US Voxalot servers, but perhaps it will only be a matter of time.

Betamax have it wrong of course, as all the Voxalot accounts will be
in different names, from different countries and continents, with
payment details that confirm these separate IDs. It looks like their
abuse detection algorithms could be improved a lot.

Plenty of people have emailed Betamax about this, but you know how
much response usually comes from there. But add your remarks too.

It isn't promising though - pbxes was blocked nearly a year ago, and I
read someone earlier worrying that this could eventually happen with
Fring as well, which has supported SIP since its latest version a week
or two ago.