Brian A was thinking very hard :
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:37:17 +0100, "Pet - www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
> <0845-86-86-888@Cheapest-Prices.ever> wrote:
>
>> Brian A wrote:
>>
>>> 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 -
>>
>> 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.
> 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.

I use three or four dynamic IP addresses with the same account. Never
been a problem - 300 minutes per unique address, don't forget.

>>
>>> 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 -
>>
>> 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?
> 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.

Exactly - Voxalot had only one IP address.

>>
>> All you are doing by using voxalot surely is introducing an additional
>> point of failure into the chain. That is very true.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
> 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.