«

"* Max 300 minutes per week of free calls, measured over the last 7 days and
per unique IP address."
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Surely they would monitor this on a per account basis.
What am I missing here?

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Apr 11, 8:41 pm, "Graham" <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> "* Max 300 minutes per week of free calls, measured over the last 7 days and
> per unique IP address."
> This doesn't make any sense to me.
> Surely they would monitor this on a per account basis.
> What am I missing here?
>
> --
> Graham.
> %Profound_observation%

Well, it's been like that for quite some time

- hence the issues with Voxalot, which sound like they're well on the
way to being resolved now

It does seem an odd way to set up a fair use policy though, as the
people actually abusing Betamax might be a bit more agile

"andy" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> On Apr 11, 8:41 pm, "Graham" <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>> "* Max 300 minutes per week of free calls, measured over the last 7 days
>> and
>> per unique IP address."
>> This doesn't make any sense to me.
>> Surely they would monitor this on a per account basis.
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>> --
>> Graham.
>> %Profound_observation%
>
> Well, it's been like that for quite some time
>
> - hence the issues with Voxalot, which sound like they're well on the
> way to being resolved now
>
> It does seem an odd way to set up a fair use policy though, as the
> people actually abusing Betamax might be a bit more agile

Although I originally summised that the Voxalot block was to do with the
unique IP address, I am not so sure now. Anyway whatever it is, it should
all be solved in two shakes of a lamb's tail (US servers do not seem to have
the problem, though)

"Herman" <whhitehousemadhouse-> wrote in message
news:TnbTh.3015$...
> "andy" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>> On Apr 11, 8:41 pm, "Graham" <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>>> "* Max 300 minutes per week of free calls, measured over the last 7 days
>>> and
>>> per unique IP address."
>>> This doesn't make any sense to me.
>>> Surely they would monitor this on a per account basis.
>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Graham.
>>> %Profound_observation%
>>
>> Well, it's been like that for quite some time
>>
>> - hence the issues with Voxalot, which sound like they're well on the
>> way to being resolved now
>>
>> It does seem an odd way to set up a fair use policy though, as the
>> people actually abusing Betamax might be a bit more agile
>
> Although I originally summised that the Voxalot block was to do with the
> unique IP address, I am not so sure now. Anyway whatever it is, it should
> all be solved in two shakes of a lamb's tail (US servers do not seem to
> have the problem, though)

So are you saying it's got nothing to do with the 300 min/week
and nothing to do with dynamic vs. static IP addresses (as I thought)?
It's more to do with it not working at all unless your IP was consistent
source to destination.

I did toy with the idea of networking two
Asterisk boxes across the internet, I suppose if I did I wouldn't
be able to access Betamax lines from the remote site.

I did do some tests with voxalot on Monday and found of
their three clusters only the European one seemed to have any issues.

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%