New AI Features and Extension Fair Usage

[Charles_3CX]

What???

We've got a 128sc Ent self-hosted on Linux system. The system info shows we have 1,846 extensions, which if I'm reading the Fair Usage Policy correctly, we will need to purchase a 512sc license at SIGNIFICANTLY higher cost.

Here's the deal though, unless this has changed in v20 update 7 or later, the way that M365 needs to be configured to support SSO, 3CX creates a dummy user with an extension when an AD user is created. There are over 750 of these users created by the M365 sync process, none of which should have an extension because they don't have a phone. I can't stay on top of deleting these 3cx users, especially because if I do delete them in the 3CX, they just get recreated at the next sync with new extension numbers. Maybe this can be fixed with some OU filtering in the M365 integration, but my domain admins are opposed to change the OU structure.

So, even without the 3CX users created by the M365 sync, we'd be at 1,096 users. This means having to upgrade to a 192sc with a relatively modest price increase. Then again, since a 192sc only allows 1,152 extensions, we would have a very small headroom of 56 extensions until we hit the maximum.

We're already paying for a 128sc license and rarely have more than 25 to 30 simultaneous calls. Having to go to a 192sc or 256sc is going to require a lot of explaining to my CIO...

Hi,

Microsoft 365 does not need to create additional users for SSO. The user sync feature simply matches existing 3CX users whose email addresses correspond to their Microsoft 365 accounts, ensuring seamless single sign-on without duplication.

 

[N_G]

I must say these changes affect education users pretty hard.

I hope the discounts also applies to vocational college and universities. Like in schools, trainers and professors are rarely "active" extensions.

If they are not active, don't give them an extension....

 

[N_G]

I think we all need to recognise that the cost of everything in the world is increasing — and development work is no exception.

I’ve been an avid 3CX user and supporter since its very first Windows release, and I’ve worked with it in various forms ever since. It has consistently proven to be a robust, reliable, and versatile solution for a wide range of customers.

The introduction of the Multi-Tenant edition was a game-changer, filling the gap for smaller customers who previously didn’t fit into any deployment model. (That said, I still have a little wish list for the Multi-Tenant solution! )

I believe the Fair Use policy is both reasonable and necessary. 3CX, like all of us, is a business — and needs to remain profitable to continue developing and innovating.

Perhaps this is a good moment for all of us — resellers, partners, and direct purchasers — to rethink how we sell, renew, and deliver our solutions. In a world full of cloud products with overly complex pricing models, 3CX still stands out as one of the best software solutions available, and it keeps getting better every day.

As a company, we’ve also had to adapt. For many years, we’ve hosted 3CX solutions in our own data centres, often helping other organisations build their partner base while only purchasing a small number of licenses directly. This year, like 3CX, we’ve restructured — taking on licensing responsibilities for those organisations ourselves to streamline operations and reduce service desk load.

Change is inevitable — and change is good.
Let’s all be grateful that 3CX continues to evolve, embrace the future, and work alongside us to deliver exceptional communications for our customers.

John
Founder
Inara Systems Ltd

Hi John! Thank you so much for your nice words - its great for my team and myself to see our work appreciated. And we continue to be committed to serious customers and work with serious partners that can see the value in a professional communications system!

 

[Jacques Hamman]

Your answer to this question is here:
https://www.3cx.com/community/threa...-to-sc-mapping-limitations.135335/post-647570 (point 3)

Thanks for this info. I will have to go and create more than 2000 outbound rules for the one specific system alone which will cost us some precious time and money but it would cost the client $18 000 less per year

 

[waynemillskidals-fuse2]

As a 3CX Titanium Partner with circa 1000 systems in production, we’re fully backing the Update 8 roadmap that frankly, goes above and beyond any other PBX platform in the market right now.

3CX’s AI vision isn’t just keeping pace, it’s setting the pace for enterprise communications

• On-board transcription for teams who want local control and data sovereignty.
• Real-time AI call screening seamlessly integrated into the softphone and mobile apps.
• A continued commitment to open standards and rapid innovation.

Massive credit to Nick and the 3CX engineering team for a roadmap that truly hits the enterprise space.

At Fuse 2, we’ve leveraged 3CX’s flexibility ..particularly through CFD (Call Flow Designer) to deliver bespoke solutions that push the boundaries of what a PBX can do:

• Custom CRM integrations tailored to customer workflows.
• Advanced card-payment automations, where payments can be initiated from a CRM, digits captured securely via DTMF (masked as ** in real time), and transactions processed instantly all powered by the Swiss-army knife that is 3CX + CFD + AI.

This is where the real value lies. Integrators with depth and innovation can create significant margin and deliver enterprise-grade outcomes, rather than worrying about minimal price adjustments on entry-level licences.

If your goal is to build resilient, AI-driven communication stacks not just run a few desk phones then working with a top-tier outfit like Fuse 2 is how you get there and also using the 3CX as the base is the magic glue!

We’ll continue to invest, innovate, and deploy complex solutions that showcase just how far 3CX can go.

 

[ThierryGRCS]

Does Chat GPT understand the table correctly?

GPT-5 mini
For a 3CX installation—a context where a user uses both a landline (physical extension) and the mobile app—here's how to conveniently count and configure.
License Counting
• Users: Count 1 user per person (3CX account).
• Extensions: Count 2 extensions if you assign a separate internal number to the physical extension and the mobile app.
• If you link the mobile app to the same extension (3CX allows multiple endpoints on the same extension), count only 1 extension.

So the table can be interpreted in several ways.

- Example: a license size 8 recommended for 11-25 users
This means, on average, one user with a physical extension and the smartphone app.
- And 40 users/max
This means if a user has only one extension, that is, 20 users with only a physical extension.

 

[John W. @ Alerter Group]

As the ICT Manager for a small business (32 staff) and with a background in telecoms dating back to the 1990s, 3CX has proven to be the perfect choice for our cloud based phone system for over 5 years. And the annual cost for 8SC Pro and the ability the self-host and manage our system makes is very budget friendly.

I now have to put my hand up as having one of those 3CX systems which exceeds the FUP of 40 extensions - there are 49! 9 of those extensions are for staff who are no longer with the company, 2 for room extensions of a building we no longer occupy, and 1 for the old door entry system that's been replaced. I just don't like deleting things! Just like I don't like throwing out empty boxes.

With a bit of time, and effort, I can tidy up and delete those extensions no longer needed, getting our 3CX system within the FUP on extensions.

I think this is a reasonable ask of 3CX. The actual day to day usage of our 3CX system will not change, with at most 4SC used by 10 office staff. But the benefits are clear, the ongoing development of 3CX - by showing we are using 3CX fairly - which saves us around 80% on our telecoms budget.

In my opinion, there will be a good percentage of those who currently exceed the FUP on extensions (like we do) that with a bit of time and effort, and maybe some creativity, can get within the FUP on extensions on their current license. And if not, whilst I appreciate budgets are always being squeezed tighter and tighter each year, the fact that using 3CX remains far more cost effective than the competition should help justify staying with 3CX.

Thank you to all at 3CX for a reliable feature rich phone system and for its continued innovation.

 

[SweetAction]

Link is dead so we cannot see the answers

The link is in the partner forum, only partners can see it.

 

[KoesioOccitanieTech]

Hello,

The post said that the U8 Alpha release is today or maybe i misunderstood and it comes tomorrow (friday) ?

 

[conversant]

I was concerned about the extension cap when I first heard about it, but the caps that have been announced are not unreasonable and, most importantly, shouldn't affect most implementations. For those implementations that do significantly exceed the extension caps, you need to realize that you've been been underpaying and that eventually the 3CX licensing would have to change to adapt to the changes in the marketplace. No one wants to pay more, but the reality is that we do want 3CX to fund development and continue to add support for features and technologies that we are demanding they release. This announcement seems to be a reasonable compromise.

 

[John W. @ Alerter Group]

The wording on the pricing page on the 3CX website needs to be updated to be clearer that the cost is based on the number of extensions as well as simultaneous calls - reflecting the FUP of extensions - as it still says that pricing is a flat annual cost per system, not per user, based on the number of calls happening simultaneously:
https://www.3cx.com/ordering/pricing/

 

[Jacques Hamman]

Just out of curiosity, will the extension FUP limit be calculated on all extensions in the system or all registered extensions?

We have a couple of systems that we make use of forwarding rules to mobile numbers to create “speed dial” numbers for users to easily dial. These speed dials do not have any endpoints connected to them and are merely there for ease of dialing for users sake. Unfortunately not all users have access to the soft phones or computers at some of our sites and only have a physical phone at the site.

So the physical extensions on the system might be less than 10% of the actual extensions count on the system.

If there is another way to handle this scenario, please feel free to share it so we can ensure that our clients do not end up paying more for licensing that they do not necessarily need.

What I have done regarding this scenario is the following:
1. Create a Phonebook entry with a “speed dial number” in the Mobile number field, ie 6005
2. Create an Outbound Rule for calls that start with 6005, stripping 4 digits and prepending the actual telephone number that needs to be dialed.

Doing it this way ensures that the extension count does not rise unnecessarily and that the users with 3CX Apps can still search for the Speed dial number by name and it will link to the correct outbound rule.

A bit of work to be done, but I think doing it this way will indeed bring down the “dummy extensions” on the system

 

[yesss-de]

With the introduction of the new Fair‑Use policy, which limits the maximum number of extensions (e.g., SC 32) to 176, several practical issues have arisen. The current definition, where every extension counts as a “user,” is not realistic for actual business operations or system administration. The following examples illustrate this problem:

1. Voicemail usage in queues and after‑hours routing
   When call queues are configured to forward calls to a voicemail outside business hours, it is necessary to create a separate extension with voicemail enabled. These extensions are not real users but purely functional accounts to provide a central mailbox feature.
2. Handsets and DECT integration
   In many installations, handsets or mobile units need to run under their own extensions so that calls can be easily transferred directly to the device. If a handset is instead registered as an additional device under a single user, calls can only be moved using the “park” and “retrieve” method. This complicates workflows, especially in environments where multiple employees share DECT phones.
3. Former employees / generic phones
   When an employee leaves the company, their physical phone is often reused by others. In these cases, the extension is typically renamed (e.g., to “Reception” or “Warehouse”) instead of being deleted. These extensions still serve an important function but are still counted as full users under the current Fair‑Use definition, even though they no longer represent an individual user.
4. Team queues and group email notifications
   In many of our locations, teams work together closely, and each team has its own call queue. Within a queue, it is possible to define a manager who receives an email notification in case the queue becomes unreachable. However, rather than assigning a single person, we prefer to use a shared group email address for this purpose. Since 3CX does not allow a group email to be entered directly in the queue settings, we must create a separate extension linked to that email address in order to configure the notification properly.

Overall, the current Fair‑Use policy does not adequately reflect the operational realities of many businesses using 3CX. Technical extensions, voicemail accounts, and shared phones are essential elements of a functioning telephony environment and should not be constrained by user‑based licensing. It would be highly beneficial if 3CX distinguished more clearly between actual users and functional or shared extensions.

We are open to any suggestions or alternative solutions that would help us implement these use cases more efficiently and reduce the number of extensions required under the Fair‑Use policy.

Thank you
Sascha

 

[N_G]

Pricing and number of extensions is already very reasonable. Just like with Google Office 365 if you have ex employees or service mailboxes You have to pay for them. so it's up to you to keep your system clean or pay the already very reasonable price. It's up to you.

 

[Input IT]

Hi Nick,


I saw you mentioned educational discounts before. I work with 22 schools across the UK, both primary and secondary, and they’ll begin budgeting for September 2026 between January and March. Do you have any further information about this that I can share with them ahead of time?


On a side note, we’re exploring how to use the paging system as part of a lockdown alert solution, since there are handsets in every classroom. We trialled it in a primary school, and the headteacher was really impressed with how effective it was using the existing infrastructure.

 

[rayfield]

We have around 115 extensions and 16SC. Around 30 extensions are dummy extensions where we send queue calls to in case busy as they need a specific message to play and the lost queue call notification goes to the same dummy ext. We barely reach 8 sim calls over the last 4 years.
It would be good if dummy extensions (no phone connected) would be excluded from the count or that the queue vm box can have a dedicated message for the busy vm.
Upgrading to 24SC will be hard to sell internally just for some extensions.
Any ideas or other workarounds?

Another issue I see.. we have at least 15 extensions which maybe login once a month or less but they need to have an extension. They never make calls but have oncall duty.
Thanks

Shoot me a private message if you'd like. There may be other ways to configure your system to avoid using dummy extensions.

John Rayfield, Jr.
Rayfield Communications
Springfield, MO

 

[Levi K]

Wasn't expecting to pay 5 grand this week to make my existing multi-year license compliant under new fair use rules. Thats a lot of money for my company.

Announcing new limits on already purchased licenses and an upcoming price increase for an undisclosed amount really doesn't leave me much choice.

The new max user/extension policy actually makes sense to me and the pricing seems fair, I would pay it if I was purchasing a new license today. Which says a lot about the value that 3CX already offers. It is a great product that I evangelize to others.

But I do have a bad taste in my mouth that the goalposts were changed in the midst of a multi-year license that had no mention of 'max extensions' when I bought it. I get that 3CX can define what 'fair use' is at their discretion. But we have had our current setup for years and there is no practical abuse of the license. I just have a little less confidence that my next multi-year commitment won't have any other pricing surprises during its term. But this is the first time I have experienced something like this and maybe the 3CX team didn't see any other way here. Not a fan of how it was done for existing licences but regardless its a great enough product that 3CX has all the leverage here. Just my 2 cents haha.

 

[rayfield]

I think we all need to recognise that the cost of everything in the world is increasing — and development work is no exception.


I’ve been an avid 3CX user and supporter since its very first Windows release, and I’ve worked with it in various forms ever since. It has consistently proven to be a robust, reliable, and versatile solution for a wide range of customers.


The introduction of the Multi-Tenant edition was a game-changer, filling the gap for smaller customers who previously didn’t fit into any deployment model. (That said, I still have a little wish list for the Multi-Tenant solution! )


I believe the Fair Use policy is both reasonable and necessary. 3CX, like all of us, is a business — and needs to remain profitable to continue developing and innovating.


Perhaps this is a good moment for all of us — resellers, partners, and direct purchasers — to rethink how we sell, renew, and deliver our solutions. In a world full of cloud products with overly complex pricing models, 3CX still stands out as one of the best software solutions available, and it keeps getting better every day.


As a company, we’ve also had to adapt. For many years, we’ve hosted 3CX solutions in our own data centres, often helping other organisations build their partner base while only purchasing a small number of licenses directly. This year, like 3CX, we’ve restructured — taking on licensing responsibilities for those organisations ourselves to streamline operations and reduce service desk load.


Change is inevitable — and change is good.
Let’s all be grateful that 3CX continues to evolve, embrace the future, and work alongside us to deliver exceptional communications for our customers.

John
Founder
Inara Systems Ltd

Your statement about rethinking how we sell, renew and deliver our solutions is good. 3CX is a great -value-. We need to make sure that we keep that in mind and that we convey that to our customers. Many people often just look at price (and 3CX is still a good low price, as compared to other phone systems), but -value- is better to use. Personally, I almost never buy the 'cheapest' of something, but instead buy the 'middle priced' product, because that often gives the best -value- for the money.

I need to focus more on that, when showing 3CX, than 'price'.

John Rayfield, Jr.
Rayfield Communications
Springfield, MO

 

[rayfield]

I was concerned about the extension cap when I first heard about it, but the caps that have been announced are not unreasonable and, most importantly, shouldn't affect most implementations. For those implementations that do significantly exceed the extension caps, you need to realize that you've been been underpaying and that eventually the 3CX licensing would have to change to adapt to the changes in the marketplace. No one wants to pay more, but the reality is that we do want 3CX to fund development and continue to add support for features and technologies that we are demanding they release. This announcement seems to be a reasonable compromise.

Very good points. My father just mentioned the other day that an item that purchase and resell in another part of our business, cost about $250 just 5 years ago. It now costs about $500. If 3CX was increasing their prices like that, then I'd really be upset. As it is, it's just part of everything cost more in today's world.

John Rayfield, Jr
Rayfield Communications
Springfield, MO

 

[rayfield]

With the introduction of the new Fair‑Use policy, which limits the maximum number of extensions (e.g., SC 32) to 176, several practical issues have arisen. The current definition, where every extension counts as a “user,” is not realistic for actual business operations or system administration. The following examples illustrate this problem:

1. Voicemail usage in queues and after‑hours routing
   When call queues are configured to forward calls to a voicemail outside business hours, it is necessary to create a separate extension with voicemail enabled. These extensions are not real users but purely functional accounts to provide a central mailbox feature.
2. Handsets and DECT integration
   In many installations, handsets or mobile units need to run under their own extensions so that calls can be easily transferred directly to the device. If a handset is instead registered as an additional device under a single user, calls can only be moved using the “park” and “retrieve” method. This complicates workflows, especially in environments where multiple employees share DECT phones.
3. Former employees / generic phones
   When an employee leaves the company, their physical phone is often reused by others. In these cases, the extension is typically renamed (e.g., to “Reception” or “Warehouse”) instead of being deleted. These extensions still serve an important function but are still counted as full users under the current Fair‑Use definition, even though they no longer represent an individual user.
4. Team queues and group email notifications
   In many of our locations, teams work together closely, and each team has its own call queue. Within a queue, it is possible to define a manager who receives an email notification in case the queue becomes unreachable. However, rather than assigning a single person, we prefer to use a shared group email address for this purpose. Since 3CX does not allow a group email to be entered directly in the queue settings, we must create a separate extension linked to that email address in order to configure the notification properly.

Overall, the current Fair‑Use policy does not adequately reflect the operational realities of many businesses using 3CX. Technical extensions, voicemail accounts, and shared phones are essential elements of a functioning telephony environment and should not be constrained by user‑based licensing. It would be highly beneficial if 3CX distinguished more clearly between actual users and functional or shared extensions.

We are open to any suggestions or alternative solutions that would help us implement these use cases more efficiently and reduce the number of extensions required under the Fair‑Use policy.

Thank you
Sascha

Shoot me a private message if you'd like. I might have a solution for at least one of your points.

John Rayfield, Jr.
Rayfield Communications
Springfield, MO