- Joined
- Feb 3, 2017
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 24
Hi
3Cx V18.0 Update 8 (build 939) running on a Windows Server 2019 Standard box on prem.
I had a call today from a staff member who said a customer had complained that we hide our Caller ID, which we don't.
We do set our caller ID globally so that calls made form any and all extensions have the same ID which is our main reception desk number.
This is working just fine, I tested it. A Lot. Our caller id definatelt shows as our main reception number.
However, I then made a call to a colleague's mobile phone, and the Caller ID was indeed Anonymous! Whaaat????
So I called another colleague's mobile phone and it was ok, showing our main reception number.
Checking back with the original helpdesk call, the number called was not a mobile number, it was a land line.
So there seems to be at first glance a bit of randomness going on here, as in this isn't down to just mobile numbers, or a particular carrier.
And in 7 years we have never had this problem reported to us, so looks like it's a recent development.
Anuone have an idea what might be going on here?
Thanks
James
3Cx V18.0 Update 8 (build 939) running on a Windows Server 2019 Standard box on prem.
I had a call today from a staff member who said a customer had complained that we hide our Caller ID, which we don't.
We do set our caller ID globally so that calls made form any and all extensions have the same ID which is our main reception desk number.
This is working just fine, I tested it. A Lot. Our caller id definatelt shows as our main reception number.
However, I then made a call to a colleague's mobile phone, and the Caller ID was indeed Anonymous! Whaaat????
So I called another colleague's mobile phone and it was ok, showing our main reception number.
Checking back with the original helpdesk call, the number called was not a mobile number, it was a land line.
So there seems to be at first glance a bit of randomness going on here, as in this isn't down to just mobile numbers, or a particular carrier.
And in 7 years we have never had this problem reported to us, so looks like it's a recent development.
Anuone have an idea what might be going on here?
Thanks
James