question

kris-cox avatar image
kris-cox asked mike commented

Help With SPA525G2's and picking up another user's phone call

Hello,


I have just added presence to my SPA525G2 phone as well as one other user in the office so far. We both can see each other's name on the display and can tell if that person is on the phone or not.  I have also enabled it so we both have permission to answer each others phone if it's ringing or on hold.  However, when we select the soft key next to the other person's name, instead of answering that incoming call, it rings our other line. It also happens if we arent on a call and we just select that soft button to ring the other person, it rings our own phone instead.

 

For example, if I press the soft key next to Erics name, it doesnt call his extension, it calls mine instead.  I am waiting to hear back from support who seems a little stymied by this, so I thought I'd reach out to you all and see if anyone has come across this before.  Any help is appreciated!

officespa525g2 phone
1 |1000

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 1.0 MiB each and 10.0 MiB total.

kris-cox avatar image
kris-cox answered Chuck Fuscone commented
Hi Chuck,

I did check the permissions tab and we both have each other selected on the right side under "Selected Users."

Thanks!


7 comments
1 |1000

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 1.0 MiB each and 10.0 MiB total.

Chuck Fuscone avatar image Chuck Fuscone commented ·
is this your own phone or one purchased from Ring Central?

Let us know

Chuck
0 Likes 0 ·
kris-cox avatar image kris-cox commented ·
Hi Chuck.  My company sells IP phones, so we bought them new outside of Ring Central.  Do you think that may be why we are having this problem?
0 Likes 0 ·
Chuck Fuscone avatar image Chuck Fuscone commented ·
What firmware are you running?

It needs to be 7.51A or 7.52A (The 7.52A allows the digital sidecar to work.)

all of my SPA phones are on 7.51A unless the customer is using the SPA500DS digital side car

Thanks

Chuck
Certified Ring central Installer
ckfuscone@yahoo.com


0 Likes 0 ·
kris-cox avatar image kris-cox commented ·
It's on 7.56.  Do you think I should downgrade to 7.51A?
0 Likes 0 ·
Chuck Fuscone avatar image Chuck Fuscone commented ·
Yes
0 Likes 0 ·
Show more comments
Chuck Fuscone avatar image
Chuck Fuscone answered mike commented
Check the permissions tab in each presence setup.  this is an easy one to skip over.  There is the check box to monitor others calls but you also need to grant permission

Check that and let us know  it is another tab when you are in the presence config

Thanks

Chuck
Certified Ring Central Installer
ckfuscone@yahoo.com
4 comments
1 |1000

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 1.0 MiB each and 10.0 MiB total.

Michael Kent avatar image Michael Kent commented ·
Absolutely incorrect.  It depends on whether your state is a "One party notification state" or a "Two party notification" state.  In the former, only one party need be informed that the conversation is being recorded.  In the latter, both parties must have knowledge that the conversation is being recorded.  Check your local laws for your state.
1 Like 1 ·
jb-ferguson avatar image jb-ferguson commented ·
Here is a site which shows which states are one party notification states vs. two party notification states.

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

With the above stated...here are some guidelines regarding interstate calls where a caller from a one party notification state might call someone living in a two party notification state. Got this information from http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can-i-record-calls-in-my-state

Interstate phone calls

In light of the differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will apply.

For example, a reporter located in the District of Columbia who records a telephone conversation without the consent of a party located in Maryland would not violate District of Columbia law, but could be liable under Maryland law. A court located in the District of Columbia may apply Maryland law, depending on its conflict of laws rules. Therefore, an aggrieved party may choose to file suit in either jurisdiction, depending on which law is more favorable to the partys claim.

In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law which requires consent of all parties to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the womans consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)

The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in Georgia who routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients in California. California law requires all party consent to record any telephone calls, while Georgia law requires only one party consent. The states high court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law would impair Californias interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the application of California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia.

In another case involving Pennsylvania law, four employees of the Times Leader, a newspaper in Wilkes-Barre, were arrested after they printed a transcript of a telephone conversation between a columnist in Pennsylvania and a murder suspect living in Virginia that was recorded without the suspects permission. The Virginia and federal statutes allow one party to record a conversation, while Pennsylvania, as discussed above, requires the consent of all parties. The man asked prosecutors to charge the journalists under the Pennsylvania law. The court eventually dismissed the charges against the newspaper staff but on the unrelated ground that the suspect had no expectation of privacy during his telephone interview with the columnist. (Pennsylvania v. Duncan)

Federal law may apply when the conversation is between parties who are in different states, although it is unsettled whether a court will hold in a given case that federal law pre-empts state law. In Duncan, the newspaper argued that the federal law should pre-empt the state statutes, because the telephone call crossed state lines, placing it under federal jurisdiction. However, in that case, the court did not address the pre-emption issue. Moreover, as noted above, either state may choose to enforce its own laws.

1 Like 1 ·
robert-jerina115 avatar image robert-jerina115 commented ·
This is wrong, Chuck. Different states have different laws. Ohio for example, is a one party notification recording state which means only one of the people in the party need to be notified about a call that is being recorded. 

I want to turn this off because we already have a message on our phone menu stating that the call may be recorded anyways. I want to turn it off because of the services our company requires, we often need to record phone calls with customers and they cannot know about it being recorded because of this service we provide.
0 Likes 0 ·
mike avatar image mike commented ·
If you would like to have the ability to turn this off, please visit the following "idea" topic and click the VOTE button:  Call Recording: Turn Off Announcement
0 Likes 0 ·

Write an Answer

Hint: Notify or tag a user in this post by typing @username.

Up to 10 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 1.0 MiB each and 10.0 MiB total.