Voip Law: non binding question of course.
-
@popester so are you saying that you are hiring a company in a one party consent state to be in the middle of your call flow so that the calls can be recorded at that point without getting consent from the second party?
-
@voip_n00b said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
@dashrender Read what I quoted then get back to me.
I'm going to need some help understanding I guess.
-
@jaredbusch said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
@popester so are you saying that you are hiring a company in a one party consent state to be in the middle of your call flow so that the calls can be recorded at that point without getting consent from the second party?
Let me try not to screw this up.... Your question brings up another good question I need to get answered.
We are hiring a company, of which I currently do not know their corporate location, guessing Ireland, that has per our permission, possession of the direct dial inward pbx location (pardon the broken lingo). So technically, IMHO, ownership/possession of said DID is open for interpretation. A formal porting from our provider Lumen to their (need to find out theirs) provider occurred. BTW: not sure this is even relevant. Anyway. Their "software" which we subscribe to data dips the sessions that arrive at the DID and links the caller ID with a customer account and brings up service records and history for the customer that is associated with the caller ID inbound number. In the process of hooking into the session they forward the call with the caller ID information intact to our provider PBX and it hits our call center and is answered by one of our CSR's as if it was an unmolested call directly from the customer.
Whew. Hope you were able to follow my babble.
So, since we are a single consent state, does single consent law still apply? Or. Did the rube machinations leave us open to litigation (HA, made myself laugh) somewhere along the stream?
Now that I am seeing this more clearly. This looks like attorney territory.
But would still like to hear your take on it. Much respect.
Update: the company's corporate office is California. Two party consent state.
Update Update: Plot thickens... They also have "corporate offices" in US.Georgia and Armenia... ?
-
@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
This looks like attorney territory.
Always.
-
@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
But would still like to hear your take on it.
If I followed you correctly, this third party is irrelevant to the recording question. Calls are not being recorded on their network or facilities.
You are recording calls, yourself, on your system, located in Texas.
Single party consent. Done.
A call can flow through any number of jurisdictions because that is how call routing works, regardless if it is IP based or not at the consumer end, but that does not mean anything. If so, there there would never be a chance to have single party consent.
-
@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
We are hiring a company <snip>
Sounds like they are simply reading the SIP header or Caller ID and tying bits together in your CRM/ERP.
-
@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
A formal porting from our provider Lumen to their (need to find out theirs) provider occurred.
This scares me. Good to get away from Lumen (Century Link, you cannot hide behind a new name.....), but since it sound like they are only needing CID info, there is no reason the number should need ported to them.
I mean sure, maybe it was a cost savings also? But wow, to me, this sounds like a scary coupling of services that should not exist.
-
I'm curious, in that setup, are you paying this third party, the one who imported your real DID, for inbound mins? or a flat monthly fee for inbound calling?
-
@jaredbusch said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
A formal porting from our provider Lumen to their (need to find out theirs) provider occurred.
This scares me. Good to get away from Lumen (Century Link, you cannot hide behind a new name.....), but since it sound like they are only needing CID info, there is no reason the number should need ported to them.
I mean sure, maybe it was a cost savings also? But wow, to me, this sounds like a scary coupling of services that should not exist.
As always, Jared, thank you for your expertise. You have given me plenty of stuff to research. Exactly what i was hoping for. If you ever need anything let me know.
-
@dashrender said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
I'm curious, in that setup, are you paying this third party, the one who imported your real DID, for inbound mins? or a flat monthly fee for inbound calling?
Its a flat monthly fee I believe, all rolled into one bill. So breaking out the phone part may be tough. I am going to dig into the "Did we "Really" need to port our DID. For now, it is so convoluted and fraught with WTF's, I am going to suggest that we go ahead and rather we can or cannot, just add the warning. Easy peasy.
-
@popester said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
@dashrender said in Voip Law: non binding question of course.:
I'm curious, in that setup, are you paying this third party, the one who imported your real DID, for inbound mins? or a flat monthly fee for inbound calling?
Its a flat monthly fee I believe, all rolled into one bill. So breaking out the phone part may be tough. I am going to dig into the "Did we "Really" need to port our DID. For now, it is so convoluted and fraught with WTF's, I am going to suggest that we go ahead and rather we can or cannot, just add the warning. Easy peasy.
Well, if you didn't run the call through them, you'd need a way to send the CID information to that vendor so they could give you the screen pops to the ERP for your call center. I'm guessing you could have an function on the PBX that makes an API call to the vendor, definitely would be the cleaner way to do it... you also get to control your inbound costs.
I also wonder if the current solution allows them to be in the call path for voice recording purposes? I don't understand the RTP stuff enough to know. i.e. could that vendor be eavesdropping on all of your calls?
