Forum Discussion
'Meeting Room' license vs 'Common Area Phone' license vs 'E1+Phone System' license
Are you sure regarding the CAP license not supporting an Exchange mailbox? I can't see a reason why you assign CAP to a room mailbox to facilitate meeting room booking. Your own article mentions this should be possible as well.
"There is no special account type like with the server platform as any standard online user account can be used with the new license, meaning that Exchange calendaring is available for phones registered using a CAP-enabled account"
http://blog.schertz.name/2018/05/hot-desking-and-common-area-phones-in-skype-for-business/
Steve Bedwell There has been some back and forth on this topic over time. Originally Microsoft did not intend for the CAP account in Skype for Business to be mailbox enabled and mentioned that Exchange Online might be pulled from that license.
But now that the license will be used by Teams that is likely not going to happen. The behavior I do see currently is that if a Common Area Phone license (or a Meeting Room license) is added to a standard User mailbox account, its mailbox will vanish (but it will return if a regular license is reapplied). But if those licenses are assigned to an account with a Room mailbox and enabled using the CsMeetingRoom cmdlets then the mailbox will be fine.
It appears that using those device licenses on a user account causes the mailbox to be blocked, by design.
Jeff_SchertzMicrosoft needs to fix this license nightmare. It is way too confusing to understand which license applies to which purpose and it keeps changing as seen by these threads. I have confirmed that a meeting room license does not work for a Trio conference phone. It will not accept a meeting invite. I was also unsuccessful using a common area phone but it works with an E5 license. The E5 of course is overkill but I was able to use a phone system - virtual user license to get it working instead. Yet I am told by the support team that it should not work that way.
Why not provide exchange/mailbox connectivity for all phone related licenses and include the audio conferencing within that license so we don't have to select multiple licenses for each purpose? It's too granular. Why have both a CAP and Meeting Room license? Make those the same with mailbox enabled and audio conferencing included. Even common area phones should have voicemail capabilities. Why block these device licenses on a user account? Does it matter whether it is a room account or user account? Otherwise, don't allow the license to be assigned at all so there is no confusion.- > I have confirmed that a meeting room license does not work for a Trio conference phone. It will not accept a meeting invite.
The meeting room license absolutely will work with a Trio phone. However, you have to ensure the account is created as a room mailbox and is configured correctly. See Jeff’s blog post for the configuration instructions:
http://blog.schertz.name/2019/08/exchange-resource-mailbox-configuration-for-meeting-rooms/Ryan SteeleThis explains a lot. The reason I never used a room mailbox is because of the DeleteComments parameter default as you explained. So using the standard choice of a room mailbox didn't work with the Trio for meeting requests and using a regular account gets blocked so it cannot login. Making it a room mailbox and changing the DeleteComments should fix that. Thanks for the info.
You can see that this is all too confusing though. The meeting room mailbox option didn't exist until over a year after the push by Microsoft to move from Skype to Teams. The DeleteComment parameter is something most people wouldn't see until they dig into why they can't get a conference room to work. Even the support tech that directed me to your posting didn't know about it either. This is the stuff that drives implementation people crazy but thanks for the info. My conference room is working now but I will try again with the meeting room license later.
