I have paired three BT headsets with my Telo. They all always appear in the Telo's setup page in the order in which I paired them. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the way headsets are ordered (their ordinal number) when deciding which prefix (*15, *16, etc.) to dial in order to use a given headset. Short of trial, and error, there doesn't seem to be any way to determine the order in which paired headsets are connected (turned on, or came into range), which determines their order from Telo's POV.
In other words, I have to try *15, and dial a number to see whether a given headset responds, if it doesn't, then I try *16, and so on. That makes the BT adapter nearly useless in our house.
When i was pairing devices, I thought their prefix would be fixed, determined by the order in which they appear in Telo's setup page. But no, the prefix used for a given headset is a variable.
I spoke to Ooma twice about this, and they confirmed that trial and error is the only method to determine how headsets are numbered at any given moment. Who said "ship it" with a show-stopping oversight like this???
How do you deal with that problem?
Thanks,
Bill
BT headset operation
Last edited by Telo_BK on Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: BT headset operation
Sounds like a bug or oversight to me. Like you, I would assume that they would be referenced in the order that they were paired.
It would be even better if you could assign the number for each on the setup page. That way, numbers wouldn't change if a given headset had to be re-paired and thus ended up at a different position in the list.
It would be even better if you could assign the number for each on the setup page. That way, numbers wouldn't change if a given headset had to be re-paired and thus ended up at a different position in the list.
Re: BT headset operation
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Have entered bug 16849 for this.
Re: BT headset operation
Thank you, Tom, for adding this to the list. The BT adapter I am told has been available since 2010. It still has this bug (assuming the bug wasn't introduced by a recent firmware upgrade). That it wasn't added to the bug list much earlier is concerning. I am still within the 30-day return period. When will this be fixed? I would prefer to keep the BT if it's going to work (soon)- otherwise it's useless to us.