cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
2058
Views
5
Helpful
3
Replies

WebEx Named Host Limit

a12ozbottle
Level 1
Level 1

I am looking for clarification. We have Cisco Spark with Business Messaging and Advanced Meetings. This includes WebEx Meeting Center. According to our order we purchased 10 Toll Named Users Plus. When I look at our WebEx administration site, it shows Meeting Center Named Host limit 999999.  Does this mean I can create up to 999999 named hosts in WebEx, even though we only purchased 10? I was under the assumption that we had to purchase a Named User license for every host in Webex.

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Just wanted to give an update. Without modifications that I know of, my host limit now shows 10 after months of showing 999999. Strange that it happened shortly after this post.

View solution in original post

3 Replies 3

Hi @a12ozbottle,

 take a look at the following document: Cisco WebEx Named User SaaS Subscription.

 

 A Named User is an account assigned to an Employee to use a Cisco WebEx Service.

 

 A Toll Plus Named Users is a Named User with access to Global Toll Call In.

 

 

"Subscriber must purchase a quantity of Toll Named Users, Toll Plus Named Users, or Toll Plus
International Users equal to the number of web conferencing Named Users invoiced in any given billing
period."

 

 

Hope this helps,

 Marcelo Morais

    Thank you for your response. I have read that document and the descriptions of the different users. That document is exactly why I am asking this question. According to the document, I would think my named user limit would match what we purchased. Our organization only paid for 10 named users for this billing period, I double checked the PO. However, on the WebEx admin page, it shows my limit to be 999999 not 10. It also allowed me to create an 11th and 12th user as a test, both allowed me host a meeting.

Just wanted to give an update. Without modifications that I know of, my host limit now shows 10 after months of showing 999999. Strange that it happened shortly after this post.