I need an idiots guide to CVP

Unanswered Question
Feb 5th, 2008
User Badges:

I have a remote branch that has a call centre (and soon a Call Manager). To reduce costs I want to connect it to an IPCC Enterprise. This is located in a different country via an E3. Rather naively I thought the only costs I would incur would be licensing. However, my supplier tells me that I must purchase CVP hardware. A direct connection would make calls more susceptible to latency. I really don't understand the concept of CVP and the more I look into it the more confused I become. Why would CVP made calls less susceptible to latency ?

Many Thanks.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Jason Aarons Mon, 02/11/2008 - 17:23
User Badges:
  • Bronze, 100 points or more

CVP verus IP/IVR keeps the call at the gateway via VXML.

With IP/IVR the call would come in at remote office, cross the E3 at G711/G729 to be queued, then delivered back to that agent.

With CVP all is local, no crossing the wan. CVP is best for distributed environments. CVP will likely replace IP/IVR long term.


This Discussion