3 ms·

I mean... you can store videos locally and then access them over the internet while managing all of the hardware/software yourself. Though, that is another laye

I mean... you can store videos locally and then access them over the internet while managing all of the hardware/software yourself. Though, that is another layer of complexity the average user won't be bothered with. People trade privacy for convenience.

pdonis 7y ago
> that is another layer of complexity the average user won't be bothered with. Yes. Plus ISPs (or at least US ones) won't allow you to run an Internet-visible server using your home Internet connection.
- f-securus 7y ago
  If you change the port used, is it considered 'internet-visible'?
- cgriswald 7y ago
  In practice I’ve never had a problem with running any server on my home connection except an SMTP server which required me to ask them to open the port directly (and they did). Most ISPs don’t seem to care if you’re not using a ridiculous amount of bandwidth. Many will sell you a package that explicitly allows it. I currently have access to live view and recorded video from my security system and haven’t had any problems at all. In the case of wide adoption of such a thing I imagine the ISPs either offering a more expensive package, or clamping down and offering their own version of the service through some monstrosity of a modem/router. It’s probably the latter that motivates most of these companies to use “the cloud”. There’s certainly ways around the problem for a motivated company, though.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > Plus ISPs (or at least US ones) won't allow you to run an Internet-visible server using your home Internet connection. That's not entirely the case. I've been running internet-visible servers from home for decades. My current ISP (Comcast) doesn't have a problem with that, even contractually, as long as you aren't running publicly available services, and I've never had a problem with any of my prior ISPs.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
  I've run plenty of internet-visible servers (HTTP, Mumble, Ventrilo, SSH, various game servers) on Comcast, Verizon, and Frontier and never had an issue. The ToS says you can't, but it isn't enforced.

pdonis 7y ago

> that is another layer of complexity the average user won't be bothered with. Yes. Plus ISPs (or at least US ones) won't allow you to run an Internet-visible server using your home Internet connection.

f-securus 7y ago
If you change the port used, is it considered 'internet-visible'?
cgriswald 7y ago
In practice I’ve never had a problem with running any server on my home connection except an SMTP server which required me to ask them to open the port directly (and they did). Most ISPs don’t seem to care if you’re not using a ridiculous amount of bandwidth. Many will sell you a package that explicitly allows it. I currently have access to live view and recorded video from my security system and haven’t had any problems at all. In the case of wide adoption of such a thing I imagine the ISPs either offering a more expensive package, or clamping down and offering their own version of the service through some monstrosity of a modem/router. It’s probably the latter that motivates most of these companies to use “the cloud”. There’s certainly ways around the problem for a motivated company, though.
JohnFen 7y ago
> Plus ISPs (or at least US ones) won't allow you to run an Internet-visible server using your home Internet connection. That's not entirely the case. I've been running internet-visible servers from home for decades. My current ISP (Comcast) doesn't have a problem with that, even contractually, as long as you aren't running publicly available services, and I've never had a problem with any of my prior ISPs.
Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
I've run plenty of internet-visible servers (HTTP, Mumble, Ventrilo, SSH, various game servers) on Comcast, Verizon, and Frontier and never had an issue. The ToS says you can't, but it isn't enforced.