Re: ASI Internet Communicator

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Anders" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t1Tei.15505$2v1.1913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jim wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 10:53?am, Anders <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Using a mail server adds a lot of config. Many ISP's block
> >> outgoing port 25, so you would have to configure each unit
> >> with server, login credentials AND the destination email address.
> >> The mail server(s) becomes just as much an "xtra dedicated site" as
> >> what AZS has.
> >>
> >> We've arrived at a similar architecture as ASZ, although we built
> >> it into our controllers directly and also moved the whole config UI
> >> out to our hosted web servers, so no need for any client software -
> >> just a browser.
> >>
> >> http://www.interopix.com
> >>
> > Why can't it work the same way as when you set up a DVR?
> >
> > The Mfg hosts a site at no charge and keeps track of the DVR. When you
> > want to log on from anyplace in the world, you use your browser to
> > enter your pass word and you're looking at your DVR'd cameras. It
> > can't be that hard to do. The central would have the server and .....
> > etc.  Right?
> >
>
> I can't come up with a reason why that would not work...
>
> We're moving all data through our back-end server, and bandwidth
> is not a big concern for us (we're just moving config, control commands
> and some audio streams). To get higher throughput for the video you'd
> probably want to to a hand-over to the client instead of relaying
> everything through the server, but there are proven methods to do
> that (P2P clients), so there is nothing that needs to be invented.
>
> </A>

Some manufacturers do that, Visonic for instance uses their website to keep
track of the device however when you login to their site it passes you off
to the device itself