Not if I'm away from home and can't talk directly to that computer because it's behind a firewall and my ISP won't let me run Internet-visible servers using my home Internet connection. (And even if the ISP would, while I, as a techie, might be willing to set up my own streaming server and poke a hole in my firewall for it, I'm not sure the average user would be able or willing to do that.)
> It really boggles my mind why anyone tech-savvy...
I wasn't talking about average users.
> and my ISP won't let me run Internet-visible servers using my home Internet connection.
I'll give you that one. I know that Google Fiber has an exception for such use cases. From: https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=...
> However, personal, non-commercial use of servers that comply with this AUP is acceptable, including using virtual private networks (VPN) to access services in your home and using hardware or applications that include server capabilities for uses like multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, and home security.
I know that other ISPs in the US are somewhat shittier in this regard.
Looks like my cameras, all outdoor, average about 7mbit/sec each-- most of my cameras are 2 or 4mpixel ones though the number is inflated by a couple 12mpixel wide angle cameras. I'm sure I could tune the bitrate a bit more if I tried, but already I turned them down until just before there was a noticeable reduction in face intelligibility at the end of their range.
Having all of your cameras constantly uploading stuff to someone else's computer so that you could use your own client device (presumably, a smartphone) to look at a copy of stored videos (or a live feed) from someone else's computer? Wouldn't it be a bit more efficient to skip a step and stream straight from a computer within your home?
It really boggles my mind why anyone tech-savvy would not only agree to this ineffective approach, but also pay a monthly subscription for that service.