Please save your patronizing for someone else.
> You're not the only person I've encountered that seemed to think cameras had to upload 'to the cloud' to be useful.
I've explained exactly what I think the issue is, and a number of people have given useful responses. You haven't.
If the camera doesn't have internet connectivity, I can't see what it's seeing when I'm away from home. That's a requirement, as I have already said.
But they also keep recording while my internet connectivity goes out.
My cameras in aggregate also produce a lot more data than my internet connection could support-- about 180mbit/s during the day-- but that presets no problem for remote viewing because I only few a couple cameras at a time remotely. (I also can view the much lower bitrate substreams, while the full resolution is recorded locally.)
Sure it does.
The Internet is a global wide area network that connects computer systems across the world.
Perhaps you got confused and thought that the internet only connected you to Amazon? :)
Smarm aside, I really wonder how you ended up thinking this?
You're not the only person I've encountered that seemed to think cameras had to upload 'to the cloud' to be useful. E.g. after posting cute animal footage from my cameras ( https://people.xiph.org/~greg/troups.webm ) I got a number of comment from people along the lines of being surprised that I'd hand footage of my home over to amazon which made no sense until I found out about how ring worked.
This is quite surprising to me, because the bandwidth involved and the requirement for working internet connectivity makes remote storage seem really costly and unattractive to me and I was surprised to learn that's what products like ring were doing.