That's the problem though - they already sold you something. They have your money. That's where the interest and care usually ends for most companies, because any potential future money to be extracted from you is just that - potential. If their issues prevented you from giving you money in the first place, then that's a completely different question, but that's kinda hard to prove.
https://ring.com/products/video-doorbell-elite
https://ring.com/products/stick-up-security-camera-elite-poe
https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/628267/Where+is+the+WiFi...
I don't see what prevents a determined user from removing the built-in antenna, and run a coaxial cable with suitable characteristic impedance from the WiFi doorbell's u.FL connector to a cheap WiFi dongle somewhere inside (perhaps add an attenuator if the lowest transmit powers are too high).
? "More accurately"?
The poster pointed said Ring didn't have an ethernet/PoE option.
I linked their ethernet/PoE cameras and doorbell. Your desire to frankenstein a 2.4GHz wired connection for the lower end products isn't related.
From the perspective of the radios in the doorbell or a wifi dongle it doesn't matter if you are transceiving via antenna over the ether or transceiving over coax, as long as you use a suitable characteristic impedance.
For a person who doesn't understand cars perhaps changing a tire feels like "Frankensteining" too...
I suggest you reconsider the downvote but predict the suggestion to be in vain.
The quote of your parent was:
> neither Ring nor Nest has a hardwired network option (or, better yet, PoE)
so it's not entirely honest when you say:
> The poster pointed said Ring didn't have an ethernet/PoE option.
(eliding that this person made a more general statement: not having a hardwired connection)
So I think my point stands that it does have a hardwired connector (transmission line to u.FL) and that it isn't broken out.
Those who wish their security camera to function in a mission critical setting (like working when it's supposed to work, even in the face of wireless jamming) I make a practical suggestion (as opposed to lamenting the idiocy of the average uninformed consumer when selecting a WiFi doorbell, like I read in other comments on this HN submission).
All it requires is to disassemble the doorbell a little, to remove the WiFi antenna, to drill a small hole in the plastic casing, and to attach a coaxial cable.
Do you remember old ethernet? it ran over coax too.
If most posters on this HN submission lament the idiocy of the consumer when selecting a WiFi security doorbell, those consumers can only conclude to buy another model, with the older one ending up in a landfill or at least unused. It is more ecological to fix the design, and thankfully WiFi antenna is a separate PCB so theres a u.FL connector for a coax to connect to, internally. This way these doorbells can continue to be used.
In trying to understand why a person would consider running a WiFi network over a coaxial cable a Frankenstein-like idea, I can only conclude it stems from a form of xenophobia: it is easy to believe that everything is the way it is because its the best way to handle things. In fact as a transmission line coaxial cables are superior to "ethernet" cables, its just that the latter are much cheaper to manufacture. This resulted in the (economical) dominance of "ethernet" cables. It is then only one misconception away to erroneously believe non-coaxial cables were chosen for their superior performance, when in fact its just a cost trade-off. So I conclude you are not too familiar with physics or electronics, else you would not call this Frankensteining.
People whom you reply to can't downvote you. Others did. My response criticizing your "more accurately" is sitting at +6.
> > > neither Ring nor Nest has a hardwired network option (or, better yet, PoE)
> > https://ring.com/products/video-doorbell-elite [example of PoE network option from Ring]
> More accurately, ...
Don't know if you didn't reply to whom you intended, or whatever, but I assure you, my response was quite "accurate".
> All it requires is to disassemble the doorbell a little, to remove the WiFi antenna, to drill a small hole in the plastic casing, and to attach a coaxial cable.
I can disassemble things with plastic latches. I can solder wires to boards. I can add ICs to pads and add tiny rework wires and CA them all down pretty. This doesn't mean they're "included".
That is correct, my suggestion requires one to buy a coaxial cable of suitable characteristic impedance at the required frequency, and some u.FL connector(s), they are obviously not included in the doorbell.
Drilling a hole in a plastic casing, and installing a connector on bare coaxial wire is pretty simple, one just looks up the steps and performs them. I consider it much easier than PCB board rework (which isn't necessary in my suggestion: just disconnect the u.FL-connected PCB antenna, and attach the coaxial cable).
I finally see what you mean: my comment was indeed supposed to reply to the parent T3OU-736 commenter. I switched devices, and your comment made the relevant quote more prominent as opposed to some part in the middle of a sentence...
My apologies!
The point of a Ring doorbell is to get something that just works-- not to string lots of high frequency coax, dedicate a wifi radio on the other side, figure out appropriate attenuation (probably want about 65dB total between coax and pad from 20dBm to -45dBm), and troubleshoot inevitable resulting fuckery.
If you'd come at things from another angle--- replying to the post above, and say-- well, you actually could just patch right into the wifi radio and run coax!-- your comment might have been favorably received.
Quite possibly most WiFi radios can reach low transmit and high receive levels, as some devices are placed in proximity and some at large distance.
A top brand 20 dB attenuator can be had for less than $4...
It's also not too close to 50 ohms up that high above design frequency and the connectors make huge reflections.
> Quite possibly most WiFi radios can reach low transmit and high receive levels, as some devices are placed in proximity and some at large distance.
Path loss of even adjacent antennas is pretty high.
Again, though, this is all a huge diversion: all I did was point out that Ring does actually offer PoE doorbells, and you came in and "corrected" me.
BTW does the PoE doorbell you linked actually have an ethernet network, or does it just use it for power?
I fully concede my original comment should have replied your parent, but the following replies were responses to the contents of your comments (Frankenstein, etc.)
Yes, it uses it for data and power (power is optional: you may power it separately)
Nest has one now[0].
EDIT: my bad, it doesn't have a hardwired network, it just has more local memory for recordings.
0. https://www.engadget.com/googles-2nd-gen-wired-nest-doorbell...
Though that's the only mention.
Edit: ah, it's still Wifi, just has more memory.
From: https://blog.google/products/google-nest/nest-doorbell-wired...
"And if your Wi-Fi is spotty one day, you still won’t miss any important moments. The new Nest Doorbell will automatically record an hour’s worth of important events to its local memory."
As my dad pointed out when I was trying to show off my shiny new video doorbell.
"What's to stop them just ripping it off the wall and taking it with them?"
I hope to be half skilled at tempering my children's enthusiasm as he is.
I have Home Assistant set up to flash my desk lamp and play a little tune on an ESP32 speaker under my desk when someone rings it; the video part is just an added bonus.
I haven't been to MickD's in a really long time, but do they have free/open wifi with no captive portals? Seems like a big liability risk for a corp their size (or any fast food chain) to have it wide open.
I know some Arby's are semi open wifi. They do have a web client after connecting that I think authenticates you somehow. But I have no idea what it's actually doing.
That would be a way larger security risk.