Is this reasonable? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 05:19:49 pm
content: A few weeks ago I bought a Cloud-based video doorbell for my house fromRing.com. This is a small battery powered device that has a video camera, a microphone, and a push button. It connects to a WiFi network and then, over the Internet, to Ring's cloud-based servers. When someone pushes the button or the device detects motion, it uploads video and audio to the Ring server and notifies the owner via a smartphone app, who can then view the video and listen to the audio. This is not an inexpensive device--it's USD$200.I installed the device two weeks ago and it seems to work fine for a few days at a time. Then it stops reporting motion events. Once this happens, it's necessary to delete the device using the phone app and re-add it, including re-entering all of the WiFi info (network, passphrase). This process takes about five minutes to complete and it requires physical access to the device.I've called Ring tech support twice about this problem and both times they've told me that whenever the device looses its connection to WiFi it's necessary to delete the device and re-add it using the app. This sounds like complete bullshit to me. I have several other WiFi capable devices (phone, Kindle, iPad) and none of these devices require me to reset the WiFi network info if my WiFi router resets or if I go outside the range of the network.When I mentioned the possibility of getting a firmware update that fixes this problem, both techs told me this behavior is by design and not a bug! Does this sound reasonable to anyone? Who would design a device that behaves like this and why?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 06:06:27 pm
content: Maybe they kept a note about you on their computers, which is why the two techs agreed about the problem ?I'm usually suspicious of new stuff, and try to use good reviews and stuff to make sure it is going to be a good and reliable product.Many of the user reviews I have found seem to imply it is essentially NOT fit for purpose. At least in the UK, with damp weather and people wanting it to ring reliably and in a timely manner. NOT take 20 seconds etc.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ring-Wi-Fi-Enabled-Video-Doorbell/dp/B00N2ZDXW2#customerReviewsQuote

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 06:08:09 pm
content: This is complete BS. Wifi by itself is unstable beast, especially in crowded area. So this is just stupid excuse. As a workaround you could try setting different wifi channel on your router.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 06:22:58 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 07, 2016, 06:08:09 pmI'm not in a crowded area. I live in a rural area with few neighbors. Running a WiFi analyzer at my house only shows my two WiFi networks (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz).

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 06:24:34 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 07, 2016, 06:22:58 pmIt does NOT sound reasonable to me. Faulty firmware/hardware and/or bad design software/hardware, with poor customer support thrown in, by the sound of it.If it was me I'd return it, as it does not sound very usable like this, and they don't seem to be fixing it.

author: nali
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 06:47:00 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 07, 2016, 06:22:58 pmMaybe it's changing IP address by DHCP when it reconnects. Does your router have the option of assigning permanent leases, or can you use a static IP?

author: dfmischler
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 07:26:29 pm
content: The law of averages tells us that half of all new products are below average. Throw it back for a refund if you can.I can't think of any reason something like this needs to connect via WiFi. It is bolted to your house, right? Seems like a natural fit for PoE to me.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 07:37:36 pm
content: Sorry for the OT, but why would anyone actually want this? excuse me for being paranoid, but being recorded on video when i'm ringing the doorbell without me knowing... AND the video gets uploaded to some company's server (and of course that's only because you on the other side can see it? of course it is)For me it's a NOPE.At least here you should have to put out a sign warning that that area is under video surveillance, i think, because you are putting cameras on a public site

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 07:55:41 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 07, 2016, 05:19:49 pmNo!No one in their right mind would design a product which is intended to be permenantly connected to a network, that fails every time a network issue is encountered. Of all the Wi-Fi devices I own, every single one of them will re-attempt to connect to the network several times (if not indefinately whenever it "sees" the network). Even my OBD-II dongle in my car does it.As someone has already mentioned you may be able to lean on your country's consumer law to obtain a refund. In Australia such a fault would be considered a "major failure" as had you have known about it before buying the product, you probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place -- Under that circumstance here, you'd be entitled to a full refund and the manufacturer or store you bought it from is liable for any return shipping costs.To me, it sounds like ring.com have no intention of providing long-term support to their customers or developing any software updates.Side-note: What happens if ring.com goes bust or is bought out? Does that mean your doorbell no longer works? Also, it seems that anyone with physical access to your yard can reset the configuration and pair it to their own device/account if they wanted to. I get that video doorbells can be useful, but I'd be going with a hardwired job on its own VLAN with no access to the internet.I've mentioned this in another post somewhere, but this is one example where "Smart Homes" and "The Internet of Things" is taking things too far and actually becoming more cumbersome or a hindrance. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 09:21:00 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on June 07, 2016, 07:37:36 pmI bought it because I wanted to see who comes up to the property during the day when I'm not at home. It's a rural area with few neighbors, so no one else can keep an eye on the place for me.Yes, I do have a sign stating that I use video surveillance that's about two feet from the Ring.com doorbell. (I put the sign up when I installed general video surveillance after some dickhead stole some of my solar panels. The existing video cameras don't cover the area near the gate, however, which is why I put in the Ring.com device. It also serves as a bell that people can ring when they reach the gate so that I can open it for them.) My house is located on a private road, so anyone coming to the house is either an invited guest, or a trespasser, so perhaps any rules pertaining to warning signs might not apply in my case.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 09:33:08 pm
content: i totally see the point and if i wasn't clear, i have nothing against private surveillancebut i have a couple of reservations when the data gets uploaded to a company's server (so they can provide it to you and totally don't do anything else with it)

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 09:46:58 pm
content: One day people will stop using wi-fi for devices that can just as easily be hard wired.it will be known in history books as the "THE GOLDEN AGE OF GETTING A ****ING CLUE"as it happens I've got something similar, "Xiaomi Smart Home" bought for £31press a bell and it's supposed to talk to your iPhone.it's got the range of a duvet fart and the worst installation process since chocolate floppies were patented.

author: VulcanBB18
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 09:53:35 pm
content: Quote from: nali on June 07, 2016, 06:47:00 pmWhile I agree they are wriggling to try and get out of supporting you, do have a quick look at this, if you're keen to keep it - may be a ok workaround.I'll stick with the cheapie webcam + free webcam security software (Webcam XP 5) - not quite as slick, but has 90% of those featurescheers,

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 10:36:32 pm
content: Quote from: nali on June 07, 2016, 06:47:00 pmMy router can do all of that, but I don't think the Ring device supports anything other than DHCP. At least there's nothing I've seen, but perhaps there's a hidden configuration option that allows this.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 10:42:32 pm
content: Quote from: VulcanBB18 on June 07, 2016, 09:53:35 pmI don't think using DHCP for local address assignment is causing any issues here. The vast majority of routers made in the last 15 years handle DHCP very well. Unless the lease timeout is set to something crazy like 5 minutes (most routers default to a few *days*), the device will be assigned the same address it had before it reset.Thinking about it some, it sounds like the Ring unit isn't renewing its UPnP or NAT-PMP listing properly.I was under the impression that these Ring units actually did live streaming when someone rings the doorbell; that is, the audio/video isn't actually uploaded to the company's servers. Instead, when someone rings the doorbell, the unit would make a request to the server with its unique ID; the server then sends a push notification to your phone. When you open the app, it contacts Ring's server, which sends back your home IP address and port. The app then connects directly to the Ring device which live streams video and/or audio. (However, I could see a single snapshot being uploaded to the company's servers, which is then included in the initial push notification or something.)Anyway, in order for the app to be able to connect to the Ring device on your local network, it has to be able to open ports to the outside world, which is what EwePnP and Nat Pimp do. (Think of it as DHCP for ports.) So, if the device isn't refreshing the port lease, it could cause this issue.The other issue could be related to your public IP address. Unless you've got an expensive commercial DSL or cable account, your public IP would be assigned dynamically. Depending on your ISP, this could change every day, or never. (If you use DSL or satellite, it's likely to be changing every couple of days.)In this scenario, when you add the Ring device to the Ring app, they're registering your public IP address with their server. When your DSL modem resets and you get a new public IP, their server would have the old address and thus no longer be able to connect.Now, you'd think they would have thought about this and would have some mechanism in the device itself to update the server if this happens, but I wouldn't put it past them...

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 11:20:02 pm
content: Quote from: timb on June 07, 2016, 10:42:32 pmThat's interesting. In AU many ISP's will give you a static IP by default. I knowTPG Internetinclude static IPs on all their plans. Others will charge a small fee (Internode for example charge an extra $10 per month for a static IPv4 address, subdomain address and increased shaping speed).

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2016, 11:22:18 pm
content: Quote from: timb on June 07, 2016, 10:42:32 pmI don't think that's how it works. It does do "live" streaming, but it's entirely via the company's cloud server. That's another thing with the Ring device: you need around 5 Mbps upload to your Internet provider and a WiFi signal strength of greater than around -50 dBm to stream. If your Internet uplink or WiFi connection isn't up to it, you get pixelated video that starts and stops and stuttering audio, or nothing at all (black screen). Even when it does work, it's often 10-15 seconds before the streaming starts, and by then the person who rang the bell or set off the motion detector is gone.QuoteI'll look into this.QuoteMy Internet addresses are static IP addresses.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 12:02:19 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 07, 2016, 11:22:18 pmSo, you're saying it goes like this:Ring Device --> WiFi --> Internet --> Ring Server --> Internet --> LTE/WiFi --> PhoneWow... I honestly can't even imagine anyone doing it that way... Can you imagine how much bandwidth they'd need to have for that? Plus, you're adding hundreds of milliseconds of latency to the streaming! It would make much, much more sense to stream straight from the device:Ring Device --> WiFi --> Internet --> LTE/WiFi --> PhoneThere is absolutely no reason this can't be done. All they have to do is keep track of your home IP and make sure the correct ports are open. This is stuff that we solved 10-15 years ago (think Skype or FaceTime, which use server assisted, peer to peer audio/video transmission protocols).Then there's the use cases where you're actually at home, on the same WiFi:Ring Device --> WiFi --> PhoneAlso, it needs 5Mbps upload to work reliably? In 2016?! That's insane! I mean, I can do a crystal clear FaceTime call with only 1Mbps upload... Haven't they ever heard of adaptive h.264?Sorry, I'm ranting now... It sounds like a really shitty system. You could do much better with a Raspberry Pi + Camera and the Boxcar app on your phone for notifications. Just set the Pi up to stream h.264 video via http and use some motion detection software (plus a physical button hooked to a GPIO) to send you a notification via Boxcar.I set up that very system about a year ago at my parents place. They live in a very rural area and wanted to get notifications when UPS left a package or something. They've got two of those large plastic chests (like you keep garden tools and stuff in) at the house end of the driveway, next to the mailbox. One for incoming packages and one for outgoing. So I put the Pi and camera in a large weatherproof enclosure and mounted it on a pole between the two chests.When it detects motion, it waits 1 second, takes a snapshot and sends a popup notification to their phones via Boxcar. They get the alert within 5 seconds normally. They can then monitor the video in real time from their web browser (using DynDNS.com and NAT-PMP). If someone pushes the intercom button, the Pi actually makes a real *phone call* to their phones (through a very inexpensive VoIP provider).This setup isn't far from a motorized gate, so I originally tapped power from that (and used WiFi). However, a few months back they had to run a new power wire to it, so I had him run CAT5 as well. Now the setup is hard wired and uses PoE.Anyway, if you want any help setting a Pi up like that, let me know. It took me a weekend to get working (from scratch) and cost less than $100!

author: C
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 12:14:18 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 07, 2016, 11:22:18 pmWith a static IP address, Sounds like making something simple into a big problem.In a lot of cases Upnp is not needed.STUNhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN"STUN (Session Traversal Utilities for NAT) is a standardized set of methods and a network protocol to allow an end host to discover its public IP address if it is located behind a NAT. It is used to permit NAT traversal for applications of real-time voice, video, messaging, and other interactive IP communications."Traversal Using Relays around NAThttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relays_around_NAT

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 01:18:09 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 07, 2016, 07:55:41 pmAbsolutely agree.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 01:44:53 pm
content: Quote from: C on June 08, 2016, 12:14:18 amIt doesn't matter if your public IP is static or dynamic; you still have to use UPnP or NAT-PMP for outside devices to traverse the local NAT layer (short of manually forwarding the ports). STUN is basically a way for devices on a local NAT'd network to find their public IP; whether that IP is assigned dynamically or statically is wholly irrelevant. (However, most devices or applications will query a server--usually via an http request--which responds back with the public IP. That's a fast, simple and usually foolproof way to do it.)That said, a lot of ISPs have become somewhat devious, in that the "public" address assigned to your router/modem is actually a private address inside your ISP's own NAT layer. The end result is a double NAT situation, which can cause no end of trouble. (They do this because they have more customers than IPs available to them. We've long since run out of IPv4 space and the transition to IPv6 is slow, to put it mildly.)

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 02:00:07 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 07, 2016, 05:19:49 pmYes that would be normal behavior for poor firmware (possibly on both sides of the link) that does not follow IEEE standards.Printers are also very capable of this behavior. Sometimes it is fixed by not using the hybrid wpa/wpa2 mode but instead use the wpa2-aes moderequiredfor IEEE 802.11n to work.Carrier grade NAT is often used on cellular data. Unless you pay for an industrial uplink for PLC's.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 04:01:56 pm
content: I finally spoke to a tech support supervisor and got a different take on the issue I've been having (device stops sending motion event notifications). According to him the device does attempt to reconnect to the network if the network has issues. According to him, the real problem is that the device, when idle, progressively goes into deeper and deeper sleep modes in an attempt to conserve battery power. So now, if something comes within range of the camera when it's in one of these deep sleep states, and goes out of range again before the device wakes up to check for motion, it will not see the motion and not send an alert.There's an option in the smartphone app to specify "Light", "Standard", or "Frequent" motion sensitivity. The default is Standard, and this will cause the device to miss motion events after a certain period of no motion. Setting it to Frequent will cause it to wake up and check for motion more often, but even this mode will eventually reach a point where it starts to miss motion events. I set it to Frequent yesterday afternoon, and it did detect several events, but this morning when my wife and I drove past it in quick succession it detected nothing. Looks like I have to spend more time on the phone with this tech support supervisor. At least he has a clue, unlike his first level people.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 04:13:55 pm
content: A doorbell that requires a 5Mbit/s WiFi link in order to upload personal data to a server and inform you 20 seconds later that someone's at the door?No. That does not sound reasonable to me!

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 06:49:54 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 08, 2016, 04:01:56 pmWhich seems to be in very close agreement to the reviews, which say that it DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY!They (many of the reviewers) have messed about with it, and come to the conclusion that it is a junk, non-working item, and have (hopefully) got their money back, and bought something that works.tl;dr"NO it is NOT reasonable!"EDIT:But I'm SORRY if I'm being TOO harsh.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 07:51:13 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 08, 2016, 04:01:56 pmSo in other words, "Utterly useless", "Piss-poor" and "Least useless" modes?The idea is novel, but I really think this mob have really failed with this product. By the sounds of it, it needs some serious re-work including a re-write of the firmware. It's almost as if they under estimated battery usage and threw in a band aid fix in order to compensate for their error.Their website claims 6-12 months of "regular" usage (whatever that means) out of a 5200mAh battery. I find that hard to believe. In my opinion, a device such as this should be hardwired and powered off DC or POE or at the very least just have the option of using DC source as a backup to the battery so you can at least charge the damn thing off a solar panel or something. I'd rather have the battery life measured in weeks if it meant the device actually did what it's supposed to do.

author: C
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 08:15:41 pm
content: Sal AmmoniacFirst question should be, "how much do you trust Ring"?By adding this device to your network, the only thing stopping what this device can do is the Ring software on the device or your firewall.Do you have a firewall between the Ring device and the rest of your private network?The Ring Device can talk to any IP address and port unless your network prevents it. NAT does not prevent making a new connection out to public Internet.The app on your phone acts the same out to any IP address and port.Note that you have no control what is being said by the Ring Server, Ring Device or Ring App.Initial contactQuoteThe Ring Server now has an open connection from both and knows the Public IP Address & Port each is using.Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)just became possible.QuoteAs for why Ring might what to do it this way.QuoteThe bandwidth needed from the Ring Device to Ring Server stays the same for any number of phones while the bandwidth needed from Ring Server to phones increases.Should also note that there is no problems with NAT. The Phone to Ring Server pipe needs to be open for fast response. The Ring Device could open the connection to the Ring Server when door bell button or motion happens.Note that only the Port to the Ring Server needs to be open for this.In an effort to reduce the bandwidth needs and delays the Ring Server causes by this relay, the server could try to useSTUN. The Ring Server just needs to pass the Public IP Address & Port of one connection to the other connection. There are two possible paths forSTUN, Phone -> Ring Device & Ring Device -> Phone.STUNuses the existing ports that are open. The ports used can change each time the pipe is opened.There is many ways that NAT software can function. Some allowSTUNwhich is just a change of the incoming Source IP Address in a packet.Think of the basics of NAT.For an out going packet, the source address (Ring Device address & port) are replaced by the NAT router's Public Address & Port. The NAT needs to remember the Ring Device Address, Port & the Public router port so that returning packets get directed properly.For an in coming packet, The destination address (router's Public Address & Port) are replaced by the remembered Ring Device Address & Port.Router port forwarding & UPnP or NAT-PMP are just presetting setting the remembered Ring Device Address & Port. Using ether while having access to Ring Server makes a possible security hole.Great software on the Ring device is critical to prevent local network harm.So Sal, how big a list do you need to put this in the"NO it is NOT reasonable!" category?1. Only good as long as Ring exists.2. Only as secure as Ring makes it.3. Bandwidth needs hints that processor is too slow to compress video.4. Choice of Battery life or motion sense.5. All other problems listed in this thread.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 08:17:49 pm
content: Seriously, a $200 doorbell that requires internet connection to function is justI understand the OPs need for video surveillance, but they would have been much better served by a simple offline video camera.Having the video streamed in real time on the phone is not very useful, IMO - unless you enjoy watching the burglars in action, because you won't be able to stop them in time anyway. A simple home alarm system breach notification to a phone so that you can call the cops (or a neighbor to check on your house) would be enough.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 08:35:56 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on June 07, 2016, 07:37:36 pmRegister the product or get it shipped, so the server guy knows at witch address the owner with the app-smartphone is home (same external ip or wifi) or away (different external ip or 3G)

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2016, 11:25:12 pm
content: Quote from: C on June 08, 2016, 08:15:41 pmGood question. I don't completely trust them, but then again I don't completely distrust them either.Yes, I have a Cisco firewall (Cisco--not Linksys) between this thing and the rest of my network. UPnP or NAT-PMP are not enabled.QuoteThat about summarizes it. Seems to me that this product was rushed to market to take advantage of the IoT and Cloud craze with half-baked FW and hardware. 3 & 4 are the biggest issues. This thing has no way to adapt to the network bandwidth available to it. It's always in 720p mode and who needs that to display on a tiny phone screen? It should scale the video down to accommodate slower links. They seem to be making blanket assumptions regarding battery life. I'd rather have to charge the thing every week than miss notifications.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:16:01 am
content: Quote from: janoc on June 08, 2016, 08:17:49 pmIt doesn't just stream video to your phone. It also acts as an intercom of sorts. So, someone rings the doorbell, you see who it is with live video and can actually talk to them (the Ring unit has a speaker in it). The TV commercials they show here in the US presents this as some sort of security feature. I guess burglars like to ring people's doorbells to see if they're home before they break in? The idea being, the Ring unit will make it seem like you're home, even if you're not. Seems dubious to me, but there you go.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 11:17:33 pm
content: Quote from: timb on June 09, 2016, 01:16:01 amWell, that's a fairly silly feature, especially when marketed as a security one. But I digress, I could imagine situations where being able to talk to a postman or DHL delivery guy when I am not at home would have saved me time. That can be fairly simply solved by embedding a GSM module and programming it to actually call your phone number when someone rings. No stupid "cloud" necessary. But they wouldn't get to sell you a subscription service or to mine your phone's data in such case.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2016, 12:22:04 am
content: Quote from: janoc on June 10, 2016, 11:17:33 pmI agree. I think the most useful feature would be for talking to a delivery person (or the pest control guy, or whatever). If you look a few posts up, I talk about setting up a system that does exactly that, using off the shelf hardware and software. The only difference is I didn't use a GSM module, instead I used an open source VoIP package and a very inexpensive VoIP provider (it still places an actual call though, so the concept is the same).The only downside to going with VoIP over GSM is that if the Internet was down, the call wouldn't go through. I don't think that's been much of an issue with the system I set up, because their internet is pretty reliable. If that wasn't the case, or if the unit had to be down a long driveway (far outside of WiFi range) or something, I'd stick an LTE USB modem in with the Pi. That way you get data and voice access. You can add them to an existing plan for ~$10/mo usually.This actually reminds me of the first system like that I setup, many years ago: Growing up, I lived just outside of town on a large property. When I was about 15, my parents fenced it up and put an electric gate at the entrance of the driveway. Long story short, we had some issues with deliveries when our regular drivers (who knew the gate code) were off. (FedEx once left a $2000+ server I was having shipped back from a data center in the middle of the driveway, in the rain!)Anyway, I guess I was around 16 when I came up with the solution: I took a full duplex wireless intercom system and modified one of them to fit in a small waterproof enclosure and mounted it at the gate. The other was modified by removing the speaker and mic and adding a couple of op-amps to give it a line level input and output, which was hooked to an old PC's sound card in the garage. I also designed a simple digital transmitter/receiver which was placed at the gate and hooked to a push button (which transmitted a digital pulse to the receiver hooked to the PC) and a relay connected to the electric gate circuitry (which received a pulse from a transmitter hooked to the PC).So, when someone pressed the "call" button at the gate, a pin on the parallel port of the PC was pulled down, which kicked off some custom software I wrote. It generated a "waiting beep" over the sound card (which came out the intercom speaker at the gate) while it started dialing through a call list on the voice modem (which was hooked to the fax line). It first dialed the home number and if nobody answered after 4 rings it would try my mom's cell, then my dad's and finally mine. When somebody answered, the audio was patched through the sound card, which went over the intercom to the gate. If it was someone who needed access, you could hit the pound sign on the phone's keypad and my software would recognized the DTMF code. This would transmit a pulse which activated a relay and opened the gate.It seems crude by today's standards, I know, but this was around 2000 or so and the system worked wonderfully with nary a problem. In fact, it was in service like that all the way until 2012 when they moved. I think I may have replaced the modem once in 2006, after a lightning strike.