A video baby monitor that's WiFi friendly?
June 3, 2005 10:57 AM   Subscribe

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good video baby monitor?.

I'm a soon-to-be father of twins tasked with finding a baby monitor. Browsing through different baby store web sites, it looks like there's now video baby monitors available along with the old audio-only units.

We have a 802.11b WiFi network in our house, and I notice that some of those video monitors use the 2.4Ghz frequency to transmit a/v, and I'm worried that it'll kill my WiFi connection.

Does anyone have experience with these video monitors? Do the ones that use the 900Mhz frequency work just as well? For you parents out there, is having video capability overkill or is it a handy feature to have?
posted by jaimev to Technology (3 answers total)
I think that the video monitors are a bit of overkill myself (I have a 2 year and a 5 month old). We've been quite happy with the simple audio monitor (although the cheapo model we have is starting to grate on my nerves).

I've seen examples on BabyCenter.com where parents with the video units become a bit to freakish in their surveillance of the kids. It's way to easy to become obsessive about it and start becoming over protective.
posted by smcniven at 11:41 AM on June 3, 2005

I will tell you that this model and those from the same manufacturer don't wreak as much havoc with my mixed 802.11b/g network in my home as you'd expect. It took some experimentation with channels on both the video transmitter and my home network to get an ideal. HOWEVER: The video still isn't crystal clear; it has occassional pops/crackles that render it useless as an AUDIO monitor, but affect the video just a little bit.

Speaking as a brand-new parent (my son is coming up on seven weeks, good Lord, time flies!), this camera (with infrared) is absolutely required if you intend for your baby to sleep in another room at night. That way, when he squeaks/grunts/burbles/twitches/etc, you can look at the cam and know that he's not actually awake and ready to be held/cuddled/nursed/fed/changed/etc. It's saved both of us quite a few trips to the nursery.

That being said, now that we're "in the groove", we've discovered something that I think is even more important to consider: We just don't need the camera any more. We now know his sounds, and the camera/monitor just gets pushed to the site in favor of a more portable audio-only monitor for when we want to be out in the yard, or at a neighbor's.

Summary: Above monitor is useful, video is handy while you're getting your "parent's legs", but once you do (it won't take long, trust me), you'll find that it's overkill.

This coming from a guy whose entire house is automated, with all sorts of gadgets in every room, with text-to-speech and voice recognition available at every intercom panel. SuperGeek, I assure you, and I still think that video is overkill once you're used to your baby's noises/schedule.

Wow, that was long-winded, but I wanted to be authoritative. :)
posted by Merdryn at 11:44 AM on June 3, 2005

To add to this, I'd like the same thing (including near-IR), except going to a webcam so I can check up on the baby from the office, which is two flights of steps down. Split-level house, not a mansion. That, and I don't want to go to a dedicated monitor or TV.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 4:05 PM on June 3, 2005

« Older Alcohol related marriage problems--advice?   |   Lost Laptop Data Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.