Arlo
Support

DanielTan · ‎2024-11-21

Hi there,

I am about to jump into buying a security camera system and have narrowed down my options to the Ultra 2 or a different make - however, the Arlo Ultra 2 seems to be coming out on top.

There is currently a 3 camera bundle which includes 3x Ultra 2 cameras plus a Smart Hub/Base Station. As the Bundles seem cheaper am I OK to buy 3 or 4 of these Bundle packages and have all the cameras connecting to the one Smart Hub/Base Station ?
I assume this is possible unless there is a maximum number of cameras per Smart Hub limitation. Or the cameras can only connect to the Smart Hub supplied in each Bundle.

Thanks in advance.

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-22

will this old message help?

DanielTan · ‎2024-11-22

Thanks for the link.

Looks like from previous discussions I can find limitations of 15 cameras per station. With a limit of 5 live streams only.

That's a poo 😞

But it doesn't answer one of my questions which is:
If a SmartHub came with the camera bundle can I hook it up to another SmartHub ? (My assumption is yes, but I know if I get it wrong then it will be an expensive mistake LOL !)

My intention is to have 2 or 3 outdoor cameras, and possibly 9 or 10 indoor cameras. Most likely all will be Ultra 2

Cheers

Dan

StephenB · ‎2024-11-22

@DanielTan wrote:

If a SmartHub came with the camera bundle can I hook it up to another SmartHub ? (My assumption is yes, but I know if I get it wrong then it will be an expensive mistake LOL !)

Yes. You can get multiple smarthubs, and you can connect each Ultra to any of them. Generally it's best not to co-locate the smarthubs, but to put them in multiple locations - so you can shorten the distance between cameras and the bases they use.

The smarthubs do not form a mesh, you do need to explicitly pair each camera to the closest smarthub.

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-22

@StephenB wrote:
The smarthubs do not form a mesh, you do need to explicitly pair each camera to the closest smarthub.

Sometimes I don't really understand this. There are just so few and unnecessary functions with the Smarthub:

"Bridge" between individual cameras and the ARLO cloud --- but then why don't we just get every camera WIFI-connect to the home network and talk to ARLO cloud directly? Smarthubs don't even do mesh, but on a home mesh network, traffic can be diverted where necessary.
Local storage --- this has become a joke if not cheating from ARLO. The selling point of smarthub is local storage without subscription, but then such recording is limited only to those triggered by camera. ARLO even disables scheduled or live recording

What else does this smarthub do? It's not cheap afterall.

Alex

StephenB · ‎2024-11-22

@alex_loo wrote:

@StephenB wrote:

The smarthubs do not form a mesh, you do need to explicitly pair each camera to the closest smarthub.

"why don't we just get every camera WIFI-connect to the home network and talk to ARLO cloud directly?

Ultras don't support direct connection to home wifi - all the other currently sold cameras do. It's pretty clear that all future Arlo cameras will support direct connection to wifi.

@alex_loo wrote:

@StephenB wrote:

The smarthubs do not form a mesh, you do need to explicitly pair each camera to the closest smarthub.

Local storage --- this has become a joke if not cheating from ARLO. The selling point of smarthub is local storage without subscription, but then such recording is limited only to those triggered by camera. ARLO even disables scheduled or live recording

Not cheating, but IMO not well thought out. Clearly their business model depends on driving subscription revenue, but they are losing camera sales and IMO damaging the brand with the current restrictions. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the need for port forwarding/VPN and allow manual recording.

I'd also add the ability for the smarthubs to provide local storage for directly connected cameras - that would allow folks to use their mesh, but still get local storage.

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-22

Again I can't figure out why ultras can talk wifi with the hub but not to home wifi. The idea of hubs sounds like an initially bold design that got abandoned gradually, after ultras. A design so nice that it won't attract running revenue for ARLO?

Curious about the history and evolution of the hub (assuming it's not there on day 1)

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-22

I agree on removing the need for VPN for local storage, but I doubt if ARLO wants to do that and bear the running data cost between local storage and cloud, and cloud and mobile app --- that will then be necessary.

Especially when those customers are NOT paying subscription fee.

jguerdat · ‎2024-11-22

There's no hard and fast limit to how many devices can be connected to a hub. I happen to have 13 devices (a mixture of doorbells and various cameras) with no issues. It's not the model of the camera that matters. The idea of ~15 devices per hub/base comes from years ago with the idea that the (then base station) hardware would ultimately be the limiting factor. The hubs certainly have newer hardware but there's no technical description of what the hardware is and how it has changed over time.

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-22

Lack of manual recording is the biggest cheating part with this product called hub, which boasts its local storage capability.

I don't even see any burden to arlo cloud, when manual recording can be done locally. (Well, unless the design is that any capture from camera must go to cloud first)

So the lack of manual recording for non-subscribers is likely:

Just another way to encourage subscription, or
a way for ARLO to avoid paying cloud traffic cost, due to stupid design for local storage

StephenB · ‎2024-11-22

@alex_loo wrote:

I agree on removing the need for VPN for local storage, but I doubt if ARLO wants to do that and bear the running data cost between local storage and cloud, and cloud and mobile app --- that will then be necessary.

Especially when those customers are NOT paying subscription fee.

Another aspect is that neither VPN nor port forwarding is possible with most US broadband internet service providers (and some landline ISPs).

Providing NAT traversal for local storage would increase their bandwidth charges some. But they do support livestreaming the cameras when you receive a motion notification. The amount of livestreaming would drop if they provided NAT traversal for the storage - so would partly offset the increased bandwidth costs.

But the main thing is that the current restrictions are hurting both their brand and their camera sales. So I think easing the restrictions is worth the cost.

@alex_loo wrote:

Curious about the history and evolution of the hub (assuming it's not there on day 1)

Arlo began as Avaak - later acquired by Netgear and then spun off as Arlo.

Their very first camera system was called "VueZone" and goes back to 2011. It used a proprietary wireless solution that was optimized for both range and power use - so it needed a hub. I don't have any information on how the wireless protocol related to 802.11 wifi. In any event, VueZone had its own cloud, which Arlo discontinued in 2019.

The original WireFree Arlo was launched in 2015 (after the Netgear acquisition), and kept the Hub architecture. One reason for that was that they adjusted standard wifi to reduce the frequency of communication between the cameras and the hub (so basically power optimization). Another aspect is that it put the network security completely in Arlo's hands.

It's pretty clear that Netgear wanted to fully integrate the Arlo hub functionality into their mainstream routers, and they did launch one mobile router that had the hub functionality integrated. But that was not completed at the time Arlo was divested (and might have been abandoned anyway).

jguerdat · ‎2024-11-22

@StephenB wrote:

It's pretty clear that Netgear wanted to fully integrate the Arlo hub functionality into their mainstream routers, and they did launch one mobile router that had the hub functionality integrated. But that was not completed at the time Arlo was divested (and might have been abandoned anyway).

FWIW, as an early adopter of Arlo as well as being a beta tester for Netgear routers, I was supplied with an R7000 router that was the first router to attempt to integrate Arlo into its firmware. Like the later mobile router, that quickly went south since the Arlo updates were/are much more frequent than the router-specific updates. I suppose if they had somehow split the firmware into separate packages it could have worked but that was never done (at least from my observation) and maybe simply wasn't possible.

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-23

@StephenB , that's a good piece of history! Thanks.

@StephenB wrote:
@alex_loo wrote:
I agree on removing the need for VPN for local storage, but I doubt if ARLO wants to do that and bear the running data cost between local storage and cloud, and cloud and mobile app --- that will then be necessary.

Especially when those customers are NOT paying subscription fee.
Another aspect is that neither VPN nor port forwarding is possible with most US broadband internet service providers (and some landline ISPs).

Interesting. How do these US non-subscribers watch their local storage, when away from home network?

Providing NAT traversal for local storage would increase their bandwidth charges some. But they do support livestreaming the cameras when you receive a motion notification. The amount of livestreaming would drop if they provided NAT traversal for the storage - so would partly offset the increased bandwidth costs.

Too techie for me to understand 😅

Is "providing NAT traversal for local storage" the same mechanism delivering livestreaming from cameras to app, on mobile network?

Arlo began as Avaak - later acquired by Netgear and then spun off as Arlo.

Their very first camera system was called "VueZone" and goes back to 2011. It used a proprietary wireless solution that was optimized for both range and power use - so it needed a hub.

It's pretty clear that Netgear wanted to fully integrate the Arlo hub functionality into their mainstream routers, and they did launch one mobile router that had the hub functionality integrated. But that was not completed at the time Arlo was divested (and might have been abandoned anyway).

So there WAS a reason for the hub, from day 1 .... but then that reason (proprietory wireless) is now on hold, if not abandoned by Netgear/ARLO.

And given Netgear has now spun off ARLO, the router integration thing will unlikely be pushed further.

Given:

there is no point pushing for that proprietory wirelss standard, AND
there is business preference for ARLO to go for a design favoring subscription ("subscription will give you nice storage! no need for local storage")

... there is simply no future for these SmartHubs today (including my VMB5000 here 😣)

Alex

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-23

@jguerdat wrote:
@StephenB wrote:
It's pretty clear that Netgear wanted to fully integrate the Arlo hub functionality into their mainstream routers, and they did launch one mobile router that had the hub functionality integrated. But that was not completed at the time Arlo was divested (and might have been abandoned anyway).
FWIW, as an early adopter of Arlo as well as being a beta tester for Netgear routers, I was supplied with an R7000 router that was the first router to attempt to integrate Arlo into its firmware. Like the later mobile router, that quickly went south since the Arlo updates were/are much more frequent than the router-specific updates. I suppose if they had somehow split the firmware into separate packages it could have worked but that was never done (at least from my observation) and maybe simply wasn't possible.

Personally, I don't see a router with built-in ARLO (whatever capability) a good idea, at least at this stage. The ARLO part is unlikely mature, making the router "unstable". More importantly, I doubt if ARLO cameras can be significantly cheaper with such an approach, making the total package less appealing to general customers.

Alex

StephenB · ‎2024-11-23

We are really off-topic from the original request. Hopefully @DanielTan has gotten the information he needs.

@alex_loo wrote:

@StephenB wrote:
Another aspect is that neither VPN nor port forwarding is possible with most US broadband internet service providers (and some landline ISPs).

Interesting. How do these US non-subscribers watch their local storage, when away from home network?

They can't (unless they switch to a different ISP).

@alex_loo wrote:

Too techie for me to understand 😅

Is "providing NAT traversal for local storage" the same mechanism delivering livestreaming from cameras to app, on mobile network?

Yes.

Circling back to the "techie" part:

Your router has a single WAN IP address that is shared by all the devices connected to your router. All internet traffic comes into the router using that WAN address. The router has to map each traffic flow to the correct client device. In other words, each packet it receives needs to be forwarded to the correct client. That mechanism is called Network Address Translation (NAT). This is essentially a hack that the original designers of the internet did not foresee - they assumed that every device would have a unique public internet address.

Some ISPs are using the same mechanism, because they cannot get enough public IPv4 addresses for their customers (since we've used up the ~4 billion unique IPv4 addresses some years ago). The ISP version of NAT is called "Carrier Grade" NAT (CGNAT).

The mapping works automatically when a client on your network opens the connection to the internet server. But if the server opens the connection, you need to set up port forwarding in the router. Note that the connection is two-way - what matters here is what device makes the connection. Outbound connections from your home devices can be automatically mapped, inbound connections from the internet server cannot be.

A VPN doesn't need port forwarding because the VPN client on your phone directly connects to the router - but that fails when the ISP is using CGNAT - because the ISP has no idea what customer's router is the destination of the inbound connection request.

The way to avoid mapping is to use a traversal server that forwards traffic between cameras (and base) and the app. The cameras and the base are always connected to the Arlo Cloud (and the home devices make those connections on their own, so they are outbound connections). The app also connects outbound to the Arlo Cloud. Once the connections are in place, the cloud forwards livestreaming and other traffic.

Since the mechanism is already in place for livestreaming, Arlo could easily use it for local storage. The only reason not to do that is cost (since Arlo does have to pay for the bandwidth flowing into and out of their cloud servers).

@alex_loo wrote:
... there is simply no future for these SmartHubs today (including my VMB5000 here 😣)

Well, many subscribers also want local storage. If you protect the smarthub with a UPS, you will still get recordings when your internet connection is down (and of course if the Arlo cloud goes down).

So I think there still is a place for the smarthub in the architecture. But I also think that the cameras need to be able to connect to the smarthub over your home wifi network, and not use wifi created by the smarthub.

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-23

@StephenB wrote:
We are really off-topic from the original request. Hopefully @DanielTan has gotten the information he needs.

sorry @DanielTan 😂 ... hope you are sorted with your question.

Alex

alex_loo · ‎2024-11-23

@StephenB wrote:
@alex_loo wrote:
@StephenB wrote:
Another aspect is that neither VPN nor port forwarding is possible with most US broadband internet service providers (and some landline ISPs).
Interesting. How do these US non-subscribers watch their local storage, when away from home network?
They can't (unless they switch to a different ISP).

This sounds ridiculous. Does that mean SmartHubs are simply NOT sold in US? and then ARLO systems always marketed as a subscription service?

@StephenB wrote:
@alex_loo wrote:
Too techie for me to understand 😅

Is "providing NAT traversal for local storage" the same mechanism delivering livestreaming from cameras to app, on mobile network?

Yes.

Since the mechanism is already in place for livestreaming, Arlo could easily use it for local storage. The only reason not to do that is cost (since Arlo does have to pay for the bandwidth flowing into and out of their cloud servers).

Exactly what I thought!

@StephenB wrote:
@alex_loo wrote:
... there is simply no future for these SmartHubs today (including my VMB5000 here 😣)
Well, many subscribers also want local storage. If you protect the smarthub with a UPS, you will still get recordings when your internet connection is down (and of course if the Arlo cloud goes down).

curious if local recording could be done, if internet or ARLO cloud is down? I am guessing local recordings still have to go from camera to cloud, before returning to smarthub and get saved. Since the behaviour of cameras should be the same, with or without subscription.

@StephenB wrote:
So I think there still is a place for the smarthub in the architecture. But I also think that the cameras need to be able to connect to the smarthub over your home wifi network, and not use wifi created by the smarthub.

I doubt there is such place for the hub.

Unless .... if there is this place, the design should change in such a way:

cameras speak to hub, which acts as gateway to ARLO cloud
cameras send livestream/capture to hub, which *decides* where it should go, depending on subscription status
- subscribers: hub forward to cloud for AI/ storage/ ....
- non-subscribers:
  - hub keeps capture as local storage
  - hub takes the livestream server role, via home/ VPN network
hub connects as device home router, like what cameras do

Alex

StephenB · ‎2024-11-25

@alex_loo wrote:

@StephenB wrote:
@alex_loo wrote:
@StephenB wrote:
Another aspect is that neither VPN nor port forwarding is possible with most US broadband internet service providers (and some landline ISPs).

Interesting. How do these US non-subscribers watch their local storage, when away from home network?

They can't (unless they switch to a different ISP).

This sounds ridiculous. Does that mean SmartHubs are simply NOT sold in US? and then ARLO systems always marketed as a subscription service?

Of course smarthubs are available in the US.

As I explained above, remote access to local recordings requires the ability to establish a connection from the app to your home router over the internet. That connection either establishes a VPN or it is forwarded to your smarthub.

If your ISP doesn't allow that inbound connection to be made, then you simply can't access your home network remotely. You lose access to local storage, along with access to printers, home file servers, etc that might also be on your home network. And that is the situation with ISPs that use CGNAT or similar methods. This is not just a US issue. Telstra (and likely other Australian carriers) also use CGNAT.

https://www.purevpn.com/blog/telstra-broadband-cgnat-solutions/

The underlying cause is that there are only about 4 billion internet routable IPv4 addresses. And there are over 7 billion devices using mobile data and of course billions of other devices connected to the internet. So routable addresses have to be shared - which is what NAT and CGNAT do.

@alex_loo wrote:

curious if local recording could be done, if internet or ARLO cloud is down? I am guessing local recordings still have to go from camera to cloud, before returning to smarthub and get saved. Since the behaviour of cameras should be the same, with or without subscription.

It works when either the internet or the Arlo Cloud is down. The hub does have to be powered, so you'd want a UPS for it.

The camera streams to the smarthub, and recorded. Simultaneously the smarthub attempts forwards it to the Arlo Cloud.

Local recording existed before the smarthubs came out - both the VMB4000 and the VMB4500 hubs support recording, but do not support any playback. The use cases for that feature were

to ensure you'd get recordings when the internet was down
to preserve recordings that were deleted from the cloud

Which is why Arlo doesn't allow deletion of local recordings from the app.

@alex_loo wrote:

Unless .... if there is this place, the design should change in such a way:

cameras speak to hub, which acts as gateway to ARLO cloud

cameras send livestream/capture to hub, which *decides* where it should go, depending on subscription status

subscribers: hub forward to cloud for AI/ storage/ ....

non-subscribers:

hub keeps capture as local storage

hub takes the livestream server role, via home/ VPN network

hub connects as device home router, like what cameras do

You are bascially describing the way the smarthub already works. Except that your two "non-subscriber" features apply to both subscribers and non-subscribers

Not certain whether livestreaming when a VPN connection exists traverses the Arlo Cloud or not. My guess is that it does, but I haven't done any experiments to test that.

Arlo Support

Arlo App for Support

Arlo
Support

Arlo App
for Support