Use of WiFi hotspots and extenders

[DenisMaster]

I see implications the cameras must speak directly to the hub, not going via the existing wifi. Could someone tell me if this is correct? If so, why on Earth would this be? I have set up a number of hotspots around the house, running from an Ethernet backbone. I sincerely doubt this system can reach around the house by itself since nothing else can. A single router doesn't do it and Sky Q won't work this way, for example. Why would Arlo deviate from the standard method by which networking works? Furthermore, IF the Arlo can work by me placing it prominently in the hallway, I simply do not want to. I want the hub in a cupboard, out of site, connected to ethernet. I hope I'm wrong and would appreciate advice. Thanks for your attention!

[TomMac · Accepted solution]

Yes, the Arlo. Pro. Pro2 ,Ultra talk ONLY to the base units... The Q and Baby hook directly into your home wifi.

If you have multi nodes arounfd the home, you can use multi bases to cover all ( the only true way to expand coverage is with multi bases, there is no limit on the number of bases on any plan as cameras are the rule to service levels )

[LandToSea]

---

@TomMac wrote:

Yes, the Arlo. Pro. Pro2 ,Ultra talk ONLY to the base units... The Q and Baby hook directly into your home wifi.

If you have multi nodes arounfd the home, you can use multi bases to cover all ( the only true way to expand coverage is with multi bases, there is no limit on the number of bases on any plan as cameras are the rule to service levels )

---

If using multi bases does that add another layer of navigation to get to a specific camera in the app? Or, is the presentation of the cameras the same as uysing a single base?

[jguerdat]

The view in the Devices tab remains the same. 

[DenisMaster]

Thanks for the clarification. I wonder why they did this? It seems so idiotic to create a bespoke variation of the way networking normally works. I have a problem getting wifi around my home, and I fixed it, but Arlo want to bring it right back!

SkyQ tried this, it didn't work and I had to jump through hoops to get it to use ethernet (I had to turn off WiFi in several different places in the menus). I can only imagine they're trying to get dedicated bandwidth? But if everything tries to do this, don't you just wind up with congestion airwaves, including competing with your neighbours? In any case, WiFi is ample for this stuff. 

Anyhow, I went with extra Netatmo Presence's as these work with WiFi the way nature intended. 

Thanks again.

[MarkBourne]

I wish there was something on the box that indicated the Ultra does not use you network - hub only! I wouldn't have bought the ruddy thing.

I have a large house and have spent $1000's on Ubiquity managed switches, cloud keys and mesh networks, to the extent I can get wifi coverage in the middle of a 85-acre opposite with near full strength.

Arlo Ultra with its dependence on a direct wifi link to their hub means I have **bleep** Arlo coverage around my house when hub is plugged into my switch.

Arlo is all about making users spend out more money! To utilise my cameras I have to now spend money on buying more hubs and plug them into my external mesh pros around the house.

Another **bleep** is they only give you one external mount and 2 internal mounts. To buy additional external mounts is $40 and the screw and lock mechanism is bloody poor and not worth $40 here in AU so I'm making my own.

Should have gone with the Ubiquity 4K cameras.

So yes! Get them hooked then $'s, $'s, $'s

Never again Netgear.

[jguerdat]

There's a huge amount of info available everywhere, including here, that tells you Arlo doesn't use your home WiFi. A few minutes (seconds, maybe) would have told you this as would every review in the world. Why you wouldn't do the research isn't our, nor Arlo's, fault.

Everything you've complained about has been well-documented everywhere.

[LandToSea]

---

@jguerdat wrote:

There's a huge amount of info available everywhere, including here, that tells you Arlo doesn't use your home WiFi. A few minutes (seconds, maybe) would have told you this as would every review in the world. Why you wouldn't do the research isn't our, nor Arlo's, fault.

Everything you've complained about has been well-documented everywhere.

---

While you are correct that the info is everywhere it doesn't minimize the need to express the disappointment in Arlo's poor decision to rely on hubs. Doing so completely negates their biggest strength, being wireless, to a significant degree. Everyone should complain so they get it through their thick skulls that they need to start paying more attention here and less to whoever internally is making these bad decisions.

[DenisMaster]

I consider myself lucky to have stumbled across the information on it's WiFi implementation. It may be 'everywhere', but it's not in the specs or anywhere I should be able to rely on. 

It's yet another example of the extensive research one must do, you can take nothing for granted. 

My TV, for example, has 4 HDMI inputs. It does 4K and HDR. But, come to use it, you find not all inputs support 4K. And only 1 supports both HDR and 4K. You must always read between the lines. 4 inputs and 4K does not mean 4K on 4 inputs. You have to dig really deep for that. I now resort to reading manuals for things like TV's to understand the limitations and where the headline specs can be misleading. 

I think on the Arlo someone suggested 4K and free storage for a week does not mean free 4K storage for a week. 

These are standard ommisions or obfuscations, but they should not exist. Make your design decisions, stand by them and put them up front. 

The non standard implementaion of WiFi is ridiculous. A little knowledge of networking leaves you being more misled by this than someone who knows nothing.