quote:

I don't mind the need for the "base station," just the need for it being a dedicated AP.

So what is your concern?

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

I don't mind the need for the "base station," just the need for it being a dedicated AP.

So what is your concern?

I thought I explained that?

What's wrong with having a dedicated AP?

Ok see your quote:
"There's no way for me to do that with the Arlo Pro/Pro 2 base station. So I can't use it, even were I willing to deal with the additional RF congestion and its proximity to the normal AP possibly degrading my wireless network's performance. Which I am not."



Not really a big deal in the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
What's wrong with having a dedicated AP?

Ok see your quote:
"There's no way for me to do that with the Arlo Pro/Pro 2 base station. So I can't use it, even were I willing to deal with the additional RF congestion and its proximity to the normal AP possibly degrading my wireless network's performance. Which I am not."



Not really a big deal in the real world.

Perhaps not, but in my world, in this house: It is.

The Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC Pro is mounted as close to exactly dead-center of the house as it could possibly be. To do that I had to have a PoE device, as there's no power in the attic crawl space.

There's also no power in the closets nearby, and no reasonable way to get it there. That thing is a shelf/table-top device. There's simply no place to locate it where it would need to be.

We've more than once had members here, with bigger homes, complaining of similar issues. Now, in an already-crowded 2.4GHz space, they'd have to double-up on APs to support the Arlo wireless cameras. That's a poor design, IMO.

You may disagree, but the fact remains: I cannot use it.

quote:

You may disagree, but the fact remains: I cannot use it.

I actually agree with you on many points.
However, it's not you can't use it ~ it's you don't want to.
I don't blame you but as a engineer I know it's possible if you want to.
FWIW, I wouldn't use it either but perhaps for different reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

You may disagree, but the fact remains: I cannot use it.

I actually agree with you on many points.
However, it's not you can't use it ~ it's you don't want to.
I don't blame you but as a engineer I know it's possible if you want to.

Ok, well, yes: If you want to get all nit-picky

I could run power into the attic crawl space, put an outlet in the ceiling, and devise some way to hang the thing off the ceiling.

My wife would freak, but, "Hey, woman! Aren't you supposed to be in the kitchen makin' me a sammich? And fetch me a beer while yer in there!"

Then I'd be divorced and wouldn't have the house any more. Problem solved!

In answer to the next question: No, oddly enough, the top shelves of the nearby closets wouldn't work. There is something running down the header that runs the length of the hallway that literally kills WiFi signals dead. I've never seen the like in all the years I've done IT. No exaggeration. If I move an AP just a couple feet, to the other side of that header, signal goes to crap in the family room just twenty feet away. And forget the outside of the house, the patio and so-on, just the other side of the family room.

This house... I used to hold an Advanced Class ham license. Antennas, transmission lines and propagation theory was one of my specialities. One thing made this house attractive is it's 963 ft. above MSL, and the highest spot around w/in eyesight. Fairly high water table and a lot of clay. Terrific ground plane. Should be what Hams call a "super QTH." May be a good thing I dropped Ham Radio before I ever tried to do it from here, if TV reception is any guide. I should receive every flippin' TV station around for just about forever, clear as a bell, from here, with little more than a paper clip. Nope. In fact I've a "red" antenna on a roof mount that struggles with "yellow" stations.

I've been doing radio of all kinds for nigh on fifty years and WiFi for about as long as Wifi has been around. Never seen anything like this in my life.

This place is an RF sink. NSA, the CIA, or somebody spooky like that should buy it from us. I think it's probably electronic eves-dropping-proof.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
FWIW, I wouldn't use it either but perhaps for different reasons.

If you don't mind my asking: Why?

Security cameras don't prevent or stop home invasions - they simply provide evidence for the investigating officers afterwards.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

We have the Ring doorbell, and it has constant connectivity problems, to the point that Ring replaced the initial unit, and we've installed a wifi access point inside the home right by the front door and it's not improved the issue.

Internet and wifi network speed is more than adequate per Ring testing during the multiple calls to solve the problems of delayed connectivity, delayed upload of video.

By the time we get the live activity feed video to come up, even when standing in the room with the wifi routers the activity is over. Only waiting a minute for the video to load to Ring will you see what happened prior to it sending you notice.

Similar problem here. My WiFi thingy is less than 20 feet from the door. Straight line of sight, nothing intervening. House is frame construction, not concrete block. WiFi speed as measured by Ring's procedure is way more than their stated requirements.

About 40% of the "events" (an event being motion detected or somebody ringing the doorbell) result in a "video" that is forty seconds of black screen.

Hours and hours of back and forth with Ring support, no help, no resolution to the problem.

Ring suggested assigning a high priority to the doorbell via the router's QoS feature. We were using an Apple router that does not offer this feature, so I bought a new router that does support this feature -- from a member here, actually -- and assigned the highest priority to the doorbell. Nothing has improved, nothing has changed, other than the NetGear router that we bought is not as slick as the Apple, in terms of things other than QoS. Nothing really wrong with the NetGear router, but it did not improve the Ring situation.

Based on the poor performance of the device and the utter useless tech NO-support from Ring, I definitely would not recommend their system.

I agree on the Arlo pro 2.It's got continuous recording and two way communication, which I feel like an added peace of mind. You get to scare outsiders away, just by speaking to them through your smartphone. I read here a review about these things. We only have the arlo pro, but so far, so good. The only downside I noticed is the battery. It tends to get drained quick.

quote:

Originally posted by JakiHere:
I agree on the Arlo pro 2.It's got continuous recording and two way communication, which I feel like an added peace of mind. You get to scare outsiders away, just by speaking to them through your smartphone. I read here a review about these things. We only have the arlo pro, but so far, so good. The only downside I noticed is the battery. It tends to get drained quick.

FYI, no WiFi is two way communication.

And for the others with Ring/WiFi issues just note that is why Camera Security installers do not recommend them unless it is the method of last resort.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Security cameras don't prevent or stop home invasions - they simply provide evidence for the investigating officers afterwards.

Especially the case that OP posted. The guy was working out in his garage with the door wide open, and, I suspect he was most likely not paying attention to anything around him, except his workout. No amount of sophisticated security cameras was going to stop anything, here.

Just FYI since this thread came back up. The *new* SimpliSafe system is a VAST improvement over the older setup. I think they rolled it out this year. Cameras are good and seem stable. Outdoor cameras and a doorbell cam are due out later this year. I sold all my Nest equipment on eBay for $650. The cameras were horrible as noted earlier for me.

Before cameras, my suggestion would be to install or implement TIME. Anything you can add to provide you a warning or a hint someone is trying to break in gives you time ... time to call 911 and prepare.

I suggest the following. Lock the doors and windows. Ensure the garage door is closed. Can you make them even more secure when they are locked? (You'd be surprised how many people don't implement this basic protection.)

Exterior motion lights.

No big bushes around doors or windows to provide "cover" for criminals to work.

Wired alarm system or at least wireless ... and USE it. Again, you'd be surprised ... I find a lot of folks only turn it on when they are not home and leave it off when they are at home or overnight while sleeping.

Dog?

All of the above buys TIME. Time to call 911 for help and time to get to a more secure part of the home with your family. Time to get armed up if necessary.

Then cameras as they can help identify folks after the fact.

I'm no expert, but figure this is a good way to go.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by JakiHere:
I agree on the Arlo pro 2.It's got continuous recording and two way communication, which I feel like an added peace of mind. You get to scare outsiders away, just by speaking to them through your smartphone. ...

FYI, no WiFi is two way communication.
...

"Two-way communications" ≠ "full duplex"

We have a very large German Shepherd on 24/7 no battery, no Wi-Fi needed and most likely I'll have a blood sample instead of video.