My internet modem can only handle 20 separate connections at a time. Since I have 8 cameras and 8 bulbs I’m hitting issues as I’m maxing out my connections when my other devises are included.
Would like a Wyze gateway to connect all my devises then only use one connection to my modem.
Perhaps there is a workaround I could use?
Richie,
As someone else suggested, I’d connect your Wyze gear to a second Router (with NAT enabled so that everything connected to it appears to be a single device to your modem).
Just added a second modem and solved my congestion problems. Thanks for the tip.
“second modem”?? what kind of service are you running?
Forget it Jake. It’s Internet town.
Almost one year later and still no decent hub that addresses the issues raised here. Just got my Home Monitoring system and cameras still operate only by getting their own IP…sure, the Wyze app acts as if they are fully integrated into the HM base unit, but that is not so. But it was the right (and perfect) time to make such an integration…to not have done so yells volumes at me that Wyze will NOT be integrating cameras into a hub…likely ever.
Richie, can you provide a bit more detail on the type of router (name and model of one I can research or a link to a product would be asking too much (unless you don’t mind:)
I think what you are suggesting might be exactly what I need, but I haven’t done so good keeping up with new(est) technology…I am not aware of any router like you mention…not that I’m doubting it exists, it just doesn’t in my knowledge is all. So if you can perhaps add some more detail about this router you mention, I’m sure many of us would be most grateful.
Product request:
Urgency: Extreme
Local Control Bridge
I want a WYZE hub that can sit on my local network and act as a bridge to connect all my Wyze devices with a local network API.
You would update the firmware on your devices to look for a local control bridge first and if it doesn’t find one then try to hook into your cloud server. That way it reduces your server costs and also gives people the option of some way for the device to work in the unfortunate event of your company evaporating, or choosing to turn off the server side support of a particular product.
I’d want it to have the ability to locally control all Wyze products, so I’d expect it to come standard with wifi and ethernet, with the option to give it other radios like the way the first generation Wyze sense added rf to the Wyze cam to enable those. Me personally I would want it to have Bluetooth functionality so that my Wyze Scale and Wyze Floor lamps can be connected without relying on my phone or the physical remote.
This would allow developers to write FOSS alternatives to things like Cam+, So having the cost of this bridge to be rather high is totally reasonable and expected. I would think the cost of the bridge the hardware, plus the cost of a year of your cam+ fee is a fair price.
As an alternative for this, give a cloud API! and charge a low monthly fee. I love Wyze products, but If your company evaporates because server costs outpace profits I don’t want all my devices to be paper weights. Please!
The MASSIVE community around Home Assistant would celebrate this, and you’d generate an entirely new customer base of people who refuse to purchase cloud dependent devices.
Agreed i’d pay easy $50 for a wyze hub to make everything local, i’d continue to pay for cam plus too, just give us the wyze hub to make things local!
I would like this as well
Hello, first off I want to say that I love your company and it’s changing the game. What I would love to propose is something your ecosystem is missing and it will encompass a lot of your wish list items. I will start the same way you guys did and that is with the camera’s.
Everyone is asking for RTSP, LOCAL control, LOCAL recording (centralized) and a web UI. So I am proposing your own NVR or centralized hub. Your devices take up a lot of plugs and IPs, so you create a hub that would connect to our network and all the cameras can connect directly to the hub. Add support for an SSD drive or large capacity SD to record all the cameras locally. You can provide your user’s with a web UI for view and controlling devices LOCALLY. You can still have cloud connection for your premium features like Cam Plus, but for the regular features there is no reason we should have to connect to your servers just to control or view a device. This would also ease the strain on your cloud infrastructure. Another wish list item I see is POE you could add POE capabilities to provide power to your cameras with a little adapter.
You didn’t stop with cameras and neither will I. You ecosystem is badly missing a hub, you have all these awesome devices, but the only way they can communicate is via your cloud infrastructure or the app and this is a bit clunky. Add the abilities to connect all your devices to the NVR and now you have something special. Being able to control all your devices LOCALLY for one location would be great for all parties involved. Your lock, the old sense and your newer monitoring service all have an extra gateway, why not combine all of that hardware into one smart hub. Adding additional radio’s such as zigbee, z-wave and Bluetooth will give you a solid base to grow your platform.
Another ask is to integrate with other smart home hubs such as Hubitat and Home Assistant. Hubitat has this app that allows you to connect to another hubs LOCALLY and bring all those devices into it under one roof which in the smart home world is key. Adding an API to allow for that would be great so other hubs could connect and it would put the burden on those manufactors or comminity to sort out.
You get the jest, I will leave this on one final thought. Through out this proposal I emphasized LOCAL control and that is a fundamental principle of a smart home. When you are trying to automate events in your house seconds are everything. When motion is detected the signal shouldn’t have to leave the house, go to a server in the cloud then send it back to house to turn on a light. By the time all of that happens you have already turned on the light manually. As smart home consumers we have all been burned from not just by the fly by night companies, but Big Companies such as Lowes and Samsung, where you buy their products and it’s solely cloud base then the company goes under or it’s not in their best interest to continue and they stop their service and the devices seize to work. Samsung really burned me good with their Smartthing ADT hub. I paid $600 for the hub and an additional $800 or so on all of their sensors and devices to work with it. Just one year later they broke that partnership, but everything still worked. Then a year after that they ended support for it and they seized to work. Now I have all this equipment that is worthless. This is from 2 of the biggest brands in their fields, so when everyone is harping local control it’s not only about their privacy or personal data (which is legitimate), it’s about not getting burned again. I want to buy more of your products like your thermostat and smart lock, but if they don’t work with the rest of my smart home there’s no point.
This proposal will still allow you to keep everything the way it is and allow the average user to easily add new devices as needed, but also add that extra functionality for your more advanced users. Thank you.
Amen,
I am not able to add my Outdoor Cam, Door Bell, Wyze Lock, Scale and V2 cam.
A hub to manage all my devices will help.
I hub would be nice with an ethernet port and it’s own wifi for all the devices to connect to. Every time my router goes out, my devices are offline while it is rebooting.
I keep purchasing Wyze devices and each one takes up an IP address when I already have 20+ devices at any given time. I really like the hardwired hub option to link the wireless devices to. Ability of some devices to create it’s own mesh network would assist even more. My Orbit irrigation product has a hub and I only have to give it one IP, log in and see all attached devices. Thanks.
I understand people hate having to buy hubs, but for advanced users that have a lot of devices, it is the only way to go.
Hi @steven.lawson and welcome to the Community forum. 
A class C subnet /24 (mask 255.255.255.0) has 254 usable addresses so you shouldn’t run out anytime soon. A seperate mesh network may cause interference with other WiFi products running on 2.4Ghz. Not sure what the problem is. . .
I was going to say “you can just use an old $20 NAT router if you want to segment” but there’s also the idea of Steven’s Orbit hub that provides a single IP control point, not just a router to the other network.
(If he means the B-Hyve stuff then those are just on/off Bell wire valve connections and not IP at all, but the spirit of the point, I think, is having fewer devices on the network.)
Off of my main irrigation control to the zones, yes it’s bell wire. But I also have 6 ‘hose zones’ and they are all Bluetooth/mesh between each other. Hub is in my living room and they talk through each other all the way around the house. Pretty trick actually. 
I just ordered my 4 zone controller and a first hose end receiver earlier this week. Prices and availability were all over the map.
I may have got the wrong hose end? It seems to require the separate WiFi receiver. I had assumed the 4 port base controller - which DOES have Bluetooth - would be willing to talk to the hose end and treat it as one of its zones, but apparently it does not work that way.
I think the mesh version you mentioned is a different series and/or may be discontinued.