So why not a non internet access app?


Tanking this a bit further… taking free OTA programing and forcing you to pay (even if indirectly) to watch your shows, on your own hardware?!


With some hesitation, I do agree with you.

Often someone makes a suggestion, and gets a reply: what other devices do that? Like we have marketing research background.

Or reply… how do you want them to go about doing that? Hey, we’re just users telling you what would make it easier for us, not developers. Don’t they pay people to know that?

A popular response, you should use the same (proprietary) device I use, it works like that.

Of course, it’s not all terrible, but they do like to beat you down if you agree.


AMEN! brother


ok, I have local DNS, long list of static leases and set my local domain to .lan To redirect .com would take a bit more than simple local DNS configuration. But yes I can connect to my tablo, but directly, get nothing productive.


I thought there was a reason companies have been leaving localized HTTP servers and moving to cloud app development environments such as CDN.

And even when other superior non-HTML apps are available some hang on.


djk44883, Having the Roku and Tablo on a separate network switch keeps the Tablo->Roku traffic off my ISP router for performance reasons. No need to burden my ISP router with non-internet streaming overhead. As a result, I never have any buffering or pixelation on any of my devices. Folks suffering from those issues would do well to consider a separate switch. That’s what I was trying to convey.


None of that has anything to do with giving the user direct access from his own web browser to his own consumer device via a web server.

If there’s custom code that Tablo wants the user to have, put it on the DVR. Don’t demand that the end user go to Tablo’s cloud just to get the current code.

Put it on the DVR. Put an expiration date on it, if you like. But don’t tie accessing the web service to a live internet connection.


I’d bet data-mining has a lot to do with it. A multi-bahalizilian dollar industry drives standards.


Many people consider ISP supplied routers to be inferior and purchase their own router whose specifications match their expectations.

This user supplied router is placed as a router behind router configuration where the ISP WiFI is turned of and all ethernet and WiFi connections go through the user router.

Switches are often used to aggregate devices where there are more devices then ports. If you have a lot of devices it can become problematic to organize all devices that access each other on the same switch. But I do like the simplicity and plug-n-play of my switches.


or just like/want the control you get from your own router. Slightly limiting what “they” see inside your network.


Ok, I look over your diagram closer and reviewed your comments. I don’t discount any of your viewpoints directly.
Are you using a switch to offload traffic from your ISP’s router, and to separate your tablo, with a 100Mbs port, from your internet traffic… really? Your diagram shows 8 devices - and your ISP’s router struggles?? am I missing something


The switch built into consumer grade routers and the cheap all-in-ones that ISP’s provide is notoriously weak. In some cases it’s a software switch instead of hardware. Since a good gigabit switch is only about $20 there’s really no reason to use the router switch ports for anything that needs any real bandwidth.


Alright then, thanks for the insight @FlyingDiver. I paid a bit more for an 8 port switch :frowning_face: (it’s more for extending than isolating) Ok, I get that an ISP just want to rent out what costs them the least.
My router has a 1Ghz dual core processor, yes, with software switched ports. It’s unlikely I overload it, or give it much of a workout myself.


I certainly hope they add the ability to connect locally without live internet to the computer via the Chrome browser. Now we just have to wait for them to do so.

But everyone has different wants they say should have been done yesterday. I rather they spend the time to add Tablo Connect (aka remote viewing) to the Roku app which has never had remote capabilities since day 0.


YES, I have 3 tvs and 3 Rokus, and I would really like to have the ability to use the same equipment for remote viewing. Excellent idea - will put it in the next survey.



A couple of weeks ago, I decided to try Waze. I installed and opened it, and immediately–per Android rules–it asked for permission to access my contacts. Um, no. You don’t need my contacts. Waze said, OK–and that was that. It closed.

I poked around; asking for permission to mine the contacts on my phone is something Google added to Waze within the last year. And I am far from the only person who thinks that’s insane.

It’s all about the data mining. You know what? I bought a Garmin navigator to put on my dash. It works great, it’s right in my line of sight, and has lifetime updates. And it responds very well to voice commands. You know what it doesn’t do? Sit on my phone and mine all the data it wants.

All y’all can sit back and declare that what Tablo is doing here is “good”. It isn’t, but you’ll continue thinking otherwise. I get it.


That’s actually a little insane. Access to contacts. Waze does not have access of my contacts on my iPhone nor did it ever ask for access to it. I just checked the privacy settings under the iOS Settings to confirm.


Off topic but just an FYI, you can most definitely use Waze without giving it permission to access your contacts. I use it daily with no issues and only granted location and microphone access.


Same here. Use Waze all the time and it does NOT have access to my contacts. There are times that it would save some time, but I never give contact permission.


Thanks for the link, I’ll check that out.