Why companies don't just continue to manufacture screen-only TV's baffles me. I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".

Ultimately, few people understand that this is a problem or that they should want a dumb TV. The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs.

The FBI issuing a warning about this is helpful. It may help create a market for dumb TVs that cost more than smart TVs.

so is the fbi just reporting on the cia now? I mean, Project Weeping Angel is pretty well-known by now, right?

ref: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_12353643.html

>The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs.

Yeah, this is like how a laptop can be sold cheaper with Windows OS than with Linux: the Windows version is preloaded with a ton of crapware that the mfgr gets paid to preload, so even with the enormous (as a fraction of BOM) price of the Windows license, the laptop comes out cheaper.

Make a deal to bundle Roku sticks with the TV to reduce the cost maybe?

I understand, but recall seeing literally zero "dumb" TV options at Best Buy at the size I was looking for.

Because who is going to buy a more expensive dumb TV? I just buy the smart TV and don't connect it to wifi.

That works if your TV allows that. I'm pretty sure I've read that some models simply won't work if they don't have internet access.

I opened a more modern cheap smart TV. Inside were three boards: Power supply & backlight inverter, LCD/LVDS(?) interface board, CPU & video IO board. I'm not sure if the screen interface was actual LVDS but it sure looked like it.

So a smart TV is nothing more than an LCD with Arm SoC. Of course that SoC it's completely locked down and there are no specs outside of NDA's.

It got me thinking, how hard would it be to go to a big manufacturer that makes these smart TV's for chains like best buy and contract them to make the same set without the proprietary garbage hardware board? Instead a board built around an open SoC and software ecosystem is installed so the ethernet and USB ports do what they're supposed to do. That or pick a very common TV model, figure out the LCD interface and build a retrofit board. All of this is easier said than done.

Then imagine how fun it would be to hack your TV to do whatever because it's a regular computer? Of course the big issue that stands in the way is the HDMI and DRM burdens.

(cue someone replying with: just don't connect the smart TV to the internet and hook up a raspberry pi.)

>I opened a more modern cheap smart TV. Inside were three boards: Power supply & backlight inverter,

How "modern" was this TV? Don't they all use LED backlights now? Backlight inverters should be obsolete now.

It was about 3 years old at the time. And I believe it was an LED backlight so I should have said regulator or perhaps driver instead of inverter but close enough.

If you're a manufacturer are you going to go after the 95-99% of the market that wants a set that's cheaper due to the bundled spyware or the 1-5% that are willing to pay a premium not to include it? Granted, I'm guessing as to the percentages... but I doubt I'm that far off.

They exist, they're called "commercial displays", and they're quite expensive.

What explains the large price premium of commercial displays?

Is it just that they're low-volume SKUs? Or are the somewhat more ruggedized than consumer models?

Partly construction, partly that the target market simply is willing to pay more, and partly that the cost of consumer sets are subsidized by some of the third-part analytics software that comes preinstalled in order to collect and sell information on what people are watching.

I imagine part of it would be that the displays are assumed to be run almost nonstop.

The fact that the cost isn't subsidized by the tracking and advertising provided by the smart tv

(I have no evidence for this but I've seen this comment posted many times before)

Here's the evidence for it, by the way. Straight from an interview with the CTO of Vizio: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18172397/airplay-2-homekit...

It goes into how running content recognizition software against whatever's on the TV display lets them collect and aggregate data to sell, which helps them sell the TV for very low prices without having to worry about being profitable on the initial sale thanks to data and other monetization streams. Sony, Samsung, and the other major TV players all run very similar Automatic Content Recognition systems.

Bingo! Those Roku / FireTV / Netflix / Amazon/ Etc logos on the boxes don't pay for themselves.

Although what's insulting is when the super premium tvs that STILL include all the same tracking junk. A 3k dollar+ tv shouldn't need any subsidizing at all, yet here we are.

Because they're designed for 24 hour, 7 days a week use. Components like power supplies will be far higher quality.

Many of them have integrated signage software too like MagicInfo and have video wall capabilities etc.

Commercial displays are the first class airplane tickets of the display/TV market.

Are there any drawbacks to using one for home use?

Dramatically more expensive.

When I looked a larger high end 4K consumer TV was cheaper than a smaller 1080P commercial display.

I bought a cheap 42" 4k dumb tv made by an off brand which is no longer available anywhere, one of the only ones that I could find without network connectivity, but it's by no means a great TV in other respects. I think if I used it heavily it'd have burnt out a capacitor by now or something. Reviews indicate they are not too reliable.

My dad just bought a cheap "Sceptre" brand TV that's 4k and as dumb as can be

screen-only TVs are undesirable because content providers like Netflix gate their content to locked-down devices that present a lower risk of piracy.

Unless you run Netflix in MS Edge (or the netflix windows store app, which wraps MS Edge) and use a Skylake or newer CPU with a secure enclave / AMD PSP, Netflix won't stream you their highest-quality content.

Or they will happily deliver it to whatever Android device or smart TV that you like.

(also, PC support for HDR content is... "lacking", shall we say)

Because TVs are commodity hardware that makes exactly $0 the second after it's sold. We now live in a business hellscape where "recurring revenue" is everything. Since TVs still last for 5 years or more, they might as well start selling off your viewing data to make the quarterly numbers look better.

They can make more money off smart tvs by selling advertising profile info from things like the TV shows watched. Thats why.

And that makes TVs cheaper a little bit than lobotomized not monetised alternatives. Users don't see the hidden cost when looking at two TVs with same specs but slightly different prices.

I suspect that the advertising industry is offering the TV manufacturers incentives to add tracking "smarts". The dream of tracking TV ad views and even personalized TV ads is worth billions.

Cut the Wifi antennas and shield connection points in the module.

TVs are only as cheap as they are because the cost is subsidized by the data they collect. A dumb TV would be more expensive to buy, and most people would balk at that.

> I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".

Apple TV?

Not a TV. And what makes Apple privacy oriented? Because their marketing department says they are? Unless a company's business model is actually privacy, I won't believe for a second they value privacy. Even then I would still be skeptical. Companies can always increase profit by secretly getting rid of privacy.

> And what makes Apple privacy oriented?

The fact that they're not an advertising company? That their business model doesn't depend on monetizing your personal data? That being privacy-oriented is a distinguishing factor compared with their competition?

Apple doesn't make TV's the previous post was referring to dumb TV's

Besides the nefarious reasons they might not want to make dumb TVs, there are some decent reasons.

Most TVs include speakers. Even the non-smart ones. By adding networking and apps, that TV can be used stand-alone.

For people starting out with their first home theater setup, they can get started with just the TV. With a dumb TV, they'd need the TV, and a receiver/speakers setup or a soundbar, and something to provide content like a Blu-ray player or cable box or Roku.

By making the TV smart, the TV maker has a better chance of having people start out with a higher end stand-alone TV and then adding other components later. I presume that the TV maker would rather have the consumer spend all of their initial budget on the TV, instead of splitting it between TV, receiver, and Blu-ray player.

For people with existing home theater setups, a similar thing goes on with upgrades. For example, I have a Denon AVR-1913 receiver, a Comcast X1 DVR, and a Sony Blu-ray player, and a Samsung TV.

It was a smart TV but I never used it as anything other than a dumb monitor. I used apps, not but on the TV. The Blu-ray player had a full set of streaming apps, and so does the X1. The Denon receiver has an internet radio app, and also supports Spotify Connect, and supports Airplay. So there was never any need to use an app on the TV. (Also, when I tried it once out of curiosity I could not get ARC to work to send sound back to the Denon receiver).

But then the TV died. I ended up getting another Samsung, but this new one is 4K UHD.

None of my other components are 4K. I didn't want to upgrade the rest to 4K at that time, so for things I wanted to watch in 4K I used apps on the TV [1].

With dumb TVs, I probably would not have bought a 4K TV. I would have waited until my other components were 4K, and that could have taken quite a while. I tend to keep receivers until they die.

In summary, with smart TVs, the TV can meet the needs of a wider class of consumer. As long as they don't make it so you have to give the TV network access or use its smart features, it can meet the needs of almost every class of consumer. That's attractive to the manufacturers.

[1] ...which meant that I did need to figure out ARC. As with the old Samsung, it just did not seem to want to work. Then I noticed something in the Denon manual:

> When the ARC function is used, connect a device with a "Standard HDMI cable with Ethernet" or "High Speed HDMI cable with Ethernet" for HDMI.

I made sure to use such a cable...and it worked, which makes no sense. It would make sense if we were talking eARC, but with plain ARC--which is all my 6 or 7 years old Denon supports--it should work with any regular old HDMI cable.

Back in the old days dumb TVs had speakers so you could just connect a box directly with HDMI.

How about you don’t connect your TV to the internet? Here’s a consumer reports article that tells you how to turn off most tracking if you must connect it to the internet.[1]

Get a decent set of network hardware so you can monitor everything that’s going on. I can recommended UniFi by Ubiquiti, despite the recent blow back about crash reports being sent to them.

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...

> How about you don’t connect your TV to the internet?

Then we'll see the manufacturers include SIM cards, at least in countries where it's affordable.

Twilio is making this pretty easy. I just ordered three SIM cards from them that I can provision, to see how it works. Their aim is for these SIMs to be utilized in IoT devices.

https://www.twilio.com/wireless

That's the future of all internet connected appliances. We're already seeing it with cars, at some point it will be affordable enough to include in TVs, fridges, ovens, anything that might want to phone home.

Hope you're not connecting it to any internet-connected device (PC, console, etc) either because most HDMI cables nowadays have pins to carry an ethernet signal as well.

My Sony TV and Apple TV do not support it. According to stack exchange nobody really supports it, although I can’t attest to the commenters credibility.[1]

A quick google search doesn’t show any Sony TV with this capability.

Can you give me an example of any consumer TV that supports Ethernet over HDMI?

[1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/325215/appletv-eth...

That means the PC, console, etc would have to voluntarily act as a network gateway for the TV. I've never heard of a device configured that way by default. Even if I wanted to do that, I don't know how I'd begin to enable it on anything other than a Linux box.

I had been wondering if the comcast boxes would be providing this as a side door. (hdmi from tv going to cable box, cable box has net access )

When I asked about data sharing with these dvr boxes and the new streaming stick option, only thing they could tell me is that 'virtually all video decoding and streaming devices are sharing data with multiple third parties'

I returned the dvr box, and have not chosen to use their new streaming stick.

You're not suggesting some grand conspiracy of smart TV and computer/console manufacturers, I hope? As far as I know, PC GPUs don't support this anyway.

You could also sabotage the wifi chip or antenna if you wanted to make 100% sure the tv doesn't connect. Good luck trying to connect to wifi without an antenna connected.

I'm probably missing something here but why not just disconnect the TV from the ethernet/wifi? Are these things connecting themselves to the network?

In theory, that's not enough to keep them offline, if coded deviously enough.

If your neighbor, for example, has a syndicated WIFI like Fios or Xfinity, your TV can try those. Also, it has 24/7 free time to sit there and break passwords, if needed. Even a slow CPU would score some eventually. And finally, the room is probably full of other devices which themselves may have connections; a TV can communicate ultrasonically with those to exfiltrate your data.

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/113502/how-to-p...

https://www.aircrack-ng.org

https://www.securityweek.com/stealthy-data-exfiltration-poss...

I don’t see a TV doing 24/7 password cracking. Most WiFi passwords are now relatively complex out of the box and a TV would never have a realistic chance of cracking one. And while collecting data is maybe immoral, hacking passwords is as illegal as it gets.

It would be orders of magnitude cheaper and safer to build in 4G connectivity and use it to upload the relatively small payloads.

Wouldn't even really need 4G, 3G or even lower would work if you're just sending text analytics of shows watched. Even the more nefarious spying efforts could go out through text if they bundled a speech to text converter on board.

4G was more of a catch all for mobile connectivity. But actually some networks are turning off their 2G and 4G might have a better chance of working for years to come, since a TV is not really replaced that often.

The TV wouldn't need to crack a password if it's an XFinity wifi router next door, for example. Those are typically open to all Comcast customers by default, if I remember correctly.

How is your TV going to get onto a wifi connection that needs an Xfinity customer login(yes there are open to all customers as in they can use the wifi connection but not without supplying a login)?

By striking a deal with Xfinity?

> build in 4G

I wonder how many already have.

Are we going to need a spectrum analyzer to watch this junk?

In the 5G era, probably. TVs will come with 5G connectivity built in and always on. At initial power-up, you'll have to log in with your "television provider". Like the way CBS online works now.

We need laws to prevent this kind of shit. However, we have some laws already. If the TV is cracking passwords, who goes to jail? Oh, wait, I forgot laws like the CFAA and other shit like that are only enforced when regular people break them, not when companies break them to make money.

Many of them throw continuous error messages and warnings about connectivity, and some features just plain don't work without it.

I believe you. That's part of the value proposition: the company would know the impact of their changes to various TV models, and you could factor that into your buying decision.

I'd imagine a big part of this is because people like watching Netflix or Prime Video via the nifty apps built right into their TVs. To many owners, disabling those would be like disabling the cellular and WiFi radios on a smartphone.

A big selling point (for better or worse) is not requiring you to buy more boxes or hook up wires. Just as you see with cheap IP cameras which neglect to steer users toward secure setup and only tout the "easy wireless setup! Just point to the picture on your iPhone screen!" It's the flip side of the ubiquitous marketing bullet points: Easy! No wires! Apps!

> people like watching Netflix or Prime Video via the nifty apps built right into their TVs

I fall into this camp - I really like using the physical remote w/physical buttons to play/pause/rewind, change volume, etc. I used to be a heavy chromecast user but switched for these reasons.

Can't you just not connect it to wifi?

I give it five years before TVs with built-in 5G are mainstream. In addition, some TVs automatically connect to open WiFi.

Yeah, people keep saying 5G is important for the internet of things. This is surely what they mean.

The internet of things with ads

IoTwA?

I'm fine with that. If its using 5G then it's not on my LAN and the concern in the featured article is no longer a problem.

Furthermore, if its using 5G then its not tied to the IP address that my other traffic comes from and so they can't use the TV to target me with ads online either. (Provided I don't use any of the same accounts on both the TV and my other devices.)

I think you are ignoring the use of location-based tracking and other correlation techniques. A bunch of different 5G appliances can all figure out their positions quite accurately from 5G signals and decide they belong to the same household.

And, that's before you consider that they can also scan local wifi and bluetooth spectra to glean even more information about their local environments. With participation of vendor applications on phones, they could also use ultrasonics or crazier things like modulated LED lighting.

Finally, if one of those devices is compromised, it can then be used to launch local attacks via wifi and bluetooth, or even potentially those other covert channels if they can exploit sloppy code in those other dark apps...

You are right, I didn't think about those things.

Taking those things into account as well as the things paulmd pointed out in a sibling comment, I am no longer fine with the idea of 5G in my TV.

TVs can emit ultrasonic tracking tones which your phone can pick up and link your TV identity to your phone identity (facebook, google, whatever apps have microphone access to listen).

https://www.pindrop.com/blog/silently-tracking-users-with-ul...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/your-...

https://thehackernews.com/2017/05/ultrasonic-tracking-signal...

Also, virtually any device with cell connectivity includes a GPS on the same chipset so it's pretty trivial to connect that with google location data. So if it has 5G it has your location it has your identity.

It might not even be that hard. The TV could just broadcast a Bluetooth beacon and your phone will automatically send the details to Google/Apple where your locations can be tied.

> I'm fine with that. If its using 5G then it's not on my LAN and the concern in the featured article is no longer a problem.

Not on your LAN but still harvesting your usage data (a feature!), and still hackable (smile for the camera!).

> and still hackable (smile for the camera!)

I don't know of any TVs that come with a camera built into them, and if there are any I certainly wouldn't buy one of those.

I will wrap the entire bezel in Faraday tape. Will probably look pretty cool.

My TCL TV blinked an annoying light when I didn't connect it to wifi

That was because it was setup in connected mode and was trying to tell you of a connection loss. If you factory reset the TV and choose not to connect it, you won't have the blink.

Many of them connect to 3G automatically.

Edit: I guess I was mistaken. They were not caught doing that yet.

I haven't seen that anywhere, do you have a link or source?

What? Can you provide any evidence of this?

Source please.

Most of the TVs provide a software update functionality, maybe custom firmware that disables networking hardware could become a thing.

This is fairly trivial for packet nerds using bro/zeek, pihole and iptables.

Zeek (or wireshark) can revel what domains and ip addresses are being accessed. Pihole and iptables can block those addresses. Pihole needs to be the only DNS allowed and iptables needs to be running in between the TV and its path to the internet.

Easily bypassed with Wifi or 4G.

Yes, this! I asked in another thread if there was a faraday cage we could use for the tv or at least tamper with the wifi antenna. I know CRTs have dangerous levels of voltage, so I hope it's not the case for lcd/led TVs

You could wrap the TV in aluminum foil.

>Perhaps the best April Fools’ joke of the (Youth) Journal [a Dutch news program] came in 1969. Special cars would drive around with scanners to track down television owners who hadn’t paid the license fee [it’s like in the UK, where you have to pay a fee to the BBC]. But if you wrapped the TV in aluminum foil, you could fool the scanners. Before long there was no foil to be found in stores. http://business.time.com/2007/08/21/why_dutch_people_wrapped...

That’s why we use projectors in our home :)

Also, side benefit of no large black rectangle :)

Can you comment on the image quality of that vs. a modern LCD TV?

I'm looking to add a TV, large computer monitor, or similar to our living room for PC gaming, XBox gaming, and movies.

I assumed that a projector would be washed out whenever the room's lights were on. Which would be a hassle for people who wanted to be in the living room at the time but were doing other activities.

It's apples to oranges in my opinion, since it's a comparison between 50" and 150" at the same resolution. What advantage the TV may have in pixel sharpness a good projector more than makes up for in size and field of view.

I went with an Epson 1060 (which is a fairly budget option) and it's freaking awesome. I was afraid it would be dim in full sunlight, but it's not a problem at all. My screen is next to two windows and even in full daylight with the lights on it is super bright and visible even while in eco mode (which is dimmer than regular mode). Fully replaced my TV and at a much much lower price point than the biggest possible LCD. Also, replacement bulbs are ~$60 bucks and I have yet to replace one after ~2 years.

Added bonus is the option to install a powered retractable screen, which make the TV all but disappear from the room when not in use.

Last year I picked up a projector to put in our bedroom for movie viewing and gaming. One thing you want to consider if gaming is important to you is the latency of the projector. I ended up going with an Optoma GT1080[0] because I wanted something that was short throw for my layout and the latency (16ms) is quite good. Modern TV's are typically around 10ms to put that in perspective.

When the room is dark it's absolutely amazing, like being at the movies. When lights are on it is quite washed out. Still usable but not as enjoyable. Since the projector sits in my bedroom it's not much of an issue to always have the lights off but in a living room I can see that being a hassle.

Once you get the projector and screen (they do make a difference) I could have gotten several (cheaper) modern TV's but the experience of the projector is what I love. One thing as a new buyer I wish I knew was how much heat projectors can generate. My bedroom is fairly small and this thing can really heat the room up to sometimes an uncomfortable level after long viewing sessions.

[0] https://www.optoma.com/us/product/gt1080darbee/#

I'd recommend this route instead. Holy hell these things looked good. Could still suffer from glare, but they were really rich in tone.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pioneer-Elite-Kuro-PRO-150FD-60-108...

That thing used to be 7000+ CAD. Even more when they first came out. In between legs at school I sold them in Calgary.

I’ve been using a projector as my only tv for years, and even during the daytime it’s still usable. It definitely is better in the dark, but usually I don’t even close my blinds during the day.

I’ve had to replace the bulb once in about 4 years. Or rather the timer went off to warn me and I replaced it — bulb was still working though. New lamp was fairly cheap too IIRC, $40, maybe less?

And I can take it with me, or outside in my backyard for a movie night. I probably won’t ever go back to smart or dumb tvs

I’m not at the stage where our family has a nice one. Kids don’t care if quality is bad :)

It is fun having a >100” screen with a laser projector. I haven’t seen any of the new ones in person, but plan to get one some day.

Use retroreflective projection screens and they are ridiculously bright... (May have to turn down the laser projector brightness...)

The heat emission of projectors makes using them as a TV replacement pretty much DOA for me.

I throw cult movie nights and recently ditched the projector for a 42” screen - by the time there were 15-20 people in my living room, the heat of the projector made us keep windows open in Canadian winter.

Not to mention the usability issues during daylight, which make a projector (there’s a lot of light in my living room) mostly useless 50% of the time.

The large black rectangle has its own use - it clearly defines where the screen is occupying space, something you’ve gotta configure for a projector.

Unless you are privileged af enough to have a room you can dedicate to a home theatre setup - (in which case, good for you, housing/rent prices here in Toronto make that out of reach for me even as a low triple digit salary individual, four times higher than most of my similarly aged friends) - a projector’s disadvantages far outweigh its benefits.

Even if visibility wasn’t a glaring issue, the heat is practically unbearable. Worst idea I’d had was to try it in my bedroom as a TV replacement. :P

I went through several models of projectors in an attempt to see if any of them would be tolerable, but no.

Large TV’s emit heat as it is; but it’s really like a small heater in a room on low, instead of an industrial scale heater.

Laser projectors generate much less heat, is that what you use?

even w LED bulbs?

I'm guessing lawyers would get involved to shut that type of service down. Right to repair laws might help, but this sounds like the model for people selling modified PlayStations. There are companies that will re-house a photography lens to be cinema friendly. The lens manufactures don't stop this, because it doesn't really affect their bottom line. TV manufactures would lose the money they made agreements with 3rd party people, so you know they would be more litigious to protect that income.