Consider the beancounters at the manufacturer:
We are shipping a SmartTV, we expect our users to therefore have internet access, because the device is mostly non-working without it.
Why would we then include: a cellular radio AND make us pay for a cellular data service on an ongoing basis? Is the data from some small fraction of users who don't already have wifi valuable enough to pay off the hardware and service costs in every other TV? Seems unlikely.
I think what'll really happen is they'll become always online devices where if you're offline for more than X days they quit working and claim they need an update - please connect to the internet.
Look at how much an ESP32 can do and what it costs.
At scale, the cost of the additional electronics is negligible, especially if it is being subsidized.
Nobody is making you pay for service. It will simply send back fingerprints of your screen image and usage data, and can probably load ads, as well.
You'll note though that getting a Kindle with 3G nowdays means paying for the more expensive models - Paperwhite or Oasis.
> Nobody is making you pay for service
I think you missed what I said. I was talking from the perspective of a manufacturer.
The cost of buying and integration the new hardware, and also an ongoing monthly sim cost for the benefit of getting analytics and ads from a tiny fraction of your userbase that does NOT already have their TV hooked up to wifi is significant, and I doubt it comes close to the added revenue you might get from that fraction of users.
That also assumes that those who don't have their Smart TV hooked up to wifi are going to be in cellular range.
Some of the technologies are specifically intended to give "phone home" connectivity to low-power devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowband_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE-M
I do not agree with any of that, though.