If nobody's started one yet, I think there would be an audience for a blog/vlog/whatever that reviews non-smart TVs. And/or a place that evaluates which "smart" TVs function acceptably as "dumb" when they are not connected to a network.
Realistically, this would have to include evaluating things beside consumer TVs for use as living room devices, since "smart" features in consumer TVs are nearly unavoidable at this point.
Because I'm going to have to start looking into the world of commercial displays for my next TV, I guess. At least I think those don't have "smart" features. Yet?
Rather than avoiding such TVs, I think we're better off taking some good precautionary measures.
Why buy commercial displays which usually are pretty expensive, when you can buy consumer ones and be smart about how you use it? Of course, even if they start coming with in-built wifi, just don't let them connect to anything.
First, off taking control of your own home network is crucial. Get a good router, something you can install pfSense or linux on. You'll basically have to get an NUC and learn how to manage firewalls. I suggest pfSense or just plain jane ubuntu server if you aren't very good with these systems. Then, a wifi access point can be connected to it for your wireless devices.
Prevent external network access to all the devices, and then whitelisting them (probably only your computers) is the way to go. Unless you bother to teach every one who lives in your house about the terrible things that some companies do, just block everything.
I don't think we can prevent IoT just like we couldn't stop phones. Home automation can be the best thing since mobile phone. As nuts as it sounds, you might just realize the comfort factor of having a "smart home". Just have to be careful, just like you're careful with your phones, and what they do. Read up on basic security, common exploits targeting IoT devices, etc.
There's an absurd amount of technical knowledge that you are suggesting that every household in America should subscriber to.
Also, if you have a SmartTV, you probably need to allow it contact the internet, otherwise playing internet TV (Netflix, iPlayer, Hulu, etc) is not going to work. If it can access Netflix, it can probably phone home with your data.
Yeah, but those spy on you too, so I don't see how they're any better. The main advantage with things like those is that you can more easily upgrade them later as technology changes.
I agree with you on the amount of technical knowledge that's needed. I guess routers/home internet security might be ready for some shakeup if someone comes up with a layman-ready interface while being secure.
But, the point of having a firewall is that you can find tune the outgoing IP addresses. Sure, it'll take some time to initially allow all IP addresses for a specific devices, but it shouldn't be undoable. There are lists out there which specify which service owns which IP.
The sole point of a good firewall _is_ that it can only access Netflix and not any unwanted servers.
There is a market opportunity for a router with some smarts that can do automatic VLANs and access control. e.g. lightbulbs can talk to *.lifx.com and local Android devices but nothing else, TV can talk to YouTube but not to the fridge, etc etc.
Not much technical knowledge required. Basic parental control on my ASUS router denies access to the internet to Samsung TV and it can still play content from LAN via UPnP.
In order to roughly scale how much technical knowledge this actually represents, remember that most humans, even most humans with home networks, do not know what routers and networks are.
For a much better sense of scale, it's important to remember that ~14% of adults in the US are illiterate[1].
This is why the medical community adopted the principle of requiring informed consent[2]. a much higher standard than "it was in the ToS" or "our business model assumes you weren't lucky enough to have the education necessary to understand why it is important to opt-out". Similar requirements need to be applied to data; if you aren't proactively informing users about precisely what will happen with their data, and making sure they understand, the user isn't making a properly informed decision.
Pretending people will understand the consequences of data collection (with modern analysis methods) when there is a decent chance they can't even read the ToS/etc is what you tell yourself to alleviate conative dissonance.
That's the equivalent of people having to manage blacklists for ad blocking - it doesn't work for most people because it's too much work or too difficult.
Just like uBlock solves it by making an accessible plugin and a manages blacklist, I hope someone will launch a simple appliance for home use that will manage this. The router/firewall UI would just need to provide simple switches for blocking various manufacturers' data collection.
I think you have a more optimistic view than I do, though, regarding one crucial aspect...
Why buy commercial displays which usually are
pretty expensive, when you can buy consumer ones
and be smart about how you use it?
Right. But how long until consumer displays refuse to work (or, function in some diminished way) if there's no internet connection available?
When significant numbers of people start defeating those data collection efforts, TV manufacturers will start to take countermeasures.
These data collection activities aren't simply a thing that Vizio does to make a little extra cash on the side. Profit margins on mass-market consumer electronics like TVs are notoriously thin, and expected revenue from data collection is something that Vizio factors into their MSRPs.
Same as everything else in a business: the company itself out of the profit made profit made when they sell the data. out of the profit. From the FTC's statement:
> Vizio then turned that mountain of data into cash by selling consumers’ viewing histories to advertisers and others.
(or simply include the cost in the price of the TV)
Also, the data costs should be a lot lower if they negotiate for a very-lows-priority, off-hour plan that batches the data, only uploading when it is cheapest.
There was a similar thread here on HN a month or two ago with a comment about swapping out the 'smart' logic board for a generic 'dumb' board.
Doesn't work for all boards but it makes sense that for some makes and models, the screen is relatively generic and can be driven by something you can buy off of ebay.
Personally, I'd be pretty happy with very high quality monitor-only sets... I mostly run everything through my AVR anyways. Though some of the smart tv options are getting compelling, I tend to find the integrated devices are always a letdown after a couple years.
Yeah, same: I expect a TV to last a decade or more, but I expect a smart TV features to become out of date about as quickly as most smartphones do. And I never expect drastic updates for those sorts of things; the TV company's revenue stream depends on you buying a new TV more frequently than I'd plan to.
I think a separate device like a ChromeCast or Apple TV is a much better choice.
Realistically, this would have to include evaluating things beside consumer TVs for use as living room devices, since "smart" features in consumer TVs are nearly unavoidable at this point.
Because I'm going to have to start looking into the world of commercial displays for my next TV, I guess. At least I think those don't have "smart" features. Yet?