Praise be the folks that curate these lists. Even without a pi-hole you can plug these into any firewall for your brand(s).
More annoying is the 15 second "home menu" that pops up on my OLED every time it is turned on. I almost always forget to manually dismiss it before I set the remote down and there's no option I can find to disable it.
I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.
>I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.
I bought a Samsung QLED TV recently, and it works fine without an internet connection. I did give it an ethernet connection to grab firmware updates, and it downloaded a bunch of ads and crap to clutter the home screen. Luckily, unplugging the ethernet cord and factory-resetting the device got rid of the garbage and kept the updated firmware.
As a business, it is quite easy to buy panel screens without the cruft. See e.g. panelook.com and they are not expensive, though you have to add your own bezel and tuner. I'm surprised nobody turned this into a business.
Wait, so you're saying that DRM has become so ingrained in modern tech that if I wanted to connect a firestick to a Dumb Display(No electronics other than to drive the display), if that Display doesn't have DRM functionality then the app won't load or play content even though the firetv has the DRM?
Yep, been that way for a while. I remember a couple of years ago Amazon Prime refusing to play HD on a PC made from parts bought from Amazon (well, the significant ones, definitely the GPU), on a dumb TV bought via Amazon, using an Amazon branded cable...
Content obtained via torrent played, and still does, at 1080 perfectly well though, if you are looking for a workaround. I currently pipe stuff to the TV from my media array via Kodi on a Pi.
(I do actually pay for Prime, though mainly for the delivery options, and Netflix, but still consume their content "my" way more often than not)
No, the top parent here is FUD. Never give the TV itself access to the internet. Firestick would work for modern DRM, as would apple tv, a computer plugged into HDMI, etc.
Please don't throw the word "FUD" around, especially when you didn't understand the comment.
GGP did mean HDCP 2.x (DRM to encrypt the signal between display and device) which is often not supported by commercial displays. Unless devices detect a compatible, DRM-protected display, devices will refuse to play UHD content made by the movie industry.
To stream 4K from commercial services you need HDCP 2.2 or later. This was only introduced in 2013 so a 12 year old TV will not have full HDCP 2.2 support. It might have 2.0 (released in 2008) but that won't enable 4K streaming from a commercial service.
All streaming services require HDCP 2.2 support throughout the device chain. Because commercial displays aren't intended to use on-device streaming services or be used in consumer environments they often lack HDCP 2.2 support. While they might support HCDP 1.4 or 2.0, that will only support FHD content either streaming or disc-based. It's fairly difficult to find specs on commercial displays about their HDCP support level.
My Sony Bravia professional display does support HDCP. I suspect it’s actually the same hardware as the consumer version but with a different firmware. So maybe if this is a concern look for models that have equivalents in the consumer range rather than purpose-built professional displays which might lack HDCP-compliant hardware.
I'd guess most commercial displays are the consumer hardware with an alternate firmware. But the difference in firmware can mean a lack of HDCP 2.0/2.2. I bought a new TV recently and I wanted to go with a commercial display. It was unfortunately hard to find reviews of such displays and/or lists of missing features (HDCP 2.0, etc). I ended up just getting a consumer TV and banning it from the Internet. All it's content comes through an AppleTV so I don't need or want any of its native apps.
It's a ridiculous state of affairs that I have to jump through hoops just to get a TV to display a fucking video feed. I don't need or want the TV's software. I don't need or want a UI more complicated than the old analog TV genlocked character generator UI. I'll plug smart stuff into the TV if I want.
I’ve had good success with Sony Bravia professional displays. They seem to be very close to the consumer-grade version in terms of features and capabilities with just the firmware being different (bare Android TV) and cost-wise are maybe just 1/3 more expensive than the equivalent consumer version.
I can't be the only one that thinks this (DNS blocking) is an exceptionally poor solution to this problem. It's essentially whack-a-mole. You either A) don't allow your smart TV ip address to egress traffic to the internet or B) don't connect it at all. There are some domains in that list like the *.cloudfront.net that might change over time.
Part of the problem is that it's a rather terrible, leaky, and easily-worked-around hammer. It mostly only continues to work because they haven't bothered to do simple things to prevent their more technical users from blocking it.
I previously had some Roku devices in my house and they immediately went into a restricted VLAN not for the least of reasons that their ToS/privacy policy stated I was agreeing to give them permission to collect data about my network and send it back to them. Whatever that means.
Roku devices hardcode 8.8.8.8 DNS in their software. So a Pi-Hole would be useless in a typical config. Evident by the constant hammering of dns.google in my firewall logs (dropped).
DNS filtering can only be effective if you intercept/drop all other outbound DNS traffic at the edge of your network.
Yeah. It's less a hammer and more a strip of "do not cross" plastic ribbon across a freeway. It only works while they play nice, and they probably even breach it accidentally sometimes.
> Roku devices hardcode 8.8.8.8 DNS in their software.
Are they fussy about where responses come from? If not then you can redirect to your local filtering DNS service. If they do "protect" themselves that way then I'll add them to the list of devices that I'll never knowingly connect to my network.
I agree despite using DNS blocking myself. DNS blocking can easily be mitigated against with DoH or DoT at the application level. It's only a matter of time before advertisers start using either to bypass DNS blocking and serve ads.
>I agree despite using DNS blocking myself. DNS blocking can easily be mitigated against with DoH or DoT at the application level. It's only a matter of time before advertisers start using either to bypass DNS blocking and serve ads.
DoH/DoT are just the camel's nose under the tent. Just wait (perhaps it's already happening) until TV manufacturers install 4g/5g modems in their devices.
At which point, there will be a market for TV-shaped faraday cages. Or not, as that will make actually watching the TV difficult/impossible.
>Just wait (perhaps it's already happening) until TV manufacturers install 4g/5g modems in their devices.
I hear this raised every now and then, but is that even feasible economically? Those embedded cell connections are a recurring cost, after all. I'm curious if the per-unit revenue from ads and tracking is large enough to justify the per-unit cost to send/receive that data over a cell connection.
Seems like UI nudges and dark patterns to push users into connecting their TVs to their home internet connection would be cheaper and more effective.
>I hear this raised every now and then, but is that even feasible economically? Those embedded cell connections are a recurring cost, after all.
That's a great question. If it's not today, it likely will be soon.
I think it may be so already. These are niche cases, but the costs aren't so different than TVs:
I use a CPAP machine and the one I got six years ago had a cellular modem (as well as WiFi) without my involvement in any mobile account. Thankfully, I was able to disable that (and a big "Fuck you!" to Philips for being such rapacious scumbags).
I also got a Kindle as a gift in ~2004 or so and it had both WiFi and a cellular modem with no charges to me.
>Seems like UI nudges and dark patterns to push users into connecting their TVs to their home internet connection would be cheaper and more effective.
Cheaper? Definitely.
Effective? Most likely yes.
More effective than a cellular modem? Methinks not so much. A device connecting to a network over which you have no control would be much more effective, IMHO.
Aside from a small group of folks who will shoot, stab, defenestrate, bend, fold, spindle or mutilate such a device, most folks would likely just shrug and move on while being forced to watch ads.
It’s not just a recurring cost with 4G/5G modems, but it’s also practically infeasible in many countries where getting a cellular connection of any kind requires KYC and related formalities. There’s no way these TV manufacturing companies can buy one connection per TV (and accept the liabilities that come with such a connection) or get their customers to have one. If they do try WiFi to a known hotspot that the company has deployed almost everywhere, that will be a huge cost with very little benefit.
If they make the TV into one of those monstrous Alexa Show (?) devices where you can make calls or do other things, they may be able to persuade some customers to get a connection for the TV. Even then it’s a stretch because most TVs are in one place for years and the places they’re in would have WiFi/broadband coverage in the same or a nearby room.
>It’s not just a recurring cost with 4G/5G modems, but it’s also practically infeasible in many countries where getting a cellular connection of any kind requires KYC and related formalities.
That doesn't seem to bother Amazon's Whispernet.
Amazon has been doing this for years[0]. Free cellular access for specific Kindle devices for specific purposes. They've sold many millions of those around the world.
Granted, Amazon was generating revenue from selling ebooks, which was the incentive for providing the service.
>There’s no way these TV manufacturing companies can buy one connection per TV (and accept the liabilities that come with such a connection) or get their customers to have one.
If they follow Amazon's lead, they'll enter into contracts with global networks (Amazon uses AT&T) for bulk rates on carrying their products' traffic.
That said, it's not at all clear to me what the break even point might be on a per-device basis for these TVs, but the first search result for "WiFI/LTE chipset price" yielded this link[1]:
ZTE 4G Module LTE Wireless Wifi Board with Sim
Card Slot Mini Router PCB for IOT Camera GPS
Sensor Data Transmission
1 - 499 Pieces $17.49
500 - 1999 Pieces $15.99
>=2000 Pieces $14.99
I'm guessing that Sony, LG, Samsung et. al can get much better prices for their specific needs than some random Alibaba listing. That, and they already have WiFi and wired ethernet, so adding the capability is easily within reach.
Whether or not it would be profitable for the TV manufacturers is an open question.
I'm not saying that it will happen, just that it could.
I was thinking about Whispernet too, and then I thought about Sidewalk, and how some cable ISPs are offering wifi hotspot service via the router they rent you (Comcast does this).
Would manufacturers need to add cellular support if they could instead sign deals with other companies to auto-setup a wireless connection?
I realize Sidewalk is very low bandwidth, but I wonder if that's a problem for the telemetry data we're worried about.
KYC might be needed for internet access - TV’s SIMs can very well be restricted to a specific APN that only allows traffic to the ad & telemetry servers, no longer counting as “internet” access for legal purposes and thus not requiring KYC.
Car GPS devices have had them built in for almost two decades now, and they routinely sold for around $100 or less as a one-time purchase once they were relatively common (unless you wanted weekly over-the-air map updates rather than monthly or quarterly).
Far more TVs are sold than those car navigation units ever did. I don't think money is an issue if they want a slow back channel. If they wanted to ship all ads over it, sure, but periodic phone-homes? Updates to DNS-bypassing lists of IP addresses? Unless they're prevented from selling it, they'll do it eventually.
The general public seems complacent when it comes to advertising, stalking and being treated like shit by their tech in general, so I don’t see it being necessary to put modems & cellular plans in appliances because the vast majority of people is happy to voluntarily give it internet access anyway.
Until this changes (and I don’t see it happening - if anything, the new generations seem even more happy with living in an advertising-saturated world), the people who resist will be a tiny minority not worth going after.
I imagine that, at some point, advertising will pay for the costs of internet connections. I can also imagine companies subsidizing the costs of internet connections just so they can get their hands on data, or to accelerate the business model.
Companies subsidizing the cost of internet connections is already historic fact. Google fiber, googles project loon, and facebooks India initiative are already examples.
They'll go with a LoRa/LoRaWAN adapter and make a mesh network until it reaches a TV from their brand that is connected to the Internet and upload all the data.
Computer monitors are overwhelmingly "dumb", as well as having far lower latency and far higher refresh rates.
And also more expensive :) I wish I knew if that was because the crapware and ads on smart TVs are actually reducing the cost, or if it's just that smart TVs use crap hardware and software by comparison. Given how laggy they can be, that wouldn't surprise me.
I think mid-tier TVs are just a higher volume product with thinner margins compared to mid-tier monitors. The average american loves their 4K TV, but would never upgrade from the 1080p 60hz monitor they stole from work.
If you get quotes from chinese sellers on panelook, you'll find that monitor panels+drivers are cheaper than TVs with the same specs, even at 1pc pricing.
Almost certainly this is a 'little bit of a, little bit of b' type situation, right?
At least in terms of the actual display parts. The smart TV probably has some processing capabilities that are incomparably better than what you'd get in a monitor. This is, of course, used to display ads. However, the ads are necessary to subsidize the cost of the powerful SOC... wait, why do we need the SOC again?
I've wondered about this. Are the TV-sized 'gaming monitors' smart tvs? Looking at a couple of OLED ones - Aorus FO48U, Alienware AW5520QF - it doesn't look like it. No wireless, and they are expensive.
It's not clear whether they have HDCP, but... surely they must? That's table stakes for a computer monitor.
I think it's a little of both. The TV market is amazingly competitive, so it's not uncommon to find sales that are at or near cost. I suspect the reason there are so many players still in the game is because the monetary value of ads and data aggregation is really high.
>I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.
No premium required. Just set your TV's with a static IP address and block outbound access to that address at your firewall.
I also blackhole the DNS entries of specific hosts that the TV attempts to contact. Blocking the IP address is sufficient, but I choose to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ;)
> Just set your TV's with a static IP address and block outbound access to that address at your firewall.
If you're assuming the TV is malicious, why trust it to honor that static IP setting? Doesn't even have to be malicious - a bug or carelessness could mean that it temporarily falls back to DHCP for some time in the boot process.
A separate VLAN (or wireless network) with the entire thing isolated and not being able to talk to anything is the way to go, but there just aren't many reasons to connect it to a network to begin with so save your time and just don't.
>If you're assuming the TV is malicious, why trust it to honor that static IP setting? Doesn't even have to be malicious - a bug or carelessness could mean that it temporarily falls back to DHCP for some time in the boot process.
I guess you missed this part, eh?
I also blackhole the DNS entries of specific hosts
that the TV attempts to contact. Blocking the IP
address is sufficient, but I choose to nuke it from
orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ;)
I really hope I’m not missing a silly point. I always buy a TV that has the specs I need and can afford, and have a steadfast rule that they are forbidden from ever connecting to my WiFi. No firmware updates! - if it does not work when I bought it, it goes back. If it works, I’m fine if it does the same job for its life.
What am I missing? Isn't every smart TV in the market a dumb TV if you don’t ever give it the keys to your network?
> I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.
Why pay a premium when this is something that is extremely easy to achieve? Simply don't connect your TV to the internet. Criteria met. If you want to go further, you can also easily remove the WiFi antenna and ethernet ports.
I totally agree. My Sony TV has lost sound multiple times. A full restart is the only solution and that takes a few minutes.
Everything is so slow. Back when Freeview started being a thing in the UK, TVs then had a rapid TV Guide built in and everything felt instant. Now every screen change is a pause. I've got a PS5 so I'm much happier using that for apps.
It feels like feature phones were slow and laggy, we then got responsive smartphones. TVs were responsive, now they're slow and laggy.
You could pay a very small amount for a used house router and convince the TV that the house router is The Internet... and The Internet is down today. Best is if the TV doesn't try wifi when an ethernet cable is plugged in. Second best is if it has credentials to the wifi running on the used router.
Note that the router should not actually be connected to any other network.
This gets raised all the time but I just don't see it being necessary - the vast majority is happy to voluntarily provide it with an internet connection. The ones like us who fight it is a very small minority not worth spending on including modems/Sidewalk/etc in every TV.
> I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.
There is a solution for which time is running out but is currently still possible. You can find someone selling a used, perfectly good television made in the era right before every single TV was a "smart" TV.
More annoying is the 15 second "home menu" that pops up on my OLED every time it is turned on. I almost always forget to manually dismiss it before I set the remote down and there's no option I can find to disable it.
I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.