By Henry Talacko OMAHA, Neb.-A new technology startup is making an offer that sounds too good to be true: a brand new, 55-inch 4K smart TV, complete with a built-in soundbar, for the revolutionary price of free. But my time with the new TV from a company called Telly made clear that the device is paid for not with money, but with a constant stream of personal data and an always-on advertising screen that transforms the living room into a 24/7 digital billboard.
The premise is a radical flip of the traditional consumer electronics model. In exchange for the free hardware, users agree to a comprehensive data collection arrangement that monitors their viewing habits and uses a motion sensor to determine how many people are watching. If a user violates the terms by unplugging the TV for an extended period or attempting to block ads, they are required to return the device; failure to do so can result in a $1,000 charge to their credit card.
This arrangement has raised significant questions among cybersecurity experts, marketing professionals, and the general public about the future of consumer privacy. “If you are not paying for the product, congratulations, you are the product,” said Lee Goodrich, a systems engineer with two decades of experience in technology and cybersecurity. “This is a data harvesting agreement disguised as a free TV offer.”
The data collection begins before the TV even arrives. To sign up, prospective users must complete a detailed survey, providing information on their household income, shopping habits, and other personal demographics. Dr. Matt Hale, an associate professor of cybersecurity at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, warns that this initial step could be a significant risk.
Questions from the survey delve deep into users’ personal lives, asking about voting registration status, political affiliation, and plans for the next election. The questionnaire also probes for timelines on major life events, such as getting married or buying a home, alongside a range of detailed financial inquiries, including whether users have a 401K, use a financial planner, or trade stocks with apps like Robinhood.
“I would be really worried about all of that introductory information that you have to give them,” Dr. Hale said. “That’s information you generally don’t want to give away because it can really be used against you in a lot of ways.”
Once the device is in the home, its privacy policy grants Telly the right to collect a wide range of “sensor information.” While the policy highlights a motion sensor used to infer audience size, Goodrich explains the term could encompass more. “We used to watch spy movies all the time and we talk about bugging people’s houses. Congratulations… you theoretically kind of now have a bug in your living room,” he said, noting the TV’s microphone. He also noted the device’s potential ability to sense other Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled devices on the home network, such as phones and laptops.
The TV’s built-in camera, which features an electronic shutter for video calls, was a primary concern for a focus group of University of Nebraska at Omaha students who were shown the device. “I think it’s the camera. That’s really off-putting,” one student said. Another described the concept as “very dystopian.”
Telly’s defense is one of transparency. In an interview with CNET, Chief Strategy Officer Dallas Lawrence argued that, “The only difference between the data we collect and what every other TV manufacturer collects today is that we ask the consumer up front to share it, and we give them a $1,000 TV for free in exchange.” Even critics of the model, like Goodrich, acknowledge this approach. “They’re not really trying to hide it,” Goodrich said. “So good on them.” However, Dr. Hale notes a key difference that remains. “Any device, consumer-facing device that you buy off the shelf has a whole range of data collection features,” he said. “The difference is, at least in most devices, you can turn it off, you can block it.”
The long-term viability of Telly’s business model is also in question. Dr. Yanhui Zhao, an associate professor of marketing at UNO, is skeptical. “From my view, I tend to be pretty negative on this product; I don’t think it works,” he stated, explaining that the business must create value for both viewers and advertisers to succeed. He questions whether the demographic willing to trade significant privacy for a free TV is the high-income market that advertisers typically seek to reach.
“Their customer equity cost per customer might be well over $1,000,” Dr. Zhao said. “And that’s extremely expensive.”
For some, the Telly model represents a “poor man’s tax”—an offer that is most appealing to those who cannot afford to say no. The students in the focus group proposed an alternative: they would be willing to pay a few hundred dollars for the TV if it meant less advertising and, crucially, less data collection.
Ultimately, the Telly forces a direct confrontation with a question many consumers have only passively considered. For Dr. Matt Hale, the arrangement highlights a fundamental calculation of value, cautioning that the true cost isn’t measured in dollars. “Nothing is really free,” he said.
Leave feedback about this