This is a rather facetious argument backed by the unsubstantiated premise that if most devices are “only available through carriers,” that it must be a ploy to integrate more citizens into the surveillance apparatus.
It may indeed be true that consumers relying on phone contracts to purchase their devices unavoidably become trapped in a net of surveillance. However, attributing that to malice on the part of the carriers is intellectually irresponsible.
The carriers offer “discounted” phones, quite simply, because they make more money that way, due to financing agreements and contractual lock-in. Perhaps a side effect is consumers locking themselves into surveillance. But it’s irresponsible to posit that this result, a side effect, is also the motivator behind the contractual schemes. The carriers offer these options for one reason and one reason only: because it makes them money.
Rather, US companies get pressure from the government to make it so that only the US eavesdropping works on devices. ATT has quite a history here. I don't think he's wrong; why are most devices here only available through carriers?
http://time.com/money/4808996/fastest-internet-countries-mob...
China puts their thumb on the scale when it comes to foreign companies operating in China, true. Does that mean that us doing the same is the best course of action? Many US companies practice profit offshoring, tax evasion / minimization, and lobbying to reduce their tax costs.I don't believe that trying to look at this through the lens of ~what country is more hypocritical is very useful. US mobile broadband sucks, US mobile carriers suck, and the market for phones here for consumers isn't as good as it could be.