1984 Post 4: Plot Hole?

As I read, there was one thing that truly stood out to me. While Winston was in the shop where he bought his diary, he met the owner. He recognized Winston from his first visit and proceeded to discuss things before the revolution, a conversation that failed with him previous with the man at the pub complaining about pints. The owner also showed him a room he used to stay in before his wife passed nearly 30 years ago. The first thing that Winston noticed was that there wasn’t a telescreen. The owner, Mr. Charrington then explained that they were “too expensive”. I was completely shocked and confused at his comment. You mean to tell me in Oceania you have to PAY to be surveillanced by the government? Moreover, someone can REFUSE to buy a telescreen? If such freedoms like this still exist, why is it that the Party has so much fear and control over the population? This minor plot hole that was used to move the story along leaves me with such inquire. As a writer I can see where the fork in the road is. They can stay completely and utterly true to the idea of full surveillance, or they can easily bend the concept for a more important setting later in the story and can be passed off that they simply do not care much for the proles as much as they do for members of the party. Which leads me to see where their true fear thrives from, the party themselves. He proles are unaware of their potential, therefore are uncared for and my seen as a threat. But they keep those who have a chance to rebell on a tight leash, in order to stop any chances of change. Big brother keeps people in line by scaring them into it, those who notice that there is a line and that people are being forced to follow it try to stay within the line as casually as possible in attempt to avoid suspicion due to fear of Big Brother. And those who agreed with doublespeak were safe, those who are ignorant are the party’s strongest citizens, and those who question are watched over in order to stop their mind from wandering too far.