With regards to your TV example, the Chinese may have four channels, but they are pretty much all government owned or operate under strict censorship. I'd doubt you'd find a sattelite dish that offers 500 channels of programming (especially FOREIGN programming), for example.
You will in India, however; don't forget Bollywood.
That doesn't have anything to do with economic growth, per se, but it does give an indication of the wider range of communication, expression, exchange of ideas and concepts in India that are, ultimately, the fertilizer with which capitalism flourishes.
As for cell phones, I'd hardly equate economic productivity or condition by simply counting cellphones. For one thing, you don't know just what people are doing with those cell phones (other than the obvious). I'm sure there are many who have absolutely no credible use for a cell phone, but buy one anyway because it's all the rage (it's why I bought one, and subsequently, got rid of it). If that's an indication of economic strength, then you might as well count any other arbitrary product or commodity. By that method, we could say that Pakistan is an economic powerhouse because it has more goats per capita than anywhere else on the planet. It doesn't automatically follow that because all those cell phones were sold that everyone one of them is a productivity tool, for business use, or that it's going to equate to any economic boom. Human natgure being what it is, I'll bet the vast majority of Chinese cell phone users are doing exaclt what the vast majority of American cell phone users do: yack incessantly about anything and everything loudly and rudely in restaurants and movie theatres.
The important thing, as always, is that India, as opposed to China, is a much more open society and that such societies ALWAYS prosper because people are free to go about their business and exchange ideas and information without having to worry about a secret policeman busting them for sedition at every turn.
Clearly we view the ends and means differently. I believe that sociopolitical compromise can be made in the name of greater economic development (the saying goes, "how do you enjoy freedom when you are an illiterate peasant?"). This is because long-term economic development has the potential to bring in greater personal freedoms in unpredictable ways. And you believe greater long-term economic development can only result without any of those compromises to overall freedom. I respectfully disagree, good discussion though.