There's a gap in his flow, at the beginning of the point where he goes off the rails.
"To be clear: Net Neutrality was thrown out in the wireless space because Google sided with Verizon’s ridiculous and horribly conflicted stance on the matter."
There is a strong and viable position that net neutrality is bad policy. In NN government declares winners and sandboxes areas where innovation is allowed.
You might not agree, but that's besides the point I'm seeking to make.
What's important is this: opposition to net neutrality is often falsely characterised, as here, as a pure corporate marketdroid position. It's not - it's a position with a firm idealogical basis that you may happen to disagree with.
The writer here borders on conspiracy mode here, "The open spectrum enemy, turned Net Neutrality enemy, became Google’s bedmate thanks to a business deal. Straight up. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." The available evidence doesn't support that conclusion. It might be true, but the writer should hold his emotions back for things where the facts support a conclusion.
> But I cannot respect their decision to continue
> to work on this platform that perpetuates our
> imprisonment.
It's not good for anyone to have too much power. I don't want to live in a world where carriers dominate, but neither where a Microsoft or Apple can dominate through control of the software stack. We've only just emerged from a situation of Windows being all-powerful - by some interpretations it still is. Android is a great countermove to Apple's play to dominate the next twenty years. Even if there are some tradeoffs it's good for our freedom. Think church and state.