That is a ridiculous distortion of the article. In fact, I found that the author leaned over backwards to avoid drawing precisely the conclusions you are strawmanning. He made no claims about the value of net neutrality and seemed pretty careful to be measured in his claims about how much spam was attributable to which side. Not his fault the side mobilizing the spam happened — by sheer chance, I’m sure — to be almost entirely the side useful to huge corporations with the money to buy that kind of spam.
Your own argument on public opinion is terrible. It goes beyond merely bizarre and into deeply pernicious territory. The question of the utility of net neutrality is not a scientific but a political one, and the FCC is a governmental body operating in a democracy. That is why it solicited comment in the first place. Your position is precisely the position of fascism and technocracy: The people might be wrong, so coerce them, supposedly for their own good.
Finally, your claims about the centralizing nature of net neutrality are bare assertions with nothing backing them up — and this is unsurprising since they stand reality on its head. It is hard to back up claims which are the opposite of the facts. To go back to first principles for a moment, net neutrality is the notion that if you gain access to the internet, it must allow you to reach everyone on it, large or small, without prejudice. This allows the new companies you speak of to access a level — neutral — playing field, not to mention allowing millions of sites to exist despite not being dedicated to making money — Wikipedia, for instance. Repealing net neutrality is desired by large ISPs, of which there are only a few in the United States, and which often gain local monopolies in particular areas. They desire it so that they can give preferential access to those who pay more and shut out those with opinions they dislike (such as, that ISPs should not be allowed to have private monopolies). This will of course create large barriers to the entry of the new firms you claim to like so.
Overall, your comment is dead wrong and indeed so senseless I find it hard to see it as a naturally acquired opinion. It seems more like the manufactured opinion of someone with an axe to grind, desperately trying to come up with something. Of course it would be rude to suggest that interests which apparently generated 1.3 million fake comments to the FCC would stoop to paying professional astroturfers, but perhaps you work in the industry? As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”