On a larger level, I think that many issues are multi-facetted and that requires a certain amount of text to explore. Many times we experience the kind of reasoning like, "The car companies just need to make the cars use less gas. . ." The "just" in that statement belies the problem and can lead people to trains of thought like, "they must not care about the environment and might be getting bribes from BigOil to keep fuel economy down". In reality, there are complex engineering issues at play, issues of cost of lighter/more expensive materials (like aluminum), more advanced/expensive parts (like CVTs and DSGs), more advanced techniques (like the grill shutters that enhance highway fuel economy on a few new vehicles), etc. It's hard work to provide a significantly enhanced product while maintaining it as affordable and reliable. Google "just" needs to buy a wireless carrier and we'd have a premier Android product with the wireless service that we dream of. Now, I'm not accusing the article of being simplistic like that, but I think there are more issues at play than what the article raised. In order to create good conclusions, many different data points need to be considered and weighed. Different people may consider them differently, but they should be a part of the consideration.
Ultimately, things like wireless (and other utilities) present an interesting economic problem: how do we (as citizens/consumers) get the best quality product at the lowest price when it may not be practical to have more than a few competitors?
I think Google does many excellent things and hope to see them do more excellent things in the future, but I thought it was important to point out that buying T-Mobile might not give us the outcome that we want (as fans of Google).