As for the article, many of these seem like realistic perspectives, even if they discomfort the typical listener.
> echo chamber in the tech community
Do you really believe that the "echo chamber" happens because people lie about their beliefs to fit in? I couldn't disagree more. I'm fairly certain the "echo chamber" happens because we share backgrounds, information sources, and inferential technique, leading us to share conclusions as well. It would be fair to call our community "too homogenous/narrow" but it's equally incorrect and insulting to imply that the majority viewpoint persists through popularity alone.
As for the article, you're correct that his perspectives are "realistic" in that I believe they are shared by many people in the investor class. However, they're completely self-serving and unaligned with the common good. In that sense I see his opinions as roughly morally equivalent to the cries of "redistribute all the wealth to eliminate poverty" that occur in different contexts.
For instance, he predicts that we will "run out of capacity" for our data hungry apps. SO BUILD MORE CAPACITY, DAMMIT. If that means redistributing spectrum, so be it. Match supply with demand. That's what markets are supposed to do. I'm sure investors would love to ride the bubble formed by artificially restricted supply but they do so at the cost of everyone else. It's sickening to see him pretend that he's forwarding a common interest by opposing net neutrality.
Ditto for his comments on the workforce.
None of his other opinions (1,5,6,7,8) seem terribly controversial so I've ignored them.
I don't believe most people actively lie about their opinions, though I'm sure it happens and probably more often than one would want to admit. I think it's more just a classic case of groupthink; people just adopt the opinion of the group for the social benefit, more or less subconsciously.
More important than simply having an unpopular opinion is the willingness to express it when asked, even if it's not going to result in praise or accolades from the group's (explicitly or implicity) chosen "thought leaders". Such a thing encourages independent analysis and challenges the authority of said "thought leaders", which is healthy in most contexts.
It's especially important to do this in tech; since many of us seem to lack basic social skills, the cost of expressing a thing at odds with the group's position are disproportionately severe, and combined with the technical perspective of most in the field, groupthink pervades our sector particularly deeply, and the consequences of opposing one's technical religious positions are particularly harsh.
While it's pretty obvious that Andreesen's opinions are informed by his personal perspective as a wealthy dude, I don't think we should allow that to unfairly bias our reception. We're obviously not going to volunteer to have the phone company charge us $500/mo, but it doesn't mean that he's wrong about the basic principle of metered data or the availability of supply.
While you see an "artificially restricted supply", Andreesen sees "artificially curtailed demand" (as far as supply<->demand applies to pricing) by heavy dependence on cheap offshored labor and the political impossibility of bringing that labor front and center (i.e., on-shoring it). I think this is a viewpoint worthy of consideration even if we don't like its implications, which are basically that things should cost much more than they do now.