Here's the thing: he doesn't describe any sort of action by the IT department that would indicate they were unwilling to provide the service. They simple "don't." Not "won't" or "can't" or "will in two years", just it "doesn't offer" the service he wants.
Networks serve people, that is true enough. But without careful planning, proper execution, and rigorous monitoring and maintenance, they serve us very poorly and can even inflict harm by allowing breaches of security. Allowing users a free pass with a "sequestered unsecure network" where they can do whatever they want almost always results in more and more users jumping on that network, as they see it as being unrestricted and "just easier". A few dozen mismanaged servers, scores of personal laptops, and every smartphone owned by a user who knows how to set up wifi ends up on that beast. IT ends up with a hundred unhappy users because your "user-friendly" unsecure network is crippled by idiocy. And who gets blamed? IT, of course!
The answer doesn't lie in a draconian set of IT policies either. Somewhere in the middle is the idea that when a department head sees a need for a service, they can approach IT through the proper channels, tell them what they're looking for, and work together to implement a solution in a timely manner. In this particular case, he should have taken his test product to IT and asked for help putting it into service. They could look for potential problems, more practical solutions, and deploy it in such a way that everyone is happy.
And if the IT crew just immediately shot him down, he'd at least have some clout when he put up a fight, whereas now IT could simply say "he plugged in a rogue server and asked us to make the network less secure so he could use it" and put an end to the debate.