> "Peter Sevcik and I just published a report on the comparative
> performance of 5G fixed wireless (T-Mobile & Verizon), low-earth
> orbit satellite (Starlink), and cable (Charter & Comcast) home
> internet services.

It's interesting, but understandable, that they chose not to compare
Fixed-Wireless to any FTTH carriers, such as AT&T Fiber, Google Fiber,
VZ FIOS, etc.

I say 'understandable' as I suspect any FTTH service would make the
comparison "no contest."

A key unmentioned point is: Can F-W substitute for POTS? Many but not
all states still have LEC's with "universal service/must serve" in their
tariffs. How to do that varies state by state. Maryland, for example,
now allows VZ to substitute FIOS for POTS. But does any PUC allow F-W?

The current demand for "Internet in a Can" is those addresses with no
FTTH availability. The carriers' underlining $64 Billion question is:
Can they make their Fixed Wireless look attractive enough to negate the
demand (and CAPEX needed) for FTTH?

I'd call that a pipe dream. To mangle Will Rogers: "Buy spectrum; they
stopped making it..." and they have. The 5G carriers are already
rationing their Fixed Wireless to prevent overwhelming the tower sites.
While the capacity of each FTTH strand is not infinite, it is many
orders of magnitude above the F-W RF spectrum space shared with many.