From: anonymized@panix.com   
      
   > "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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)