But is it desirable? If you get a choice, it doesn’t make sense to saturate a wireless frequency when you could use a wire instead. Home internet is only going to be more bandwidth intensive, with 4k streaming, playstation/xbox in the cloud, etc.
It's not appealing at all. No matter which 'g' it is, wireless will never beat wired. It's simple physics. Wired will always be higher bandwidth, lower latency, and more reliable - less dropouts and more consistent speed.
Wireless is already a 'good enough' wired replacement for areas where running fibre is uneconomical, though.
If nothing else, 5g for fixed locations seems desirable in areas where the local telco monopoly has failed to update local last mile infrastructure, and only offers relatively poor quality VDSL/ADSL2+ service (looking at you, ATT).
Potentially saving 75 dollars a month is very desirable to me. There are, of course, many reasons why that might not actually happen, but as long as I'm paying two separate companies for two completely different connections, it's almost guaranteed not to happen.
Having additional wireless competition will improve the quality of the wired options. They've been able to skate along in near-monopoly conditions for too long.
