I'll admit there is one aspect where wireless might be interesting: Comparatively lower cost of initial set-up, especially when infrastructure is lacking. In other words, if you're trying to provide Internet access to a developing country (little existing cable/telephone infrastructure), wireless might be an interesting intermediate option. But if you're looking at a industrial nation where (rough guess) more than 90% of households already have some kind of cable/telephone/fibre infrastructure, wireless would be a downgrade.
Simply put, with SSDs you are trading the convenience of having faster boot times for essentially everything: HDDs have (a lot) more space, lower prices, longer lifespans.
Simply put, with electric cars you are trading the convenience of charging at home for essentially everything: Gas has higher range, maintenance is easier to find, filling your tank takes 2 minutes instead of hours and that tank's capacity doesn't diminish over time.
Simply put, with screens you are trading the convenience of not having to deal with paper for essentially everything: Printers have better resolution, paper is easier on your eyes, it's more portable.
I guess people just like convenience.
SSDs are a better product than HDDs, they trade capacity for speed, but if you need capacity it's likely you don't really need the extra speed, and you're likely running into other bottlenecks anyway (a HDD can still saturate 1G Ethernet)
Electric cars are a "worse" product, but for most use cases they're functionally equivalent. Most people don't drive farther than the range in a day, maintenance is at the same place as ICE, slow recharge times are easily negated by just plugging in every night and charging while you sleep.
Paper is a worse product than a screen because a screen can be updated. It's about as easy to read, the resolution is about the same, they're equally portable (see a cellphone), but you can put just about anything on a screen and update it many times a second. You can't do that with paper, which is why screens have mostly replaced paper.
In cities however, where most of the population is:
- Bringing optical fiber is cost effective because of the population density
- Wireless gets clogged very quickly (also because of the population density). Additionally 5G is even worse than 4G at going through walls.
It's a huge difference to think you're going to be servicing all rather then some user workstations data requirements with just todays celltowers - which isn't to say you couldn't make it feel similar, but at some point you're cramming a 5G tower into every apartment and those still need fiber backhaul.
The little micro cell tower alternative arrangement exists to support devices that expect to communicate with a cell tower where cell service is poor. You normally actually plug them into your wired router so they are actually for areas where relying on wireless would be the worst possible experience.
Fiber is able to provide Gbps to for example all homes in a square mile where they each get Gbps and can indeed fairly heavily use it. Cellular internet isn't actually wireless you run fiber to the towers and then everyone in that square mile.
Urban areas where 80% of people live have a high density so for example in New York City that 1 sq mile contains 27000 people.
Quality of Service is definitely one of the metrics ISPs track, wired is a more reliable way to guarantee service than wired in a fixed setting, upto the house.