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.