"Once again, wireless is cool but can't begin to compete with the potential or quality of transmission that fiber or cable can offer in regards to massive audio and video streams and files"
No I got your point but I think you are missing a bigger picture. You are focused on tech specs of today.
I am really hesitant to say things like "can't begin to compete". I have seen so many people make that claim over the past 25 years and later have to eat crow. So now I watch trends and see what people prefer.
Fiber is great for cities and towns that have them but to market fiber and recoup cost is not easy otherwise it would already be done. In business parlance, fiber is hard to 'globally scale' both physically and for marketing development. It requires siting, and it requires ownership. So far as I know it is not anywhere a public asset such as a sidewalk.
Fiber has better specs but it is still fiber and requires connected infrastructure. You already know that I am sure. But it needs to be emphasized because fiber is limited to contiguous real estate and that makes it economically dubious. In order to market it you must own enough of it to reach a market that will provide returns for continuing growth or you must lease and partner with everyone inbetween. That means you have to be a large corp like Comcast or an RBOC DSL and you would need as they need now local monopoly agreements.
Wireless is competing now and is really a good medium now with EVDO. It is getting better, alot better and will continue to get alot better. WIMAX is 7 times faster than EVDO and EVDO streams live action fast enough now for most people to enjoy.
The tech argument of Fiber vs. Wireless reminds me of the tech argument now undergoing between superconductor energy storage and energy matrix storage. Superconductors are definitely superior in all specs. But they require large permitted installations whereas an energy matrix can be put anywhere in portable fashion. In other words, the superconductor energy storage does not 'scale', the energy matrix does. Both accomplish the job designed for, but the energy matrix has so much more flexibility it is being voted by all grid operators as the technology of choice.
People enjoying the distribution of content is not what the debate is about. Again you miss the point. The debate is about big fat pipe infrastructure that the carriers are building and the application and content providers are profiting from.