In most of the places where I know people who use a WISP, they barely have 4G coverage, and when they do, it's not a strong signal to say the least. Most of the places (at least in the US) where 5G is going to compete are probably places that already have cable.

Exactly. 5G doesn't focus on increasing coverage but mostly latency. The mmWave stuff with the 1 Gbps+ speeds has a coverage of around a block, so that will only be used in super-dense areas.

From the competition section of the site, the sweet spot for WISPs seems to be just under suburban, where there's enough density but not quite cable coverage (or the local cable monopoly isn't giving their network enough TLC)

> Exactly. 5G doesn't focus on increasing coverage but mostly latency.

This is my opinion as well - 5G will improve latency and also capacity (meaning carriers won't have to be as stingy with tethering plans) but not necessarily top speeds or coverage area.

mmWave won't penetrate a door or a window or a tree. It really doesn't work in rural areas at all which is where WISPs make sense. And WISPs don't make sense if the local geography is rocks, hills and trees that make it impossible to get a clear line of sight.

I imagine 5G would be even worse since it has less range. The 4G spec supports speeds higher than most Americans are getting on fixed internet services. I'm not sure why everyone treats 5G as the solution to all problems when it's primary use case is getting mobile usable in ultra dense situations like sports stadiums.