I'm not moving around from one point to another. I am simply stating that a majority of home users do not need the reliability and operate off of larger tolerances. Reliability costs money. If you need it, good for you. But a majority of people (including those in tech) do not need it, otherwise we'd all be on infiniband and ditching Ethernet by now. There is nothing wrong with a wireless transport, beam forming tech has come a long way to minimize interference, and direct point to point wireless IS faster than underground fiber with no retransmissions.

I've been in networking research for more than half a decade now, spanning from various forms of wireless (RFID, LoRA, wifi, 4G, 5G, etc) to wired Ethernet (1Gbps, 100Gbps, 800Gbps), at both the transport level and protocol level (Ethernet, IP, NDN, RoCE, TCP, QUIC, BGP). I've taught courses on how these things work. Before that, I was in IT networking for 4 years. From what we've seen, no matter how good you say they are, ISP and carrier operators inevitably screw it up on the configuration end (because they are human). BGP, NAT, 5G mobility are all a buggy mess because of this. When it comes to deploying new tech, corners are always cut and it comes back to bite people in the end. Wireless transport is fine, it's human error that plagues both wired and wireless tech.

Shortwave for trading isn't some "legacy shit", it's where industry and research is headed in the last decade. Your dismissal of new technology and skills is indicative of what this argument has been about: you start from your conclusion and dismiss all evidence before you even think. Issuing blanket statements that are too broad in scope. Everything I said has been quantified with specific assumptions and conditions.