Sure, but the example given.
4g service rather than 5g (and I assume same frequency, since it's pretty hard to get the high frequency 5g in the US too, and it will likely be used to supplement the terrible wired internet access rather than mobile primarily anyway) doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.
The argument seems to be that my having marginally quicker mobile internet, and can now sign up for home Internet through a cellphone provider because the wired internet situation is so bad in the US that the wireless Internet is actually a better service the EU is failing.
I'm not sure I agree that $7,200 dollars over the last 100 years (2/3 of $90/month) is better spent because now I can get fixed point wireless Internet (almost internet, it's carrier grade nat without ipv6 passthrough as an option even).
It seems to me the extra $720/year is money poorly spent and solving a problem that doesn't exist in Europe compared to the US (awful wired internet service in general).