Anyone with a fiber connection available is absolutely not the target market for starlink. It is meant for rural users with few better options. In fact, dense urban or suburban areas would overload the satellites, so subscribers in those areas will need to be limited.
I'm still not 100% convinced on the size of this market. Rural FTTH rollouts are happening and over the next 5-10 years I think will get everywhere you have grid electricity. I constantly see people on the starlink Reddit cancelling their preorders or service because they can get FTTH or cable.
There's no doubt it's an amazing technical achievement, and a huge improvement for many people. But I am somewhat struggling to see the business case for maintaining many thousands of satellites, which only last for a few years before requiring replacement, in a market that basically gets smaller each year (because more people can get FTTH or cable as rollouts increase).
Even worse, starlink performance will degrade as more users and/or average bandwidth use ticks up.
This rural road has some 20 homes on it. There is absolutely zero chance a local ISP decides to dig up the road on their own just to bring fiber to those 20 homes. We don't even have cable internet here.
I don't understand why people complain that I'm not supposed to use Starlink, when it's the only good internet option I have, and the same price as a much worse performing 10 Mbps option.
