No, you don't have the same problems as everywhere else. You said it took 10 years to get fiber, there are rural places where that's not an option.
There are places where there is no sewer and houses must have septic.
There are places where there is no water and houses must have wells / rain capture.
Those are the target audience for this technology. Not people who are waiting to go from 60 -> 100 -> 1000 Mbps. This won't compete there, not based on the specs of these satellites and their 10 year plan.
I was specifically addressing your claim that one could just use an LTE hotspot. I'm aware that there are rural communities that have worse infrastructure than the bay area.
You have better access to hotspot data than someone who is further from the nearest cell tower. I'm using a more physical infrastructure discussion to draw an analogy to what you might experience. It might make sense for someone in a city to build a well or water capture system, but in general it's not the same calculation as in more rural areas, where 1 mile of cable may reach 0.5 people vs 20.
What you have could easily be too many people per cell tower in your area, which would be the exact same problem that these satellites will encounter. The physics of adding a cell tower is much cheaper than adding more satellites.
I'M the one who said it took 10 years to get fiber. I'm not convinced wired infrastructure is cheaper/easier to deploy, when it means digging up millions (billions?) of miles of trenches across the country.
Nobody claimed "having fiber in silicon valley today" is not better than "having crap internet in rural america"
I have good LTE at my house. That doesn't mean I can get terabytes/month of transfer for a reasonable cost.
And by the way, my ENTIRE POINT was that "the physics of wires" is NOT "cheaper and easier".
Reply to my parent if you're looking for an argument as to why wired is better than wireless.
The problem is that the target audience you refer to doesn't have the amount of money it takes to sustain a system like this. Otherwise any of the existing satellite providers could continue to launch more and more satellites and serve very expensive internet to them. Starlink will be just as much, or more expensive.
I expect for them to make money it's going to need to cost $150 starting for the low end. Although, if they get government RDOF money, all bets are off since they're burning through government money.
You'd think so, but we have the same problems as everyone else. In fact, I get much better reception in Sacramento and Las Vegas than in the Bay Area.