What exactly do you need a citation for? The starlink antenna is a $499, and the subscription is $99 a month. That's extremely expensive for internet, I'd only consider this if there was literally nothing else available. So yes, it will be bought by wealthy people who live out in the sticks, because if you're not from a wealthy nation and quite comfortable financially yourself, then $99/month is crazy high. I guess communities in poorer countries might pool together and buy one antenna+subscription to share between themselves, but that cannot be the main market for this service.
> The starlink antenna is a $499, and the subscription is $99 a month.
So your whole argument on pricing is based on a beta product with limited availability currently. Because prices have never dropped significantly once the product has actually reached mass market adoption?
What are the factors that you think would cause prices to reduce?
To the contrary, as more subscribers join the service, satellite throughput capacities will eventually be saturated and will require more satellites or more advanced and powerful satellites.
Meanwhile, constant replenishment of the orbital network means that it's not a build-and-amortise asset. There's not a point at which revenue pays-off the asset and can sustain a reduction in subscription fees.
> What are the factors that you think would cause prices to reduce?
1) reductions in cost of launches
2) reductions in cost of satellites
3) bandwidth capacity improvements per satellite
I could keep going, but it’s obvious you’ve convinced yourself of a narrative and aren’t willing to think rationally about the topic, so I’m not going to waste my time.