What makes you think you need satellite communications when there's (working) LTE? Obviously that's not the use case, just like you don't need fixed Starlink when there's (working) gigabit fiber available.
I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers and just use smartphones; the Starlink system is an alternative to that, so it makes sense to compare it.
From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of cell phone coverage (which potentially results in tradeoffs, of course).
Absolutely. I think living in a densely populated area, it can be hard to get a perspective for how big and largely empty the world actually is – and that's just land (and coastal seas, as far as LTE/5G reaches).
The remaining 70% are ocean, and people sometimes go there too! Some densely traveled oceans actually do have LTE coverage, e.g. parts of the north sea, since it has existing infrastructure in the form of wind parks that make adding a base station fairly easy, but that's the absolute exception, globally.
A single direct-to-cell satellite can cover a circular area measured in hundreds or thousands of kilometers. Due to the Earth's curvature, that's simply not feasible using terrestrial base stations.
From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of cell phone coverage (which potentially results in tradeoffs, of course).