[devit]

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).

[grecy]

> I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers

As someone that has explored a lot of Australia, Alaska, Yukon, Africa and South America, I'm having trouble parsing your statement.

I've driven more than 1,000 miles for 10 days with absolutely nothing. No town. No people. No cars. Nothing.

I've canoed for 15 days well over 3,000 miles from the nearest town, road, building or electricity.

The idea you could cover the globe in LTE cell towers is unfathomable.

[lxgr]

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.