| Its already quite cheap so why are people are not running to Starlink? Probably because a land line has still less latency, doesn't consume that much energy and everyone has either a land line or mobile connection. When Amazon Leo, Eutelsat, Telesat, Chiense and co enter the market, the margin will go down significanlty. The effort for handling the space and crashes etc. will increase. Additional to this, my landline is stable. Its stable in heavy rain, with and without snow. And the worst thing about Starlink and its adoption is the Satelite handoff every 15 seconds. I tried Starlink at my father-in-laws home and i was unable to use MS Teams reliable enough. To finish Starlink off: it doesn't even properly scale. Right now they need v3 which they are not sending up because of the bandwidth limitation of one satelite. Then they have to route traffic through their satelites to were they have base stations. Now they also need to build basestations everywere together with sending up new satelites every 5 years. 1 billion customers? in that market? in the near future? never. The base stations we have are there, well connected, relativly cheap, very fast, very direct. |
To me, this is no different than the adoption of mobile phones: "Cell phone usage will never overtake landlines, we'll never fix the problems of bandwidth and cell phone towers that need to be installed everywhere. Sure there might be a market for a few million in the US but no more than that".