[Fogest]

You mention that cables are better suited... but that is the whole point of Starlink. Getting cables everywhere is either not feasible or expensive. The rural properties are already mentioned as a very big source of usage right now around the world. But you also have everyone who is using it for some mobile purpose. Whether that be planes, boats, RV's, cars, military, etc... I've even seen people live streaming things using Starlink due to cell towers not giving good enough connections where they are.

While they may not be ideal or people living in Urban areas, they also aren't limited to selling to people who are physically connected by cable like a regular ISP would be.

I think you're underestimating the market here. Especially on the enterprise side when you start thinking of things like airliners, cruise ships, etc...

[hyperadvanced]

Agreed, starlink is obviously advantageous from the global (and extra-global) perspective. Running cables is expensive. But so is launching satellites, and it’s hard to see how you reach a tipping point where satellites gets cheaper than the standard boring cable networking that supports the terrestrial internet

[geertj]

> But so is launching satellites

Starship is trying to get launch cost down to $10 per kilogram to low earth orbit. At that cost it is not clear to me that cables are better except for short distance point to point backbones. One other issue with cables is regulation or monopoly.

[hajile]

There are two different questions. Are cables cheaper and is Starlink profitable in the long term?

Launching a starlink satellite costs $1.5-2M per satellite for the current design. Each satellite lasts around 5 years and they need 42k of them.

Do the math and you get $13B to $17B per year ignoring inflation and ignoring the massive ground infrastructure that is also needed (costing billions more per year).

Residential plans range from $55-175/month and will make up almost all subscriptions. Most people will get the $85 middle plan, but we'll round up to $100/mo or $1200/yr.

Breaking even with no profit requires 10-15 million subscribers.

As starlink claims to have around 12k subscribers and just 10.5k satellites, I'd guess the system is profitable.

The cable question is still compelling though. Rural fiber costs around $25k per mile. This means that an average $15B/yr buys 600,000 miles of installed fiber every single year.

My conclusion is that the ideal solution would be Starlink keeping total satellites closer to the current 10k number ($4-5B per year) and spending the other $10B/yr running fiber to new areas.

Their subscriber base would drop as new fiber got installed in rural areas overlooked as "not profitable enough", but stabilize at still profitable enough from travelers and truly inaccessible places.

[eagleal]

There's a limit to orbit at your desired location similar to what real estate is. At some point it becomes scarse and consolidation will happen.

At a time when state actors are becoming increasingly non-cooperative, it may not be wise to put all your eggs in someone else's basket.

[fakedang]

When cables not only become expensive but also risky, in an increasingly tense world.

[IgorPartola]

How many people actually live in areas that do not have some sort of broadband? That’s the whole point: this is a product designed for relatively few people.